SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2023
Zero-profile anchored spacer versus conventional plate-cage construct in bilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines 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
- Cervical disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using stand-alone cage for degenerative cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-segment cervical degenerative disc disease with a minimum of 4-year follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- Biomechanical comparison of two-screw and four-screw zero-profile fusion devices in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Interpreting nonsignificant findings: Reassessing the safety of self-locking standalone cages in octogenarian patients undergoing ACDF.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2026Article
- Comparison between plate cage system and stand-alone cage in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients with cervical kyphosis: clinical and radiographic outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 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
- Hidden blood loss in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with zero-profile anchored spacer for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2025Article
- [Comparison of effectiveness between zero-profile anchored cage and plate-cage construct in treatment of consecutive three-level cervical spondylosis].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundZero-profile anchored spacers (ZAS) and plate-cage constructs (PCC) are currently employed when performing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Nevertheless, the efficacy and safety of both devices in bilevel ACDF remain controversial. The goal of our meta-analysis is to assess the overall long-term efficacy and security among ZAS and PCC in bilevel ACDF.
methodsA search of four electronic databases was conducted to identify researches that compared ZAS with PCC for bilevel ACDF. Stata MP 17.0 software was used for this meta-analysis.
resultsNine researches with a total of 580 patients were involved. In comparison to PCC, ZAS significantly reduced intraoperative bleeding and postoperative dysphagia rates. No significant differences were found concerning operation time, JOA score, NDI score, cervical Cobb angle, fusion rates, the incidence of adjacent segmental degeneration (ASD) and implant sinking rates at last follow-up.
conclusionCompared to PCC, ZAS achieved similar efficacy and security in bilevel ACDF with respect to operative time, JOA score, NDI score, cervical Cobb angle, fusion rates, implant sinking rates and ASD rates at final follow-up. It is worth noting that ZAS offered considerable benefits over conventional PCC for the reduction of intraoperative bleeding and postoperative dysphagia. Therefore, for patients requiring bilevel ACDF, ZAS seems superior to PCC. Given the limitations of our study, larger prospective randomised controlled trials are needed to establish reliable proof to consolidate our conclusions.
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.