ArticlePain research & management2022
Comparison of Radiographic Reconstruction and Clinical Improvement between Artificial Cervical Disc Replacement and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.
Article in Pain research & management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe surgical management of cervical degenerative disc degeneration (CDDD) has not reached a consensus. Artificial cervical disc replacement (ACDR) has been shown to be efficient in reducing symptoms after CDDD, although the topic remains highly controversial in this field. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ACDR on the treatment of CDDD on the aspect of radiographic reconstruction and clinical improvement compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).
methodsThis was a retrospective comparative study with 47 patients who underwent single-level ACDR and 46 patients who underwent single-level ACDF. The radiographic reconstruction was assessed by the cervical sagittal alignment parameters, consisting of two aspects, distance and angle, such as cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA), cervical lordosis (CL), T1 slope (T1s), and intervertebral space height (ISH). The clinical improvement was assessed by patient-related outcomes (PROs), consisting of two aspects, relief of axial neck pain and recovery of cervical dysfunction, measured through the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA).
resultsSignificant variations were achieved on aspects of radiographic reconstruction and clinical improvement after ACDR (
conclusionsOverall, this study showed that a similar capability in terms of radiographic reconstruction and clinical improvement was found between the two methods. Specific concerns should be analyzed while choosing between an ACDR and an ACDF. It should be pointed out that, based on our experience, if the patient is younger, ACDR is recommended; for patients with preoperative ISH less than 4 mm, ACDF is more recommended.
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.