ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2026
Comparative Outcomes of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Vs Hybrid Surgery in Multilevel Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2026. 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
backgroundIn recent years, hybrid surgery (HS), which combines cervical disc replacement and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in treating multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD), has emerged; however, its advantages over ACDF remain uncertain. This study aims to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and reliability of HS and to provide updated insights into its clinical application and support surgical decision-making. METHODOLOGY: This study included 20 articles that compared ACDF and HS in multilevel CDDD from January 2017 to January 2025. The following outcomes were analyzed: operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, functional parameters (visual analog scale, Neck Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopedic Association scores), radiological parameters (range of motion [ROM], T1 slope, cervical lordosis, sagittal vertical axis), complications, reoperation, and adjacent segment disease (ASD). To enhance the reliability of results, Egger's and Begg's tests, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were performed.
resultsThe pooled analysis showed that ACDF demonstrated greater loss of cervical spine motion (
conclusionThis meta-analysis provided updated evidence on the clinical outcomes of HS and ACDF in multilevel CDDD. HS offers advantages when it comes to preserving ROM, with trends toward lower complication and reoperation rates, as well as reduced incidence of ASD. On the other hand, ACDF is a favorable option in terms of lower operative time and blood loss. Both treatments have comparable postoperative functional outcomes. This suggests that HS is an effective and reliable surgical alternative. By combining fusion and motion-preserving components, HS allows surgeons to decide based on specific pathology at each spinal level, resulting in a more individualized and biomechanically balanced approach. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Comparing outcomes of ACDF and HS can assist surgical decision-making in multilevel CDDD, supporting individualized treatment planning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1:
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.