SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024
Comparative efficacy of zero-profile implant and conventional cage-plate implant in the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of ACDF with stand-alone PEEK cage versus zero-p implant for the treatment of cervical degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Cervical disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using stand-alone cage for degenerative cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Biomechanical comparison of two-screw and four-screw zero-profile fusion devices in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The design and biomechanical study of the 3D-printed implanted cervical vertebral cage.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, the zero-profile implant (Zero-p) has emerged as a promising internal fixation technique. Although studies have indicated its potential superiority over conventional cage-plate implant (Cage-plate) in the treatment of degenerative cervical spondylosis, there remains a lack of definitive comparative reports regarding its indications, safety, and efficacy.
methodsA computerized search was conducted on English and Chinese databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP. Additionally, a manual search was meticulously carried out on Chinese medical journals, spanning from the inception of the respective databases until August 2023. The meta-analysis utilized a case-control study approach and was executed through the utilization of RevMan 5.3 software. Stringent quality evaluation and data extraction procedures were implemented to guarantee the reliability and validity of the findings.
resultsNine high-quality studies with 808 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that the operation time (MD = - 13.28; 95% CI (- 17.53, - 9.04), P < 0.00001), intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 6.61; 95% CI (- 10.47, - 2.75), P = 0.0008), incidence of postoperative dysphagia at various time points: within the first month after surgery (OR = 0.36; 95% CI (0.22, 0.58), P < 0.0001), 1-3 months after surgery (OR = 0.20; 95% CI (0.08, 0.49), P = 0.0004), the final follow-up (OR = 0.21; 95% CI (0.05, 0.83), P = 0.003) and the rate of postoperative adjacent disc degeneration (OR = 0.46; 95% CI (0.25, 0.84), P = 0.01) were significantly lower in the Zero-p group than in the Cage-plate group. Additionally, was also significantly lower in the Zero-p group. However, there were no significant differences in the JOA score, the final follow-up NDI score, surgical segmental fusion rate, postoperative height of adjacent vertebrae, or postoperative subsidence rate between the two groups.
conclusionIn summary, when treating single-segment degenerative cervical spondylosis, both internal fixation techniques are reliable and effective. However, Zero-P implant offer several advantages over cage-plate implant, including shorter operation duration, less intraoperative blood loss, reduced postoperative dysphagia, and slower adjacent disc degeneration. Additionally, Zero-P implant has a broader application space, making them a preferred choice in certain cases.
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.