ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2022
Comparing the Bridge-Type Zero-Profile Anchored Spacer (ROI-C) Interbody Fusion Cage System and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) with Plating and Cage System in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Quantitative MRI Signal Changes of the Spinal Cord as Predictors of Suboptimal Surgical Outcomes in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Biomechanical effect of cage size in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Comparison of the long-term efficacy of ROI-C and conventional cage-plate in treatment of spinal cord injury without fracture or dislocation: a retrospective study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Comparison of the efficacy of ROI-C cage with Zero-P device in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion of cervical degenerative disc disease: a two-year follow-up study.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Zero-P and ROI-C implants versus traditional titanium plate with cage to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy: clinical and radiological results with 5 years of follow-up.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy and radioactivity of the bridge-type zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) interbody fusion cage and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plating and cage system (ACDF) for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).
methodsThis is a retrospective contrastive study. We recruited 35 patients who received ROI-C (ROI-C group) and 34 patients who received ACDF (ACDF group), between January 2014 to January 2019, at our treatment center. The ROI-C group comprised of 11 males and 24 females with a mean age of 61.59 ± 8.21 years (range, 51-71 years). The ACDF group comprised of 12 males and 22 females with a mean age of 60.15 ± 7.52 years (range, 52-74 years). Neck Disability Index (NDI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (JOA), Odom's score, cervical Cobb angle, fusion rate, adjoining ossification, and dysphagia.
resultsA total of 69 patients met the inclusion criteria, and these patients received more than two years of follow-up. There were significant differences in surgical duration (101 ± 22 min vs. 118 ± 29 min) and blood loss (102 ± 46 ml vs. 145 ± 58 ml) between two groups (P < 0.05). The JOA and NDI of these two groups of patients significantly improved, when compared with those before the operation (P < 0.05). Twenty-nine of 35 patients in the ROI-C group and 27 of 34 patients in ACDF group achieved good or excellent outcomes according to Odom's criteria. The cervical lordosis of both two groups significantly increased, when compared with those before the operation (P < 0.05). In the ROI-C group, the postoperative fusion rate was 85.7% at the 3-month follow-up and 100% at the final follow-up. In the ACDF group, the postoperative fusion rate was 82.4% at the 3-month follow-up and 100% at the final follow-up. The dysphagia incidence of the ACDF group was higher than that of the ROI-C group postoperatively and at the one month after surgery (P < 0.05), but no significant difference was found in the incidence of dysphagia at final follow-up (P > 0.05).
conclusionBoth ROI-C and ACDF achieved good therapeutic effects. However, ROI-C can reduce the operation time and postoperative complications.
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.