ArticleGlobal spine journal2025
Efficacy of Allograft Versus Bioactive Glass-Ceramic Cage in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Randomized Controlled Study.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Utility of bioactive glasses as fusion substrates for cervical and lumbar fusion: a systematic review.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Review
- Radiological Factors Affecting Cage Subsidence after Single-level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with Double Titanium Cylindrical Cages.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2026Article
- Biomineralized PEEK cages containing osteoinductive CaP bioceramics promote spinal fusion in goats.Bioactive materials · 2025Article
- Evolving Paradigms in Spinal Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Learning Curves in Minimally Invasive Spine Techniques.Neurospine · 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 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designA randomized controlled trial.
objectiveThe aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of allografts and bioactive glass-ceramic (BG) cages for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in treating cervical degenerative disc disease.
methodsWe conducted a single-center, randomized controlled trial between August 2017 and August 2022. Participants were randomized into two groups, and consecutive patients requiring ACDF were randomly assigned to receive either the allograft cage or the BG cage. The surgical outcomes measured included pain levels, neck disability, surgical details, and radiological assessments.
resultsOf the 45 assessed, 40 participants were included, with 18 in the allograft cage group and 22 in the BG cage group. By the 12-month follow-up, both groups exhibited significant improvements in pain levels and disability scores, with no notable intergroup differences. Over 85% of patients in both groups were satisfied with their outcomes. Radiological assessments revealed stability in the cervical spine with both cage types post intervention. Although both materials showed a trend toward increased subsidence over time, the difference between them was not statistically significant. Fusion rates were comparable between the groups at 12 months, with BG cage showing a slightly higher early fusion rate at 6 months. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of complications.
conclusionsBoth allograft and BG cages are effective in ACDF surgeries for cervical degenerative disc disease, with both contributing to substantial postoperative improvements. Differences in disc height, interspinous motion, and subsidence were not significant in the last follow-up, indicating both materials' suitability for clinical use. Future research with a larger cohort and longer follow-up is needed to confirm these preliminary findings.
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.