ArticleGlobal spine journal2021
Degenerative Cervical Disorder-Stand-alone Cage Versus Cage and Cervical Plate: A Systematic Review.
Article in Global spine journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for degenerative disc disease: a retrospective, two-center comparative analysis of stand-alone cage versus cage-plate constructs.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
- Is anterior cervical plating necessary for cage constructs in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery for cervical degenerative disorders? Evidence-based on the systematic overview of meta-analyses.World neurosurgery: X · 2023Review
- Stand-alone anterior cervical decompression and fusion surgery: A cohort study evaluating a shaped cage without plates or screws.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Clinical Outcomes between Stand-Alone Zero-Profile Spacers and Cervical Plate with Cage Fixation for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Retrospective Analysis of 166 Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designSystematic review.
objectivesThe objective of this study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes following discectomy and anterior cervical fusion for the treatment of cervical degenerative disorder performed with stand-alone cages and anterior cervical plates.
methodsElectronic searches were performed in the MEDLINE, LILACS, and Cochrane Systematic Reviews databases, according to PRISMA guidelines, with no language or date restriction. The review was registered in PROSPERO under number CRD42018109180.
resultsSix randomized clinical trials were selected, which evaluated at least one of the objectives of this work, such as pain control, bone consolidation, neurological symptoms, and cervical lordosis, thus satisfying the inclusion criteria. Articles that did not directly compare the 2 surgical techniques were excluded. A total of 309 patients were included and the results showed no significant difference in clinical (visual analogue scale and neck disability index) or radiological (cervical lordosis and fusion) outcome between the 2 groups. The operative time was shorter in the group with stand-alone cages (mean difference = -18.40; 95% CI = [-24.89, -11.92];
conclusionThe stand-alone cages and anterior cervical plate techniques have similar clinical and radiological outcomes. Despite the significantly shorter operative time for one group, other randomized clinical trials are needed to establish conclusive evidence in favor of one of the comparative treatments.
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.