Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37211668›Full record

ArticleAsian spine journal2023

Comparison of Radiological and Clinical Outcomes between Expandable and Non-expandable Cages Following Cervical Corpectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Anand Kumar Das, Devendra Kumar Purohit, Ajay Gupta, Rashim Kataria

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian spine journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Anand Kumar DasDepartment of Neurosurgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, India.
Devendra Kumar PurohitDepartment of Neurosurgery, SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur, India.
Ajay GuptaDepartment of Preventive and Social Medicine, SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur, India.
Rashim KatariaDepartment of Neurosurgery, SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion is considered the mainstay of surgical treatment in cervical pathology. Expandable and nonexpandable cages are preferred over autogenous bone graft because of donor-related morbidity. However, the choice of the cage type remains a debatable topic as studies report conflicting results. Thus, we evaluated the outcomes of expandable and non-expandable cages following cervical corpectomy. Studies were searched in various electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane) between 2011 and 2021. Forest plot was made to compare the radiological and clinical outcomes between expandable and non-expandable cages following cervical corpectomy. Altogether, 26 studies (1,170 patients) were included in the metaanalysis. The mean change in segmental angle was significantly greater in the expandable cage group than in the non-expandable cage group (6.7° vs. 3.0°, p <0.001). The mean subsidence rate was lower in the expandable cage group (6% vs. 41%, p <0.001). The mean fusion rate was lower (93% vs. 98%, p =0.06) and the mean displacement rate was significantly higher in the expandable cage group (29% vs. 5%, p <0.05). The mean reoperation rate was higher in the expandable cage group (16% vs. 2%, p >0.05). The improvement in segmental angle is better with expandable cages. Higher subsidence is a major problem with non-expandable cages, but it seems to be beneficial as evidenced by the high fusion rate and minimal effect on clinical outcome in patients with this cage.

Indexed as

Cervical vertebraeHealth care outcome assessmentProstheses and implantsRadiographyTitanium

Identifiers

PMID37211668
PMCPMC10300890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.