ReviewNeurosurgical review2018
Does design matter? Cervical disc replacements under review.
Review in Neurosurgical review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-Term Comparison of Single-Level Bryan and ProDisc-C Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Minimum 10-year Follow-Up of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Qualitative and quantitative retrieval analysis of a ball-and-socket cervical disc replacement.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Article
- On the suitability of additively manufactured gyroid structures and their potential use as intervertebral disk replacement - a feasibility study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Safety and Validity of Anterior Cervical Disc Replacement for Single-level Cervical Disc Disease: Initial Two-year Follow-up of the Prospective Observational Post-marketing Surveillance Study for Japanese Patients.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2022Observational
- Clinical Efficacy of Posterior Percutaneous Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy with Bilateral Decompression for Symptomatic Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- Current Concepts of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- In cervical arthroplasty, only prosthesis with flexible biomechanical properties should be used for achieving a near-physiological motion pattern.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2020Article
- Patient Selection in Cervical Disc Arthroplasty.International journal of spine surgery · 2020Article
- Normal intervertebral segment rotation of the subaxial cervical spine: AnJournal of orthopaedic translation · 2019Article
- In vitro biomechanical comparison after fixed- and mobile-core artificial cervical disc replacement versus fusion.Medicine · 2017Article
- Ranges of Cervical Intervertebral Disc Deformation During an In Vivo Dynamic Flexion-Extension of the Neck.Journal of biomechanical engineering · 2017Article
- Editorial on "Long-term clinical outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial" by SassoJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2016Article
- Comparison ofJournal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
- An Anterior Dislocation after Mobi-C Cervical Disc Arthroplasty.Asian journal of neurosurgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present article reviews the design rationale of currently available cervical disc replacements. Recent prospective randomized control trials comparing cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion have demonstrated safety as well as equal or superior clinical results. Increasingly, more devices are becoming available on the market. Understanding design rationale will provide context for the surgeon to optimize decision making for the most appropriate prosthesis. Cervical arthroplasty is a technique that is undergoing rapid design refinement and development. Further improvements in device design will enable patient-specific device selection. Understanding the design rationale and complication profile of each device will improve clinical and radiographic outcomes.
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.