ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2021
Current Concepts of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relationship of Adult Cervical Spinous Processes to Vertebral Midline for Cervical Disc Replacement.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Vertebral Artery Variation and Imposed Risks Associated with Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Procedures - A Case Study with Surgeons' Perspectives.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2024Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of a novel biomimetic artificial intervertebral disc in canine cervical cadaveric spines.JOR spine · 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 (CDA)/total disc replacement (TDR) vs. anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF): A review.Surgical neurology international · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadiculopathy and myelopathy resulting from degenerative disc disease are currently treated with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), but there is a high incidence of adjacent segment disease after treatment.
methodsWith recent advances in cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA), we performed a review of published articles, examining the latest clinical data on the efficacy, safety, and complications of the current cervical disc devices on the market. We focused on the long-term follow up data of single-level, multi-level, and hybrid CDA as compared to ACDF, paying close attention to the newest cervical disc devices. A search was performed utilizing PubMed, Google Scholar, and Clinical Key to identify articles on 1-level, 2-level, and hybrid approaches to CDA. The articles were reviewed by two authors for relevance and power with higher emphasis placed on FDA IDE trials.
resultsThe results conclude that CDA has an equivalent or improved clinical outcome when compared with ACDF with improved patient reported neck disability indexes and VAS neck pain scale. CDA also has lower rates of dysphagia, adjacent segment disease, and lower rates of reoperation when compared to ACDF. The data suggest there is no increased rate of reoperation in patients treated with multilevel CDA when compared to ACDF. In addition, the data from the limited clinical trials suggest that hybrid CDA and ACDF is safe and decreases risk of ASD.
conclusionCDA has been shown to be effective and safe with low complication rates. However, the data are of low quality, and more hybrid studies must be performed in the future to confirm these findings. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The reduction in overall postsurgical complications including ASD and in the need for additional surgery in the CDA group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
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.