ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Anterior bone loss after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: influence factors and its impact on surgical outcomes.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been regarded as a standard procedure to treat Cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). Anterior bone loss (ABL), observed at the anterior vertebral body of the operative segment, usually considered to occur only after cervical disc replacement. However, some research showed ABL appears to be similarly prevalent following ACDF. Despite this recognition, the precise mechanisms and implications of ABL on surgical efficacy remain uncertain.
methodsA total of 90 patients who underwent single-level ACDF using Zero-P with a minimum follow-up of at least one year were retrospectively reviewed. ABL was measured and classified into four grades according to Kieser's methods. According to that, the patients were grouped into none-mild ABL group and moderate-severe ABL group. Baseline data, clinical evaluation, and radiological parameters were recorded and compared.
resultsOf the 90 patients, 57 (63.3%) developed ABL postoperatively. Among them, 16 cases (28.06%) were mild, 26 cases (45.64%) were moderate, and 15 cases (26.30%) were severe. Univariate Analysis (P = 0.008) and Logistic Regression (P = 0.006) revealed significant differences in body mass index (BMI) between the moderate-severe ABL group and none-mild group. Although a worse muscle condition was found in the former, it did not meet the significant criteria (P = 0.164). A more severe ABL did not affect either clinical outcomes or radiological parameters. However, this can result in a higher incidence of implant subsidence and may accelerate the degeneration of the adjacent caudal segment.
conclusionABL should be considered a common phenomenon after ACDF and reflects the degree to which the changed biomechanical condition changes. BMI was an independent influencing factor for the occurrence of moderate-severe ABL. ABL does not affect clinical outcomes but is associated with implant subsidence and accelerated degeneration of the adjacent caudal disc.
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.