SynthesisJournal of neurosurgery. Spine2025
Randomized controlled trials comparing cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion outcomes in degenerative spine disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of neurosurgery. Spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
- 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
- Equivalent Clinical Outcomes but Divergent Biological Adaptation After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Longitudinal MRI Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Single-level cervical disc arthroplasty is associated with higher early subsequent surgery rates and similar adjacent segment disease rates compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Clinical outcome 24 months after cervical disc arthroplasty with a new articulating and viscoelastic disc prosthesis.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- A Review of Motion-Preserving Cervical Spinal Implants and Fusion Constructs.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Prevalence of Sleep Disturbance and Associated Risk Factors in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is an established treatment for cervical degenerative disc disease; however, the procedure can cause loss of cervical spine range of motion and potentially accelerate adjacent segment degeneration. Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) seeks to preserve native motion of the cervical spine, which can theoretically reduce the incidence of adjacent level degeneration. The literature regarding the relative efficacy of ACDF versus CDA remains inconsistent. In this study, the authors investigate the difference in outcomes between ACDF and CDA and identify factors contributing to the heterogeneity in the literature.
methodsThe Ovid, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched from inception to September 5, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ACDF and CDA for degenerative disc disease. Studies were extracted by two authors and verified by a third. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcome was the difference in clinical outcomes between the two surgical groups. The secondary outcomes were the differences in radiological outcomes, surgical characteristics, complication rates, and hospital lengths of stay. The study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration no. CRD42023469204) and adhered to the PRISMA guidelines.
resultsFrom 584 articles uploaded to the Covidence platform for screening, 35 studies derived from 25 RCTs were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of 4530 patients were treated with ACDF (2081) and CDA (2449). Forty-six percent of the patients (2063) were male, and the mean age of the study cohort was 45 ± 3 years. In terms of the primary outcome, CDA showed higher rates of neurological and overall success. Regarding the secondary outcomes, CDA demonstrated a significantly lower rate of adjacent level disease, higher rate of heterotopic ossification, and greater range of motion at the operated level. Additionally, CDA had lower rates of reoperation but significantly longer operative times than ACDF. The inclusion of myelopathic patients and variations in follow-up between the surgical groups contributed to the observed effect heterogeneity among studies.
conclusionsIn this study, CDA showed comparable or potentially greater success in overall and neurological outcomes, along with a lower incidence of adjacent level degeneration and reoperation rates but longer operative times.
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.