ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2024
Does the Angulation of the Screws in the Zero-P Implant Affect the Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Patients?
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWhen implanting the Zero-P device, the screws of Zero-P form a bone wedge with a 40 ± 5° cranial and caudal angle (CCA). However, no study has been performed in the optimal CCA of the Zero-P implant. To investigate whether the cranial/caudal angles (CCA) of the screws affect the clinical and radiological outcomes in patients undergoing ACDF with the Zero-P implant.
methodsFrom January 2016 to December 2023, we retrospectively analyzed 186 patients who underwent 1-level ACDF with the Zero-P device. The patients were divided into four groups: group A (cranial angle ≤40°, caudal angle ≤40°); group B (cranial angle ≤40°, caudal angle >40°); group C (cranial angle >40°, caudal angle ≤40°); and group D (cranial angle >40°, caudal angle >40°). The clinical outcomes, including Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), neck disability index (NDI), and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, the radiological parameters, including cervical lordosis (CL), cervical lordosis of operated segments (OPCL), intervertebral space height (ISH) and fusion rate (FR), and the complications, were evaluated and compared. Parametric tests, non-parametric tests, and chi-square tests were conducted to analyze the data.
resultsThe OPCL of group A was significantly less than that of the other groups at the final follow-up (p < 0.05). The ISH of group D was significantly less than that of group A at the final follow-up (p < 0.05). The subsidence rate of group A was significantly less than that of group D at the final follow-up (p < 0.05). At the final follow-up, the upper adjacent-level degeneration (ASD) of group D was significantly less severe than that of groups A and B (p < 0.05). The clinical outcomes do not differ among groups (p > 0.05).
conclusionA larger CCA of the screws (cranial angle >40°, caudal angle >40°) was better for maintaining OPCL and reducing the incidence of ASD. A smaller CCA of the screws (cranial angle ≤40°, caudal angle ≤40°) was better for maintaining ISH and reducing the rate 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.