ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2019
Radiological outcomes following hyperlordotic cage insertion in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Restitution of Cervical Lordosis Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using a Fixed Lordotic Angle Cage.Cureus · 2025Article
- Radiographic outcomes and subsidence rate in hyperlordotic versus standard lordotic interbody spacers in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical alignment is associated with myelopathy and quality of life. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) aims to decompress neural structures and optimise cervical alignment. This study examines the quantitative impact of the hyperlordotic 15° ACDF cage on cervical alignment, and compares it to that of the standard lordosis cage.
methodsA retrospective analysis of radiographical parameters of cervical alignment was conducted in 80 consecutive ACDF patients from two institutions between 2013 and 2017. Forty received 15° cages, 40 received standard cages. Pre- and post-operative Cobb angles and sagittal vertical axes (SVA) were generated from radiographical imaging utilising the Surgimap
resultsIn both groups, post-operative device level, segmental, and global Cobb angles were superior to preoperative values (P<0.05), especially among patients with preoperative kyphosis (P<0.05). Trends suggested greater changes in lordosis in the 15° group, but they did not reach statistical significance (P=0.06-0.23). However, subgroup analyses indicated greater device level Cobb angle change in patients less than 65 yo (P=0.049), and those with preoperative lordosis (P=0.003). Neither standard nor hyperlordotic cages significantly improved SVA in this study.
conclusionsHyperlordotic and standard cages both improve cervical lordosis segmentally and globally. Hyperlordotic cages were not shown to be statistically superior to standard cages in this study. Prospective studies featuring consistent imaging modalities are necessary to further delineate their utility.
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.