SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Evaluation of bony fusion after anterior cervical discectomy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-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 · 2026Pooled it
- Global Variation in Fusion Assessment Practices Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Comment on: Does Aspirin Use Influence Rates of Pseudoarthrosis After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion?Global spine journal · 2026Article
- A hydroxyapatite-based synthetic bone graft reduces intervertebral motion at 12 months, as measured by CT-RSA, in a porcine model of ACDF.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Is outcome of anterior cervical discectomy for cervical radiculopathy influenced by securing the intervertebral cage?Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Association between fusion and clinical outcomes after anterior cervical discectomy at 1-, 2- and 5-year follow-up.PloS one · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Significant variability exists in reported fusion rates in the cervical spine after anterior discectomy. Here we review fusion assessment methods, timing of fusion with various intervertebral devices, and examine correlations with clinical outcomes. PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Emcare were searched on December 9 2024 for studies involving 1- or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy with quantitative fusion assessment via CT or X-ray. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model to pool fusion rates and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at different follow-up points, for different cage types and different cut-off values evaluating fusion. Sixty-four included studies evaluated 5633 patients. Pooled fusion rates increased over time: 55.6% (95% CI: 43.5%, 67.2%) of patients demonstrated fusion at three months, 74.4% (67.6%, 80.1%) at six months, 88.1% at 12 months (85.1%, 90.6%), and 91.8% (89.1%, 93.9%) at 24 months. Subgroup analysis revealed variation in fusion rates depending on cage type, with titanium cages yielding slightly higher rates at all follow-up times. Sensitivity analysis with fusion criteria showed that a cut-off value < 2 mm for interspinous distance yielded lower fusion rates than the cut-off < 2° for Cobb angle at 6 (70% vs. 77.3%), 12 (83.9% vs. 91.1%) and 24 months (89.5% vs. 91.7%). Results on the correlation between fusion and clinical outcomes were inconsistent. Fusion rates improved over time, approaching 56% at 3 months and 90% at 12 months. Notably, to alleviate heterogeneity across studies, there is a dire need to harmonize reporting guidelines in future research.
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.