ArticleAsian spine journal2023
Comparison of Radiological and Clinical Outcomes between Expandable and Non-expandable Cages Following Cervical Corpectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomaterials for vertebral body repair: interior augmentation and total replacement-a literature review of bone fusion outcomes in clinical studies.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Review
- Article
- Mechanical assessment of a titanium cervical spine corpectomy cage assembled with 3D-printed patient-specific endplate-conformed contact surfaces and a traditionally manufactured expandable mechanism.3D printing in medicine · 2025Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Reconstruction With Expandable Cages for Treatment of Cervical Myelopathy-Focusing on Stand-Alone Cages: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2025Review
- Risk factors of early subsidence of 3D-printed artificial vertebral body following single-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF): retrospective study of 98 patients.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Clinical Application of 3D-Printed Artificial Vertebral Body (3DP AVB): A Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Does Preoperative Radiation Therapy Performed for Metastatic Spine Cancer at the Cervical Spine Increase Perioperative Complications of Anterior Cervical Surgery?Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2024Article
- A Comparison between Structural Allografts and Polyetheretherketone Interbody Spacers Used in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Asian spine journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.