Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40274684›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025

Evaluation of bony fusion after anterior cervical discectomy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Floor E de Vries, Azra Gül, Ignacio Mesina-Estarrón, Rania A Mekary, Carmen L A Vleggeert-Lankamp

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Floor E de VriesDepartment of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Albinusdreef 2, Leiden, 2333 ZA, The Netherlands. f.e.de_vries@lumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-2650-6626
Azra GülDepartment of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Albinusdreef 2, Leiden, 2333 ZA, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-8444-1840
Ignacio Mesina-EstarrónComputational Neuroscience Outcomes Center at Harvard, Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-4357-3663
Rania A Mekary *Computational Neuroscience Outcomes Center at Harvard, Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1636-0759
Carmen L A Vleggeert-Lankamp *Department of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Albinusdreef 2, Leiden, 2333 ZA, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9597-7225

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cervical VertebraeDiskectomySpinal FusionHumansTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID40274684
PMCPMC12021957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.