SynthesisPloS one2017
Discover cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in symptomatic cervical disc diseases: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Meta-Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness in Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease Treated With Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Total disc replacement compared with fusion for cervical degenerative disc disease: A systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses.Medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Secondary Surgery after Cervical Disc Arthroplasty versus Fusion for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Meta-analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2018Pooled it
- Article
- Interscapular Pain after Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Does Zygapophyseal Joints over Distraction Play a Role?Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Biomechanical analysis of the door-shaped titanium plate in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- 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
- Cervical and Lumbar Disc Arthroplasty: A Review of Current Implant Design and Outcomes.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Comparison of biomechanical performance of single-level triangular and quadrilateral profile anterior cervical plates.PloS one · 2021Article
- No Difference in Functional Outcome but Higher Revision Rate Among Smokers Undergoing Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement: Analysis of a Spine Registry.International journal of spine surgery · 2020Article
- Outcomes After Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Stand-Alone Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2020Article
- Safety and efficacy of cervical disc arthroplasty in preventing the adjacent segment disease: a meta-analysis of mid- to long-term outcomes in prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter studies.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSymptomatic cervical disc disease (SCDD) is a common degenerative disease, and Discover artificial cervical disc, a new-generation nonconstrained artificial disk, has been developed and performed gradually to treat it. We performed this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety between Discover cervical disc arthroplasty (DCDA) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for SCDD.
methodsAn exhaustive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials that compared DCDA with ACDF for patients suffering SCDD. A random-effect model was used. Results were reported as standardized mean difference or risk ratio with 95% confidence interval.
resultsOf 33 articles identified, six studies were included. Compared with ACDF, DCDA demonstrated shorter operation time (P < 0.0001), and better range of motion (ROM) at the operative level (P < 0.00001). But no significant differences were observed in blood loss, neck disability index (NDI) scores, neck and arm pain scores, Japanese orthopaedic association (JOA) scores, secondary surgery procedures and adverse events (P > 0.05). Subgroup analyses did not demonstrated significant differences.
conclusionIn conclusion, DCDA presented shorter operation time, and better ROM at the operative level. However, no significant differences were observed in blood loss, NDI scores, neck and arm pain scores, JOA scores, secondary surgery procedures and adverse events between the two groups. Additionally, more studies of high quality with mid- to long-term follow-up are required in future.
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.