ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2024
Early radiographic outcomes after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with anatomic versus lordotic cages.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Comparative Outcomes of 1-Level vs. 2-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Radiographic outcomes and subsidence rate in hyperlordotic versus standard lordotic interbody spacers in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) interbody implants are shaped anatomically, with a convex superior aspect, or lordotically, with an angle and flat surfaces. However, the effect of implant shape on cervical sagittal balance (CSB) is not well described. Methods: Of the 192 cases reviewed from 2018 to 2019, 118 were included with matching pre- and postoperative imaging. Cases were categorized by interbody implant type (anatomic or lordotic) and number of levels fused (1-level, 2-level, etc.). SurgiMap was used to measure cervical lordosis (CL), C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (cSVA), T1 slope (T1S), and T1S minus CL (T1S-CL) on pre- and postoperative imaging. Pre- and postoperative parameters were compared within and between each cohort. Change in CL (ΔCL), cSVA (ΔcSVA), and T1S-CL (ΔT1S-CL) were calculated as the difference between pre- and postoperative values and were compared accordingly (1) anatomic versus lordotic and (2) 1-level versus 2-level versus 3-level fusion. Results: Thirty-nine (33.1%), 57 (48.3%), and 22 (18.6%) cases comprised the anatomic, lordotic, and mixed (anatomic and lordotic) groups, respectively. ACDFs improved CL and T1S-CL by 5.71° (p<.001) and 3.32° (p<.01), respectively. CL was improved in the lordotic (5.27°; p<.01) and anatomic (4.57°; p<.01) groups, while only the lordotic group demonstrated improvement in T1S-CL (3.4°; p=.02). There were no differences in ΔCL (p=.70), ΔcSVA (p=.89), or ΔT1S-CL (p=.1) between the groups. Two- and 3-level fusions improved CL by 7.48° (p<.01) and 9.62° (p<.01), and T1S-CL by 4.43° (p<.01) and 5.96° (p<.01), respectively. Conclusions: Overall, ACDFs significantly improved CL and T1S-CL however, there were no differences in CSB correction between the anatomic and lordotic groups. Two- and 3-level fusions more effectively improved CL (vs. single-level) and T1S-CL (vs. 3-level). These results suggest that implants should continue to be personalized to the patient's anatomy, however, future research is needed to validate these findings and incorporate the effects of preoperative deformities.
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.