ArticleFrontiers in surgery2024
Comparison of the efficacy of ROI-C cage with Zero-P device in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion of cervical degenerative disc disease: a two-year follow-up study.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluation of bony fusion after anterior cervical discectomy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Is zero-profile fixation safe in consecutive two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with partial uncinate resection? A finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Biomechanical comparison of multiple zero-profile systems in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a finite element analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid use in elderly patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a retrospective study.The Journal of international medical research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of Zero-P and ROI-C devices applied to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). Methods: From January 2020 and December 2020, 56 patients with CDDD who underwent ACDF using Zero-P or ROI-C were included in this retrospective study. The outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, neck disability index (NDI) score, Cobb angle, dysphagia, and bone fusion rate. Dysphagia was assessed using the Bazaz grading system. The comparison of outcomes between the two groups was based on the 2-year follow-up time point, which was defined as the last follow-up visit. Results: The Zero-P group included 16 males and 14 females, with a mean age of 56.2 (range, 35-65) years. The ROI-C group included 11 males and 15 females, with a mean age of 57.4 (range, 36-67) years. There was no significant difference in gender and mean age between the two groups. There were no significant differences in VAS score, JOA score, NDI score, Cobb angle, dysphagia, and bone fusion rate between two groups at the last follow up visit. In the Zero-P group, the duration of surgeries involving C3-4 or C6-7 segments was significantly longer than those including C4-5 or C5-6 segments (135.0 ± 19.0 vs. 105.6 ± 17.5 min, Conclusions: ACDF using ROI-C device showed an efficacy similar to the Zero-P device, as well as a shorter operation time for surgeries involving C3-4 or C6-7 segments. However, ROI-C could cause more loss of Cobb angle over time, which could lead to uncomfortable symptoms.
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.