ReviewCureus2024
Efficacy of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Cervical Disc Arthroplasty in the Treatment of Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease, Radiculopathy, and Myelopathy: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Meta-Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness in Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease Treated With Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Cervical Disc Replacement Does Not Increase Revision or Reoperation Risk Compared With Fusion in Osteoporotic Women: A Retrospective Matched Cohort Study.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Review
- Review
- Early outcomes of stand-alone cage anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A comparative analysis with cage-plate fixation in a developing spine practice.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical degenerative disc disease (DDD) is a condition in which the discs in the neck deteriorate, causing symptoms including neck and arm pain, muscle weakness, and incoordination. In severe cases, it can lead to nerve and spinal cord compression, resulting in radiculopathy and myelopathy. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of two surgical treatments, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA), for addressing cervical DDD, radiculopathy, and myelopathy. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a literature search was conducted in the PubMed and BioMed Central databases, from January to March 2024. Thirty-one studies were included, comparing the outcomes of ACDF and CDA in patients with cervical DDD, radiculopathy, and myelopathy. Data were analyzed to evaluate outcomes such as the Neck Disability Index (NDI), pain levels, neurological status, incidence of secondary surgeries, range of motion (ROM) maintenance, and occurrence of adjacent segment disease. CDA demonstrated comparable or superior clinical success to ACDF. Both the techniques showed similar improvements in NDI, pain levels, and neurological status during medium- and long-term follow-ups. CDA had lower rates of secondary surgeries and adverse events related to surgery or implants compared to ACDF. It also demonstrated a lower incidence of adjacent segment disease and better ROM preservation. The evidence supports CDA as a safe and effective alternative to ACDF for patients with cervical DDD, particularly those who may benefit from motion preservation. However, further long-term, multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to provide more definitive guidance for clinical practice.
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.