ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2026
Systematic Review of Bioactive Glass Cages in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a standard procedure for cervical degenerative pathologies, typically using allograft or polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages. Bioactive glass (BG) cages have emerged as a novel interbody option with osteoconductive and bioactive properties. This review aimed to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between BGC cages and traditional graft options (allograft or PEEK) in ACDF.
methodsThis systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to compare BG and traditional techniques. PubMed and Google Scholar were queried for studies comparing BG and traditional methods. Studies that were non-English or focused on pediatric patients were excluded. Visual analog scale (VAS)-neck, VAS upper extremity (UE), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and computed tomography (CT) fusion rate were recorded. All meta-analyses were conducted using STATA 18.0, College Station, TX, USA.
resultsOur final review included 9 studies with 542 patients: 235 treated with BG and 307 with traditional methods (allograft or PEEK). There was no statistically significant difference between BG and control groups in improvement in neck pain (g = 0.00; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.18;
conclusionAll studies reported comparable clinical and radiological outcomes for BG compared with traditional methods for cages in ACDF. Outcomes, including VAS, NDI, CT fusion, and interspinous motion, were similar. Only 9 studies have been performed so far; thus, additional research is necessary to establish BG as a compelling alternative to traditional techniques. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Bioactive glass cages demonstrate comparable clinical and radiographic outcomes to traditional cage materials in ACDF, suggesting they may be considered as an alternative graft option. However, the limited number of available studies and lack of high-level evidence constrain definitive clinical adoption. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.