Observational studyMedicine2020
Is the bone fusion affected by Modic-2 changes in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion?
Observational study in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Impact of Modic Changes on Operative Treatment in the Cervical and Lumbar Spine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Modic Changes in Patients Who Have Undergone Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: The Correlation With Fusion Success and Subsidence.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty in Patients with Modic Change.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
- Prevalence and Risk Factors for Modic Changes in Symptomatic Cervical Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament: A Retrospective Study of 203 Patients.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023Article
- K-line tilt as a novel potential risk factor for cervical Modic change: a retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To explore the impact of Modic changes (MCs) on bone fusion after single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with a zero-profile implant (the Zero-P implant system).From November 2014 to November 2017, a total of 116 patients who underwent single-level ACDF with the Zero-P implant were divided into two groups according to MRI showing type 2 MCs (MC2) or no MCs (i.e., the MC2 group and the NMC group, respectively). A total of 92 (79.3%) patients were classified into the NMC group, and 24 (20.7%) patients were classified into the MC2 group. The clinical outcomes and fusion rates were retrospectively evaluated between the 2 groups preoperatively and postoperatively at 3, 6, and 12 months, and the final follow-up.The Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores and the visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of neck pain were significantly improved compared to the preoperative scores in both the NMC and MC2 groups (P < .05). However, there were no differences in JOA or VAS scores between the 2 groups (P > .05). The fusion rates of the NMC and MC2 groups at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, and the final follow-up were 33.7% and 12.5%, 77.2% and 54.2%, 89.1% and 87.5%, and 97.8% and 95.8%, respectively. The fusion rates were significantly lower at 3 and 6 months after surgery in the MC2 group than in the NMC group (P < .05).The presence of MC2 did not affect the clinical outcome but delayed the fusion time following ACDF with the Zero-P implant system.Level of Evidence is Level 3.
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.