ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
Radiographic outcomes and subsidence rate in hyperlordotic versus standard lordotic interbody spacers in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.
Article in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- C- VBQ versus CT Hounsfield units in predicting cage subsidence following ACDF: a retrospective cohort analysis.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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common surgery for patients with degenerative cervical disease and current interbody spacers utilized vary based on material composition, structure, and angle of lordosis. Currently, there is a lack of literature comparing subsidence rates or long-term radiographic outcomes with hyperlordotic and standard lordotic spacers. This study compares long-term radiographic outcomes, subsidence rate, and rate of fusion in patients who underwent ACDF with hyperlordotic or standard interbody placement. Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent 1-3-level ACDF with either a standard lordosis or hyperlordotic interbody were included. Standard radiographs were evaluated for C2-7 lordosis (CL), sagittal vertical axis, C2 slope (C2S), T1 slope (T1S), subsidence rate, and fusion. Results: Forty-five patients underwent ACDF with hyperlordotic interbody placement and after a 1:1 propensity match with standard lordotic patients, 90 patients were included. 1-year postoperative radiographs demonstrated the hyperlordotic cohort achieved higher CL (15.3° ± 10.6° vs. 9.58° ± 8.88°; Conclusion: Hyperlordotic spacer placement in ACDF can provide increased CL compared to standard lordosis spacers, which can be considered for patients requiring restoration or maintenance of CL following ACDF.
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.