Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
Subsidence following cervical discectomy and implant-to-bone ratio.
Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lower deep-to-superficial extensor muscle ratio (DSR) as an independent risk factor for early titanium implant subsidence following single-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Radiographic subsidence after single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; a comparison between blade-anchored zero-profile cages and stand-alone cages.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram prediction model for assessing cage subsidence risk following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
- Predictors of Implant Subsidence and Its Impact on Cervical Alignment Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Anterior Cervical V-Shaped Osteotomy and Fusion (ACVF) for Retro-Corporeal Decompression Bypassing Anterior Corpus Vertebra: A Technical Note.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of fusion rate, radiologic and clinical outcome between CaO-SiOEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025Article
- Clinical and radiographic outcomes after index anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with interbody spacer with integrated anchor fixation: a single-surgeon case study.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2024Article
- Preoperative MRI-based endplate quality: a novel tool for predicting cage subsidence after anterior cervical spine surgery.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Risk Factors for Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Subsidence with Bryan Disc-A Retrospective Observational Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Impact of Implant Size and Position on Subsidence Degree after Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Radiological and Clinical Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Fundamentals of Mechanobiology and Potential Applications in Spinal Fusion.International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
- Cervical Sagittal Balance: Impact on Clinical Outcomes and Subsidence in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- The impact of over-distraction on adjacent segment pathology and cage subsidence in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.Scientific reports · 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
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplant subsidence is an undesirable effect after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). We investigated the relation between the rate of implant subsidence and the ratio of the implant surface area to the surface area of the adjacent bone.
methodsWe operated 170 disc spaces in a group of 104 patients. Two types of implants were used: 1) PEEK (polyetheretherketone) cages and 2) titanium-coated (TC) PEEK cages. Patients were randomised to receive a specific implant using a randomisation table. All implants had a surface area of 1.61 cm
resultsTwelve months after the surgery, computed tomography was performed on 86 patients (144 disc spaces). Furthermore, in 166 disc spaces and 102 patients, conventional radiographs were obtained. Subsidence was observed in 21% of the examined intervertebral spaces, and it was more frequently associated with higher values of bone surface area and lower values of the implant-to-bone surface ratio. The type of implant (PEEK vs TC-PEEK cages) did not significantly influence the rate of implant subsidence.
conclusionsImplant subsidence was significantly related to the value of a coefficient representing the ratio of the implant's surface area to the bone surface area of the adjacent vertebral bodies, with subsidence occurring significantly more rarely for coefficient values ≥ 0.37.
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.