ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2025
Zero-profile devices versus traditional cage-plate systems for geriatric osteoporotic patients with cervical degenerative disc disease: a retrospective analysis of 190 patients.
Article in European journal of medical research, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of zero-profile devices (ZPD) and traditional cage-plate systems (CPS) in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for geriatric osteoporotic patients with cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD).
methodsBetween March 2017 and February 2022, a retrospective cohort study of 190 geriatric osteoporotic patients (81 ZPD, 109 CPS) undergoing single-level ACDF was conducted. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores. Radiographic evaluations included cervical alignment (Cobb angle), intervertebral height (IH), total interbody height (TIH), subsidence, fusion rates, and adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Dysphagia incidence was graded using the Bazaz scale. All patients received standardized anti-osteoporotic treatment.
resultsThe ZPD group demonstrated significantly shorter operative times and reduced blood loss (P < 0.05). Both groups exhibited comparable and significant improvements in VAS, NDI, and JOA scores postoperatively. The incidence and severity of early dysphagia (at 48 h and 1 month postoperatively) were significantly lower in the ZPD group (P < 0.05), with multivariate analysis confirming implant type as an independent protective factor against early dysphagia. Radiographic analysis revealed comparable cervical alignment restoration, but the ZPD group showed greater IH loss at 3-year follow-up (P = 0.032). Fusion rates differed significantly at 1-year (61.7% vs 75.2%, P = 0.046) but converged by 3-year follow-up (85.2% vs 90.8%, P = 0.229). The ZPD group showed a trend towards a higher subsidence rate (9.9% vs 2.8%, P = 0.057), which was further confirmed by multivariate analysis identifying ZPD as an independent risk factor (OR 5.479, P = 0.023). ASD incidence was comparable (5 vs 9 cases, P = 0.587). No revisions occurred during follow-up.
conclusionBoth ZPD and CPS were effective for geriatric osteoporotic patients. ZPD offered advantages in surgical efficiency and reduced dysphagia risk. However, ZPD was associated with a higher risk of subsidence and a lower 1-year fusion rate. Anti-osteoporotic treatment played a critical role in optimizing surgical outcomes. Further large-scale, prospective studies are needed to validate long-term outcomes and personalized patient selection.
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.