SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2020
Does zero-profile anchored cage accompanied by a higher postoperative subsidence compared with cage-plate construct? A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Zero-profile anchored spacer versus conventional plate-cage construct in bilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Pooled it
- Self-locking stand-alone cage versus cage-plate fixation in monosegmental anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with a minimum 2-year follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Pooled it
- Zero-profile implant versus conventional cage-plate construct in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Pooled it
- Evaluation of a Novel Flexible Cage System for C5-C6 Fixation: A Finite Element Study Against Conventional ACDF Implants.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Impact of cage type on subsidence following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a retrospective study.Asian spine journal · 2026Article
- Plate Augmentation in The Prevention of 3D-Printed Tritanium Cage Subsidence Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Retrospective Cohort Study.The Iowa orthopaedic journal · 2026Article
- Biomechanical comparison of multiple zero-profile systems in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a finite element analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Biomechanical analysis of a newly designed and 3D printed plate-locking interbody cage: an observational study of finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Cervical vertebral Hounsfield units are a better predictor of Zero-P subsidence than the T-score of DXA in patients following single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with zero-profile anchored spacer.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 · 2024Review
- Overloaded vertebral body: a unique radiographic phenomenon following multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Outcomes of different zero-profile spacers in the treatment of two-level cervical degenerative disk disease.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 · 2023Article
- Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with zero-profile versus stand-alone cages for two-level cervical spondylosis: A retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Comparative Analysis of Cage Subsidence in Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion: Zero Profile Anchored Spacer (ROI-C) vs. Conventional Cage and Plate Construct.Frontiers in surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe zero-profile anchored cage (ZP) has been widely used for its lower occurrence of dysphagia. However, it is still controversial whether it has the same stability as the cage-plate construct (CP) and increases the incidence of postoperative subsidence. We compared the rate of subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with ZP and CP to determine whether the zero-profile device had a higher subsidence rate.
methodsWe performed a meta-analysis of studies that compared the subsidence rates of ZP and CP. An extensive and systematic search covered the PubMed and Embase databases according to the PRISMA guidelines and identified ten articles that satisfied our inclusion criteria. Relevant clinical and radiological data were extracted and analyzed by the RevMan 5.3 software.
resultsTen trials involving 626 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The incidence of postoperative subsidence in the ZP group was significantly higher than that in the CP group [15.1% (89/588) versus 8.8% (51/581), OR = 1.97 (1.34, 2.89), P = 0.0005]. In the subgroup analysis, we found that the definition of subsidence did not affect the higher subsidence rate in the ZP group. Considering the quantity of operative segments, there was no significant difference in the incidence of subsidence between the two groups after single-level fusion (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.61-3.37, P = 0.41). However, the subsidence rate of the ZP group was significantly higher than that of the CP group (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.55-4.40, P = 0.0003) after multilevel (≥ 2-level) procedures. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, JOA score, NDI score, fusion rate, or cervical alignment in the final follow-up between the two groups. In addition, the CP group had a longer operation time and a higher incidence of dysphagia than the ZP group at each follow-up time.
conclusionBased on the limited evidence, we suggest that ZP has a higher risk of postoperative subsidence than CP, although with elevated swallowing discomfort. A high-quality, multicenter randomized controlled trial is required to validate our results in the future.
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.