ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
Comparative review of anchored cage devices and standalone cages in multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgeries.
Article in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anterior plating has conventionally been the standard for multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, concerns about complications linked to plate and screw constructs have prompted interest in alternative solutions such as standalone spacers with or without screws. This study compares clinical and radiological outcomes of standalone cages and anchored cage devices in multilevel ACDF. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 85 patients treated for multilevel ACDF over 5 years at a tertiary spinal center on patients receiving either standalone cages or anchored cage devices. Outcomes assessed included the Odom's Criteria, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for neck and upper limb pain, fusion rates, subsidence, cobbs angle, C2-C7 SVA, and complications. Statistical analysis utilized Results: A total of 85 patients (46 standalone and 39 anchored cage) with an average follow-up of 3.2 years were included. Both groups exhibited comparable clinical improvements postoperatively. Anchored cage devices had higher fusion rates (91% vs. 88%) but greater subsidence (32.1% vs. 29.0%). Dysphagia incidence was marginally higher in standalone cages. No statistically significant differences in clinical or radiological outcomes were observed. Conclusion: Both standalone cages and anchored cage devices are effective for multilevel ACDF, with comparable short-term outcomes. Device selection should consider surgeon preference, cost, and patient-specific factors. Further long-term studies are needed to validate these findings.
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.