SynthesisScientific reports2017
Indirect meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes of total cervical disc replacements with fusions for cervical degenerative disc disease.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Secondary Surgery after Cervical Disc Arthroplasty versus Fusion for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Meta-analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2018Pooled it
- Application of a modified surgical position in anterior approach for total cervical artificial disc replacement.World journal of clinical cases · 2020Article
- Clinical and radiological evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up: a prospective study of 384 patients.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 · 2019Article
- 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
- Clinical experience and two-year follow-up with a one-piece viscoelastic cervical total disc replacement.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2017Article
- Clinico-Radiological Outcome of Single-Level and Hybrid Total Disc Replacement with Spineart Baguera®-C for Cervical Myeloradiculopathy: Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up Study in Indian Population.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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and total cervical disc replacement (TDR) are considered effective treatments for patients with cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). An indirect meta-analysis including 19 randomized controlled trials (5343 patients) was conducted to compare the clinical outcomes of ACDF with TDR. Primary outcomes including functional indicators (NDI [neck disability index] score, neurological success and patient satisfaction), secondary outcomes including surgical outcomes (operation time, blood loss and length of stay) and secondary surgical procedures (secondary surgery at an adjacent level, secondary surgery at the index level, secondary surgery at both levels, removal, reoperation, revision and supplemental fixation) were included in the study. TDR using the Bryan disc was associated with a greater improvement in NDI score than ACDF (MD = -5.574, 95% CrIs [credible intervals] -11.73--0.219). For neurological success, the Bryan (odds ratio [OR] = 0.559, 95% CrIs 0.323-0.955) and Prestige (OR = 0.474, 95% CrIs 0.319-0.700) discs were superior to ACDF. However, no differences in the patient satisfaction rate were shown between TDR and ACDF. For patients with CDDD, ACDF using allograft and a plate is most effective for determining the surgical parameters. Moreover, TDR using the ProDisc-C, Mobi-C, Prestige and Bryan discs are good choices for improving functional outcomes and reducing secondary surgeries.
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.