ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
C- VBQ versus CT Hounsfield units in predicting cage subsidence following ACDF: a retrospective cohort analysis.
Article in 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. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Magnetic resonance imaging-derived vertebral bone quality correlates with computed tomography-derived bone density and paraspinal muscle degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Asian spine journal · 2026Article
- The impact of preoperative depressive symptoms on acute and chronic postoperative pain trajectories after orthopedic surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a prospective cohort study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Hounsfield units as a predictor of cage subsidence and clinical outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy of MRI-based cervical vertebral bone quality score (C-VBQ) and CT-based cervical Hounsfield units (C-HU) in predicting cage subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), and to explore related risk factors.
methodsA total of 125 patients (209 surgical segments) who underwent 1- to 3-level ACDF in our institution from January 2019 to December 2023 were retrospectively enrolled. Baseline data, radiographic parameters (C-VBQ, C-HU, T1 slope, cervical Cobb angle, segmental angle, etc.), and surgical information of the patients were collected. Cage subsidence was defined as a loss of surgical segment height ≥ 3 mm (ΔH ≥ 3 mm) at the last follow-up compared with immediately after surgery. Differences between the subsidence group and non-subsidence group were compared. Binary Logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for patient-level subsidence, while generalized estimating equations and linear regression were applied to analyze factors related to segment-level subsidence height. The predictive efficacy of C-VBQ and C-HU was evaluated using ROC curves.
resultsThe incidence of patient-level subsidence was 36%. Patients in the subsidence group were older (P < 0.0001), with significantly higher C-VBQ scores (P < 0.0001) and significantly lower C-HU values (P < 0.0001) compared to the non-subsidence group. Multivariate Logistic regression showed that C-VBQ (OR = 1.61) and number of surgical levels (OR = 2.45) were independent predictors of patient-level subsidence, with a model prediction accuracy of 83.2%. C-HU (OR = 0.98) and number of surgical levels (OR = 1.97) were also independent predictors, with a prediction accuracy of 76.8%. ROC curve analysis revealed that the AUC of C-VBQ for predicting subsidence (0.873) was superior to that of C-HU (0.833). Segmental-level analysis showed that the intraoperative traction height of subsided segments was significantly greater than that of non-subsided segments (P = 0.009). Linear regression model indicated that C-VBQ (β = 1.974, P < 0.001) and traction height (β = 0.166, P < 0.001) were significant positive predictors of subsidence height ΔH (R²=0.427). A significant negative correlation was observed between C-VBQ and C-HU (r=-0.800, P < 0.001).
conclusionBoth C-VBQ score and C-HU value are significantly associated with cage subsidence after ACDF. C-VBQ is a robust indicator for predicting subsidence after multi-level ACDF, with better independent predictive efficacy and higher specificity than C-HU. An increased number of surgical levels, particularly three-level procedures, significantly elevated the risk of subsidence. Excessively high intraoperative traction height is an independent risk factor for subsidence magnitude. C-VBQ score provides a radiation-free and low-cost method for evaluating bone quality, and when combined with C-HU, it can serve as an important tool for preoperative risk stratification in ACDF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41074958What 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.