Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38510594›Full record

ReviewBrain & spine2024

The efficacy of anchored stand-alone spacers in comparison to conventional cage and plate in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials for clinical and radiological outcomes.

Jake M McDonnell, Salma Youssef, Tayler D Ross, Harry Marland, Luke Turley, Gráinne Cunniffe, Stacey Darwish, Joseph S Butler

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain & spine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Jake M McDonnellNational Spinal Injuries Unit, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Salma YoussefSchool of Medicine, University of College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland.
Tayler D RossOrthopaedic Resident, University of Toronto, Canada.
Harry MarlandNational Spinal Injuries Unit, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Luke TurleyDepartment of Orthopaedics, Tallaght University Hospital, Tallaght, Dublin, Ireland.
Gráinne CunniffeNational Spinal Injuries Unit, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Stacey DarwishNational Spinal Injuries Unit, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Joseph S ButlerNational Spinal Injuries Unit, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Mater Misericordiae University Hospital · IEUniversity College Dublin · IEOllscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway · IETallaght University Hospital · IETrinity College Dublin · IEUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is commonly performed with cage and plate constructs to stabilise diseased or injured cervical segments. Despite it being a commonly performed procedure, there are notable rates of associated morbidity reported in the literature. Stand-alone spacers represent a novel form of instrumentation to conventional cage and plate constructs. Research question: Do stand-alone spacers have improved operative characteristics and postoperative outcomes in ACDF cohorts when compared to cage and plate constructs? Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of PubMed/Medline, Embase and Google Scholar databases per the Results: 10 RCTs were identified and included with 779 patients total. Mean age of the entire cohort was 50.1 years. 62% (483/779) of the cohort were male. 384 patients underwent ACDF with stand-alone cage, while 395 had ACDF with conventional cage and plate. Stand-alone spacers significantly outperformed conventional instrumentation in terms of estimated blood loss (p < 0.01), total postoperative complications (p < 0.01), dysphagia rates (p = 0.04) and adjacent segment disease (p = 0.04). Non-inferiority was evident in both patient reported outcome measures and radiological outcomes. Conclusion: This meta-analysis highlights the efficacy of stand-alone spacers for the management of primarily cervical spondylitic disease for both single-level and multi-level pathology, and thus presents an attractive alternative to conventional instrumentation for patients undergoing ACDF surgery.

Indexed as

ACDFCageCervical spineOutcomesSpacerSpine surgery

Identifiers

PMID38510594
PMCPMC10951770
OpenAlexW4391051312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.