ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025
Comparison of fusion rate, radiologic and clinical outcome between CaO-SiO
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bioactive glass-ceramic spacer alone versus spacer augmented with ABM/P-15 in single-level ACDF: a retrospective cohort study comparison of fusion rates and clinical outcomes.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Is a central cavity necessary for bioactive glass-ceramic spacers in plated ACDF? A retrospective comparison of solid versus cavity designs.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
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
backgroundCaO-SiO PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare fusion rates and radiological and clinical outcomes between BGS-7 and allograft spacers with iliac bone grafts (IBG) in multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgeries. STUDY DESIGN/
settingThis retrospective study was conducted at BRM Medical Center. PATIENT SAMPLE: We included patients who underwent multilevel ACDF at BRM Medical Center between January 2012 and December 2023. The patients had symptoms such as cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy due to cervical disc herniation, stenosis, and spondylosis. OUTCOME MEASURES: We evaluated the preoperative and postoperative Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, neck disability index (NDI), functional rating index (FRI), and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for the neck, shoulder, and upper extremities at 6 months and 1 year after surgery.
methodsFusion rates were assessed using dynamic radiography and computed tomography (CT) scans at 1 year postoperatively. Radiological measurements were obtained from preoperative and postoperative plain radiographs.
resultsAt the 1-year follow-up, the fusion rates were 89.5% for BGS-7 and 92.2% for the allograft cage on dynamic radiographs (p=0.156) and 93.4% and 90.4%, respectively, on CT scans (p=0.319), confirming both internal and external osseointegration. Subsidence rates were 4% for BGS-7 and 10% for the allograft spacer group. Both groups showed increased cervical lordosis (CL), segmental lordosis (SL), and segmental height postoperatively, with maintained lower segmental height (LSH) in the BGS-7 group than in the allograft spacer group at postoperatively 1 year. No adjacent segmental disease (ASD) occurred in either group. The JOA, NDI, and FRI showed significant improvements in both groups. The VAS scores decreased significantly in both groups, indicating improved clinical outcomes.
conclusionsIn multilevel ACDF, BGS-7 demonstrated fusion rates comparable to those of the allograft spacer with IBG, experiencing fewer instances of subsidence and cage fracture. Therefore, BGS-7 spacer can be safely utilized in multilevel ACDF as a substitute for traditional allograft spacers, without the need for additional IBG.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39576305What 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.