ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2024
Impact of Implant Size and Position on Subsidence Degree after Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Radiological and Clinical Analysis.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 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.
- Impact of cage type on subsidence following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a retrospective study.Asian spine journal · 2026Article
- Radiological Factors Affecting Cage Subsidence after Single-level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with Double Titanium Cylindrical Cages.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplant subsidence is recognized as a complication of interbody stabilization, although its relevance remains ambiguous, particularly in terms of relating the effect of the position and depth of subsidence on the clinical outcome of the procedure. This study aimed to evaluate how implant positioning and size influence the incidence and degree of subsidence and to examine their implications for clinical outcomes.
methodsAn observational study of 94 patients (157 levels) who underwent ACDF was conducted. Radiological parameters (implant position, implant height, vertebral body height, segmental height and intervertebral height) were assessed. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Neck Disability Index (NDI). Subsidence was evaluated in groups according to its degree, and statistical analyses were performed.
resultsThe findings revealed that implant-to-endplate ratio and implant height were significant risk factors associated with the incidence and degree of subsidence. The incidence of subsidence varied as follows: 34 cases (41.5%) exhibited displacement of the implant into the adjacent endplate by 2-3 mm, 32 cases (39%) by 3-4 mm, 16 cases (19.5%) by ≥4 mm and 75 (47.8%) cases exhibited no subsidence.
conclusionsThe findings underscore that oversized or undersized implants relative to the disc space or endplate length elevate the risk and severity of subsidence.
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.