ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2025
The Influence of Zero-Profile Implant Selection on the Outcomes of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 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.
- 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
- Biomechanical Effects of Zero-P Height on Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Finite Element Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been widely used in the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). Previous studies have demonstrated that the size of implants in ACDF determines radiological and clinical outcomes. However, the principles of choosing an appropriate implant size in ACDF remain controversial. The study aimed to elucidate the influence of the cage size of Zero-profile implant system and offer proposals on the selection of implant size during ACDF.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 109 patients who underwent single-level ACDF from March 2011 to April 2020 with the Zero-profile implant system. The patients were categorized into two groups based on the preoperative mean height of adjacent segments (Hm). Clinical outcomes included the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores (JOA), Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS). In addition, radiographical analysis encompassed cervical lordosis (CL), functional spinal unit (FSU) angle, range of motion (ROM) of the total cervical spine and the FSU, anterior and posterior FSU height, C1-C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), C2-C7 SVA, the center of gravity of the head (CGH)-C7 SVA as well as T1 slope (T1S) measurements. Besides, bone fusion rates, anterior bone loss, subsidence, and adjacent segment degeneration were also recorded.
resultsOverall, 37 patients in Group A had an implant size ≥ Hm while 72 patients in Group B had an implant size < Hm. The preoperative general data and radiological parameters were comparable between the groups. At the last follow-up, both groups had satisfactory clinical outcomes. As for radiological outcomes, the anterior and posterior FSU heights were significantly higher in Group A compared to Group B (p < 0.05) after ACDF. Besides, both groups corrected and maintained the CL and FSU. However, the average C1-C7 SVA and C2-C7 SVA at the last follow-up were significantly higher in the Group B than in the Group A (C1-C7 SVA: 27.42 ± 9.23 mm vs. 31.76 ± 10.68 mm, p = 0.038; C2-C7 SVA: 14.65 ± 7.27 mm vs. 19.64 ± 8.68, p = 0.003). Additionally, the fusion rates were significantly higher in Group A at the first two follow-up visits.
conclusionOur study showed that an appropriate size of Zero-profile implant system is crucial to achieving favorable clinical and radiological outcomes after performing ACDF. Implants with a larger height but not oversize could maintain the cervical sagittal balance and FSU height and achieve early bone fusion. Therefore, a larger height might be a better choice for achieving a satisfactory long-term prognosis if Zero-profile implants of adjacent size both fit the disc space properly.
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.