ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023
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.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of ACDF with stand-alone PEEK cage versus zero-p implant for the treatment of cervical degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- Zero-profile devices versus traditional cage-plate systems for geriatric osteoporotic patients with cervical degenerative disc disease: a retrospective analysis of 190 patients.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Predictors of Implant Subsidence and Its Impact on Cervical Alignment Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Biomechanical comparison of multiple zero-profile systems in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a finite element analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Correlation between the ease of cage plates implantation and endplate Hounsfield unit value during ACDF: a retrospective study.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- Biomechanical Analysis of Hybrid Artificial Discs or Zero-Profile Devices for Treating 1-Level Adjacent Segment Degeneration in ACDF Revision Surgery.Neurospine · 2024Article
- [Application of self-stabilizing zero-profile three-dimensional printed artificial vertebral bodies for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is the gold standard for treating cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). While implanting plates in ACDF may increase the risk of complications. Zero-P and ROI-C implants have been gradually applied for CSM.
methods150 patients with CSM were retrospectively analyzed from January 2013 to July 2016. Group A consisted of 56 patients who received traditional titanium plates with cage. 94 patients underwent ACDF using zero-profile implants and were divided into 50 patients with the Zero-P device (Group B) and 44 with the ROI-C device (Group C). Related indicators were measured and compared. The clinical outcomes were evaluated by JOA, VAS, and NDI scores.
resultsCompared with group A, group B and C had a less blood loss and shorter operation time. The JOA and VAS scores improved significantly from pre-operative to 3 months postoperative and last follow-up in three groups. The cervical physiological curvature and segmental lordosis at final follow-up were higher than that of pre-operation (p < 0.05). Dysphagia rate, adjacent level degeneration rate, and Osteophyma rate was the highest in group A (p < 0.05). The bone graft fusion was achieved at the final follow-up in three groups. There were no statistical significance in fusion rate and subsidence rate among the three groups.
conclusionsACDF with Zero-P or ROI-C implants can also obtain satisfactory clinical outcomes compared to traditional titanium plate with cage after 5 years follow-up. The zero-profile implant devices carry a simple operation, short operation time, less intraoperation blood loss, and incidence of dysphagia.
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.