SynthesisOrthopaedic surgery2026
A Meta-Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness in Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease Treated With Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.
Synthesis 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical degenerative disc disease (DDD) occurs when there is deterioration of the intervertebral discs in the cervical spine and can cause extreme pain and disability. Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) are the two prominent surgical treatment options. There are a few meta-analyses that examine the cost-effectiveness of these two methods. This meta-analysis study seeks to provide a thorough overview of cost-effectiveness and postoperative complications between CDA and ACDF in the treatment of cervical DDD. Publication search was carried out on PubMed and Embase up until March 2025. Comparison studies that included the two treatment methods of interest and reported a cost analysis with complication metrics were included in this meta-analysis. Review Manager 5.4. was utilized for statistical analyses, and a p value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Thirteen studies were included. Regarding the cost analysis, there was a significant difference in initial cost in favor of ACDF compared to CDA. As for the outcome metrics, there was a significant difference in reoperation as well as DVT/PE rates in favor of CDA. There was a significant difference in mean operative time in favor of ACDF. No other significant differences were found. ACDF appears to be a cost-effective option, while CDA offers advantages in certain complication metrics. Additional studies investigating the relationship between treatment costs and complications should be completed in order to solidify the superior treatment method for cervical DDD.
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.