ArticleInternational orthopaedics2025
Three dimensional-printed artificial disc replacement for single-level cervical spondylosis: a cohort study.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
purposeTo compare the clinical efficacy of 3D-printed artificial discs with that of ACDF for treating cervical spondylosis.
methodsThis was a retrospective analysis of 73 patients with single-level cervical spondylosis who met the inclusion criteria between January 2020 and December 2022 at XX Hospital. The patients were divided: 38 patients in the ACDF group and 35 patients in the CADR group. Patient general information, including operation time and intraoperative blood loss, was collected. The clinical effect of the combination therapy was evaluated by the VAS, JOA, and NDI. The radiological effect was evaluated using the ROM test. Ethics No. 201,606,009.
resultsThe average follow-up times in the ACDF and CADR groups were 28.24 ± 4.65 and 29.11 ± 5.06 months, respectively (P = 0.443). Clinical symptoms (evaluated by VAS, NDI, and JOA) are significantly improved in both the ACDF and CADR groups with similar efficacy. The preoperative ROM of the ACDF group was 40.03 ± 8.79, while that of the CADR group was 42.11 ± 7.98 (P = 0.293). However, the postoperative ROM in the ACDF group was 35.29 ± 7.23, which was lower than that in the CADR group (40.43 ± 6.98) (P = 0.003). Furthermore, only one patient in the ACDF group experienced mild dysphagia after surgery, and the patient recovered within three days. ASD occurred in nine patients in the ACDF group and in two patients in the CADR group (Χ²=4.597, P = 0.032).
conclusionsCompared with ACDF, 3D-printed artificial discs for treating single-level cervical spondylosis have proven to be clinically effective; it associated with less blood loss and a lower incidence of ASD, and maintain a better cervical ROM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39387882What 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.