SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-segment cervical degenerative disc disease with a minimum of 4-year follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cervical disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using stand-alone cage for degenerative cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- ACDF and cervical disc replacement for single-level cervical spine degenerative disease: a frailty driven propensity score-matched comparative 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
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOur aim was to evaluate long-term effectiveness and safety of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in single-segment cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD).
methodsComprehensive literature searches were performed in four databases from their inception until February 6, 2025. Meta-analyses were conducted with use of Stata 17.0.
resultsSeventeen randomized controlled trials were included in our meta-analysis. CDA group exhibited greater blood loss but demonstrated a higher neurological success rate, an increased range of motion, and lower scores on neck disability index as well as visual analog scales. Additionally, reoperation rates and adjacent segment degeneration rates were significantly reduced in comparison to ACDF group. There were no significant differences between two groups in surgical duration or adverse event rates.
conclusionIn the long term, cervical disc arthroplasty presents favorable safety profile for treating single-segment CDDD with lower reoperation rates while demonstrating superior efficacy over ACDF along with effective reduction in adjacent segment degeneration rates.
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.