ArticleGlobal spine journal2025
Is Cervical Disc Arthroplasty an Effective Treatment for Cervical Degenerative Disease With Osteopenia?
Article in Global spine journal, 2025. 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.
- Quantitative assessment of bone mineral density in cervical spine surgery: Diagnostic accuracy of C2 and C3 Hounsfield units versus cervical vertebral bone quality scores.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
- Cervical Disc Replacement Does Not Increase Revision or Reoperation Risk Compared With Fusion in Osteoporotic Women: A Retrospective Matched Cohort Study.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- More anterior bone loss in middle vertebra after contiguous two-segment cervical disc arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective case-control study.
objectivesTo evaluate postoperative outcomes of single-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) in patients with osteopenia and compare these results with a matched cohort of normal bone mineral density (BMD).
methodsPatients who had undergone single-level CDA were collected and screened. Included patients were divided into the osteopenia group and the normal group. 38 eligible patients with osteopenia were included in the final analysis. Subsequently, a 1:1 match was utilized. Clinical, radiographic data, and complications were recorded. Appropriate statistical methods were applied to conduct analysis using SPSS version 24.0.
resultsThe mean follow-up time was 30.5 ± 27.3 months. The osteopenia group achieved satisfactory clinical outcomes, with no significant intergroup differences. Additionally, there were no significant differences between groups in any of the radiological parameters, either in cervical alignment or segmental height, or range of motion. The radiological incidence rate of adjacent segmental degeneration and heterotopic ossification (HO) was comparable in both groups, respectively, with a similar composition of ROM-limiting HO. However, the osteopenia group had a tendency of more implant subsidence (2.7% vs 15.2%). The logistic regression analysis showed the osteopenia group had a significantly higher incidence rate of anterior bone loss (ABL) (OR = 5.37, 95% CI: 1.50 - 19.22).
conclusionsSingle-level CDA for patients with osteopenia achieved similar satisfactory clinical outcomes compared with the normal BMD group. Meanwhile, the osteopenia group maintained adequate sagittal balance and segmental height. Based on this observation, this option may be feasible for selected patients with osteopenia.
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.