ArticleBrain & spine2026
Is outcome of anterior cervical discectomy for cervical radiculopathy influenced by securing the intervertebral cage?
Article in Brain & spine, 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
Introduction: Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) for cervical radiculopathy is commonly performed with a cage and plate in the United States, whereas in Europe, standalone cages are frequently used instead. Knowledge about difference in clinical outcome is scarce. Research question: Are there differences in clinical outcomes in patients undergoing ACDF using a cage with an anterior plate, a cage with integrated screws, or a standalone cage? Methods: 570 patients with cervical radiculopathy were included: 414 received a cage with plate (US), 54 received cages with integrated screws (US) and 102 received a standalone cage (86% Netherlands). The clinical outcomes Visual Analogue Scale arm and neck pain, and pain interference were assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after inclusion, and analysed using linear mixed-effects models. Furthermore, the Minimal Clinical Important Difference was assessed and to explore individual patient-level outcome, cut-off values for clinical success were utilized. Results: Baseline clinical parameters were comparable in the three groups. Linear mixed-effects models revealed no statistically significant differences in clinical outcome over time. However, dichotomized clinical success rates for neck pain were significantly higher in the standalone group (62.9% at 6 months, 79.3% at 12 months, 85.7% at 24 months), compared to the cage with plate group (59.5%, 61.2%, 58.9%) and the integrated screws group, which showed more variability (58.3%, 26.7%, 44.4%). Discussion and conclusion: No substantial differences were observed at the group mean-level, however, the standalone cage group demonstrated higher individual-level success-rates, particularly regarding neck pain.
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.