ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Stand-alone anterior cervical decompression and fusion surgery: A cohort study evaluating a shaped cage without plates or screws.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion without anchoring: a multicenter comparison of stand-alone porous titanium versus anchored PEEK interbody cages.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
- Editorial: MISS innovations: Approaches, predictive outcomes, and risk avoidance.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- A systematic review of risk factors and adverse outcomes associated with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery over the past decade.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineReview
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The anterior approach to the cervical spine is the most commonly used surgery with effective decompression and less surgical trauma. Anterior plate construct (APC) is considered a standard technique. However, it appears to cause implant failure and postoperative dysphagia. Due to these reasons, locking stand-alone cages (LSCs) without the addition of an anterior plate have been developed and gained popularity in the past decade. In theory, an LSC could provide immediate load-bearing support to the anterior column of the cervical spine and may enhance the rate of arthrodesis. However, screw skiving and backing off are known complications of LSC. Given the characteristic shape of cervical discs, we wondered whether there may be a role for a shape-conforming cage without screws and plates to achieve desired outcomes, i.e., a true stand-alone cage (TSC). A single surgeon cohort using the cage in a heterogenic set of indications was evaluated. Methods: A total of 45 patients with degenerative cervical conditions who underwent surgery using TSC using CoRoent Small Contoured peek cage (Nuvasive, San Diego, CA) and Orthoblend™ (Medtronics, Memphis, TN) were retrospectively reviewed. Comparisons between preoperative and postoperative Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the modified AAOS-Modems disability outcome, Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores, and Short Form 36 were evaluated. Operative time, the occurrence rate of fusion, lordosis change of cervical spine, and occurrence rate of complications were evaluated. Results: There were one-level ( Conclusions: TSC yielded satisfactory long-term clinical and radiological outcomes; this preliminary report can form the basis of a cost-benefit analysis study either prospectively or by way of meta-modeling comparing APC, LSC to TSC.
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.