SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2015
Zero-profile implant versus conventional cage-plate implant in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of degenerative cervical spondylosis: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changes in cervical alignment of Zero-profile device versus conventional cage-plate construct after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of outcomes between Zero-p implant and anterior cervical plate interbody fusion systems for anterior cervical decompression and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Pooled it
- Locking stand-alone cage versus anterior plate construct in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2020Pooled it
- Locking stand-alone cages versus anterior plate constructs in single-level fusion for degenerative cervical disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2017Pooled it
- Zero-profile anchored cage reduces risk of postoperative dysphagia compared with cage with plate fixation after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2017Pooled it
- How Common is Dysphagia After Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery, What Drives it, and Can it be Prevented? An Umbrella Review of Systematic Evidence.Global spine journal · 2026Review
- Evaluation of a Novel Flexible Cage System for C5-C6 Fixation: A Finite Element Study Against Conventional ACDF Implants.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Long cervical fusions: are multiple segmental plates less likely to fail than a single long plate?Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Article
- The Role of Osteobiologics in Augmenting Spine Fusion in Unplated Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Compared to Plated Constructs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Comparing zero-profile and conventional cage and plate in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using finite-element modeling.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Is anterior cervical plating necessary for cage constructs in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery for cervical degenerative disorders? Evidence-based on the systematic overview of meta-analyses.World neurosurgery: X · 2023Review
- Comparison of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes After Standalone Versus Cage and Plate Constructs for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- A biomechanical analysis of four anterior cervical techniques to treating multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a finite element study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- Outcomes After Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Stand-Alone Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2020Article
- Comparison of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion With a Stand-Alone Interbody Cage Versus a Conventional Cage-Plate Technique: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2019Review
- Article
- Can the Zero-Profile Implant Be Used for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in Traumatic Subaxial Disc Injury? A Preliminary, Retrospective Study.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2018Article
- Review
- A Matched Cohort Analysis Comparing Stand-Alone Cages and Anterior Cervical Plates Used for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.Global spine journal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundZero-profile implant has become more and more popular in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of degenerative cervical spondylosis. However, there was no enough evidence judging its efficiency and safety. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Zero-profile implant compared with conventional cage-plate (CCP) in ACDF.
methodsAll studies directly comparing the outcomes between the Zero-profile implant and CCP implant in ACDF were included, and the search strategy followed the requirements of the Cochrane Library Handbook. Two of the authors extracted relevant data and checked the accuracy independently using standardized data collection form.
resultsSeven studies involving 560 patients were included, 262 in the Zero-profile group and 298 in the CCP group. Zero-profile implant had a lower rate of postoperative dysphagia at 2 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year (p = 0.0002, p = 0.008, and p = 0.001, respectively) than CCP implant. Zero-profile also reduced blood loss (p = 0.0001), while operation time and incidence of postoperative transient dysphagia had no statistical significance (p = 0.92, p = 0.42, respectively) between two groups.
conclusionBased on the results of our analysis, the application of Zero-profile implant in ACDF had a lower rate of postoperative dysphagia at 2 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year than CCP implant. Zero-profile implant also had fewer blood loss during operation. More rigorous and adequately powered prospective randomized controlled trials with larger sample size are required to elucidate a more objective outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.