ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
Is a central cavity necessary for bioactive glass-ceramic spacers in plated ACDF? A retrospective comparison of solid versus cavity designs.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTraditionally, interbody cages feature a central cavity for graft packing. However, for bioactive glass-ceramic (BGS-7) spacers achieving fusion via surface-mediated osseointegration, this cavity may be biologically redundant and structurally disadvantageous. We compared radiological and clinical outcomes of plated anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using BGS-7 spacers with or without a central cavity.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing plated ACDF using solid non-cavity (17 patients, 24 levels) or central-cavity (17 patients, 33 levels) BGS-7 spacers. Radiographic fusion was evaluated using dynamic interspinous distance (primary, ≤ 2 mm) and segmental angular motion (secondary, ≤ 4°), alongside CT-based osseointegration (direct contact ≥ 50%). Subsidence (≥ 2 mm) and clinical outcomes were evaluated at 12 months.
resultsBoth groups demonstrated comparable 12-month clinical improvements (p > 0.05). Radiographic fusion rates were equivalent between non-cavity and central-cavity groups based on the primary distance (91.7% vs. 84.8%, p = 0.687) and secondary angular criteria (79.2% vs. 63.6%, p = 0.331). The non-cavity group showed a trend toward superior segmental stability, with a smaller dynamic gap distance (0.82 ± 0.64 mm vs. 1.53 ± 1.99 mm, p = 0.064). CT-based fusion perfectly matched (90.5% vs. 90.9%, p = 1.000). Subsidence rates were comparably low (12.5% vs. 12.1%), with no spacer breakage.
conclusionsIn plated ACDF, adding a central cavity to BGS-7 spacers confers no measurable advantage over the solid design. Solid spacers inherently preserve maximum endplate contact area for optimal load-sharing and surface-mediated fusion. Eliminating the cavity and supplemental grafts avoids logical redundancy, donor-site morbidity, and unnecessary healthcare costs.
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.