SynthesisBMC neurology2020
Comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical disc degenerative diseases on the basis of more than 60 months of follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Randomized controlled trials comparing cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion outcomes in degenerative spine disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neurosurgery. Spine · 2025Pooled it
- ProDisc-C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the surgical treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease: two-year outcomes of Asian prospective randomized controlled multicentre study.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 · 2022Trial
- Effect of Arthroplasty vs Fusion for Patients With Cervical Radiculopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2021Trial
- Cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the young adult patient population: A propensity-matched cohort study.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 · 2026Article
- Article
- Complication Profiles Leading to Revision Surgery After Cervical Disc Arthroplasty.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2026Article
- Analysis of 478 Revision Cases for Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Based on Their Biomechanical Design.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of Surgeon Procedural Volume on Outcomes Following Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Review
- Restoration of Range of Motion in the Cervical Spine through Single-Segment Artificial Disc Replacement Using the BagueraJournal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Surgical Technique of Central and Over-the-Top Full-Endoscopic Decompression of the Cervical Spine: A Technical Note.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Influence of the deviated center of rotation on the range of motion after cervical disc arthroplasty -an in vivo study with a minimum of 10-year follow-up.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Comparison of discover cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc diseases: A meta-analysis of prospective, randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
- Cervical disc arthroplasty with systematic total bilateral uncuscectomy - Adapted technique particularly in severe spondylosis: A prospective study.Brain & spine · 2023Article
- Restore cervical sagittal alignment by cervical disc arthroplasty and systematic total bilateral uncuscectomy in severe spondylosis: A prospective study.Brain & spine · 2023Article
- Revision Anterior Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A National Analysis of the Associated Indications, Procedures, and Postoperative Outcomes.Global spine journal · 2022Article
- Recurrent spinal stenoses after implant removal: A case report.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- Anterior Cervical Foraminotomy for Radiculopathy After Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement: Technique Description and Case Report.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- Posterior intraprosthetic dislocation of cervical arthroplasty: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2021Article
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis meta-analysis was designed to investigate the long-term efficacy and safety between cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in treating cervical disc degenerative diseases (CDDDs).
methodsLiterature search was performed on Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science before Jan 2019. Surgical details, clinical outcomes, range of motion (ROM), complications, and reoperation rates between CDA and ACDF groups were compared and analyzed. A fixed- or random-effects model was applied based on different heterogeneity. STATA (Version 11.0) software was used to perform data analysis.
resultsA total of 13 randomized controlled trial studies with more than 60 months of follow-up (mean 83.1 months) were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Pool results indicated that the CDA group exhibited significantly better outcomes in clinical scores (odds ratio [OR] = 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-2.08, p = 0.004) and preservation of ROM (mean difference = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.60-1.95, p < 0.001) than the ACDF group. Meanwhile, the incidence of adjacent segment disease (ASD) (OR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.35-0.76, p = 0.001) and occurrence of reoperation (OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.25-0.69, p = 0.001) were lower in the CDA group than in the ACDF group.
conclusionsAt long-term follow-up, CDA showed better efficacy in terms of clinical outcomes, ROM, ASD, and reoperation than ACDF for treating CDDDs. However, our results require further validation in large-sample and high-quality studies.
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.