ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Outcome evaluation of the zero-profile device comprising two integrated variable angle screws used for single-level cervical degenerative disc disease: comparison with the plate-cage construct.
Article in Frontiers in 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Zero-P VA device is a unique zero-profile device comprising only two integrated variable-angle screws which may provide inferior mechanical stability compared with other types of devices. There is a lack of comprehensive clinical and radiological evidence comparing the plate-cage construct (PCC) and the Zero-P VA device in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients who underwent single-level ACDF using either the Zero-P VA device (50 cases) or the PCC (51 cases). Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores. Radiological outcomes were assessed using standard lateral cervical x-ray films. Data were recorded preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at 3- and 12-month follow-up visits. Results: VAS and JOA scores, cervical alignment, segmental angle, and surgical segment height were all significantly improved postoperatively in both groups. However, in the Zero-P VA group, the segmental angle and anterior height of the surgical segment at 3 and 12 months decreased significantly compared with immediate postoperative values and were significantly lower than those observed in the PCC group. The rate of segmental kyphosis was significantly higher in the Zero-P VA group at the 12-month follow-up (12% vs. 0%, Conclusion: The Zero-P VA device provides short-term clinical outcomes comparable to those of the PCC for single-level ACDF. However, it is associated with inferior radiological outcomes, specifically greater loss of segmental lordosis and anterior surgical segment height. The surgeon's choice of implant therefore involves a clinical trade-off between the established surgical advantages of a zero-profile system and the superior radiological stability offered by the PCC.
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.