ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2026
Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Modulates Inflammatory Factors and Pain Mediators in Cervical Disc Herniation With Neurogenic Pain.
Article in Orthopaedic 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
Abstract
objectiveAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a well-established surgical intervention for cervical disc herniation; however, the biological mechanisms underlying its superior pain relief compared to conservative treatment remain incompletely understood. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of ACDF in treating neurogenic pain and its impact on inflammatory factors and substance P (SP).
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 110 patients (2016-2023) with neurogenic pain, divided into an ACDF group (n = 51) and a conservative treatment group (n = 59). We assessed serum levels of inflammatory factors [interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), monocyte chemotactic protein 1 (MCP-1)], pain mediators [substance P (SP), β-endorphin (β-EP), nitric oxide (NO), prostaglandin E2 (PGE2)], electromyography F-wave parameters, and clinical scores [Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, Present Pain Intensity (PPI) score, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA), Oswestry Dysfunction Index (ODI)] before and 3 months after treatment, with statistical analysis performed using t-tests, χ
resultsBaseline characteristics and complication rates were comparable (p > 0.05). The ACDF group achieved a higher excellent-good rate (72.55% vs. 54.24%, p < 0.05). After treatment, both groups showed improvements in all biomarkers and clinical scores, but the ACDF group demonstrated significantly greater reductions in IL-6, TNF-α, MCP-1, SP, NO, and PGE2, and a greater increase in β-EP (all p < 0.05). F-wave latency shortened and frequency increased more markedly in the ACDF group (p < 0.05). Clinical scores (VAS, PPI, ODI, JOA) also improved more significantly in the ACDF group (all p < 0.05).
conclusionACDF is superior to conservative treatment in alleviating neurogenic pain and improving neurological function, and it is also safe. This study provides biochemical and electrophysiological evidence for the superior efficacy of ACDF by elucidating its modulatory effects on the neuro-inflammatory cascade, offering new insights into its mechanism of action. The significant modulation of inflammatory factors and pain mediators suggests their potential role as objective indicators for pain assessment.
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.