Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40232368›Full record

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

Predictive value of vertebral specificity of bone mineral density for cage subsidence among patients undergoing anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion: a retrospective study.

Xiaozhe Zhou, Ranxu Yang, Xiong Zhang, Yunsheng Wang, Wenshuai Li, Linfeng Wang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Xiaozhe ZhouHebei Medical University Third Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China.
Ranxu YangHebei Medical University Third Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China.
Xiong ZhangHebei Medical University Third Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China.
Yunsheng WangHebei Medical University Third Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China.
Wenshuai LiHebei Medical University Third Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China. lws18208941030@163.com.
Linfeng WangHebei Medical University Third Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China. 37500736@hebmu.edu.cn.

Funding

Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Basic Research Cooperation project H2020206656
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate the predictive value of different vertebral specificity of BMD for cage subsidence among patients undergoing ACDF.

methodsBMD at different vertebrae was measured by CT image and MRI image. Cage subsidence was defined as ≥ 3 mm loss of fusion segmental height. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify BMD at specific vertebrae associated with cage subsidence. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to evaluate the value of BMD of different vertebrae in predicting cage subsidence.

results117 patients (182 intervertebral spaces) were included, with a mean age of 54.6 ± 10.9years. The mean follow-up was 12.5 ± 3.8months. Of the 182 intervertebral spaces, subsidence was found in 85 (46.7%) intervertebral spaces. The mean Hounsfield unit (HU) values measured by CT in the subsidence group were significantly lower than those in the non-subsidence group (upper vertebral body: 285.8 vs. 361.8, p < 0.001; lower vertebral body: 262.1 vs. 324.0, p < 0.001; average: 273.9 vs. 342.9, p < 0.001). Similarly, the mean bone quality scores measured by MRI in the subsidence group were higher than those in the non-subsidence group (upper vertebral body: 2.69 vs. 2.19, p < 0.001; lower vertebral body: 2.58 vs. 2.18, p < 0.001; average: 2.63 vs. 2.19, p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that the HU values were significantly negatively correlated with subsidence (p < 0.001), while the bone quality scores were significantly positively correlated with subsidence (p < 0.001). The results show that the Pre-T1 slope, Post-C2-C7 Cobb angle, and Post-T1 slope in the subsidence group were significantly larger than those in the non-subsidence group, with statistically significant differences (Pre-T1 slope: P = 0.015; Post-C2-C7: P < 0.001; Post-T1 slope: P = 0.006). The results from the multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that bone density indicators remained statistically significant in predicting fusion device subsidence, while the Post-C2-C7 Cobb angle from the sagittal plane parameters also demonstrated statistical significance.The areas under the curve (AUCs) of BMD in the upper vertebrae were greater than those in the lower vertebrae, whether measured by CT (upper vertebral body: 0.754, lower vertebral body: 0.723; upper endplate: 0.766, lower endplate: 0.712) or MRI (upper vertebral body: 0.755, lower vertebral body: 0.717; upper endplate: 0.702, lower endplate: 0.646). These results indicate that the BMD of the upper vertebrae may be a better predictor of cage subsidence than that of the lower vertebrae.

conclusionThe bone density (HU value and VBQ score) at the surgical site is a strong predictor of cage subsidence in patients undergoing ACDF. For BMD assessment, we recommend that site-specific measurements, particularly those of the upper vertebrae, be given greater consideration rather than relying solely on generalized or averaged values.

Indexed as

Bone DensityCervical VertebraeDiskectomySpinal FusionAdultAgedFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedAnterior cervical diskectomy and fusionBone mineral densityCage subsidenceCTDifferent vertebraeMRI

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.