ArticleNeurosurgical review2020
Comparison of the effectiveness and safety of bioactive glass ceramic to allograft bone for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with anterior plate fixation.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors for cage subsidence in patients undergoing cervical fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- The fusion rates at different times of cortical iliac crest autograft or allograft compared with cages after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a 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 · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic Review of Bioactive Glass Cages in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Reconstruction With Expandable Cages for Treatment of Cervical Myelopathy-Focusing on Stand-Alone Cages: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2025Review
- Efficacy of Allograft Versus Bioactive Glass-Ceramic Cage in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Randomized Controlled Study.Global spine journal · 2025Article
- Radiographic Characteristics of Caudal Segment in Multilevel Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: The Bony Buttress Formation.Neurospine · 2024Article
- Clinical and radiological outcomes of non-window-type bioactive glass-ceramic cage in single-level ACDF versus PEEK cage filled with autologous bone.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The Use of Osteobiologics in Single versus Multi-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Structural Allograft Versus Mechanical Interbody Devices Augmented With Osteobiologics in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- AO Spine Guideline for the Use of Osteobiologics (AOGO) in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Spinal Degenerative Cases.Global spine journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, a bioactive glass ceramic (BGC) has been developed for use as intervertebral cages for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, the effectiveness and safety of BGC cages remain to be evaluated. We completed a retrospective comparison of the radiological and clinical outcomes of 36 patients (52 levels) who underwent ACDF with a BGC cage and 35 patients (54 levels) using allograft bone. The following variables were compared between the two groups: the visual analog (VAS) neck and arm pain score and the neck disability index (NDI), measured before surgery and 1 year after; the change in Cobb's angle, between the C2 and C7 vertebrae, the global sagittal angle, and disc height compared from before surgery to 1 year after; and the rate of spinal fusion and cage subsidence at 1 and 2 years after surgery. The VAS and NDI scores were not different between the two groups. Similarly, the spinal fusion rate was not different between the BGC and allograft bone group at 1 year (73% and 87%, respectively; p = 0.07) and 2 years (94% and 91%, respectively; p = 0.54) after surgery. However, the rate of cage subsidence was higher in the allograft bone (43%) than the BGC (19%) group (p = 0.03), as was the rate of instrument-related failure (p = 0.028), with a specifically higher incidence of implant fracture or failure in the allograft bone group (p = 0.025). Overall, our findings indicate that BGC cages provide a feasible and safe alternative to allograft bone for ACDF.
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.