ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Bone Fusion in the Cervical Spine: Where Are We Now?
Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures for the treatment of cervical degenerative disease, myelopathy, radiculopathy, and segmental instability. Although clinical outcomes are generally favorable, pseudarthrosis remains a relevant complication, with a reported incidence ranging from 5% to 20%. In a field with no yet clear main directions, this narrative review aims at giving the reader a broad picture and a wide analysis of the recent advances in cervical spinal fusion, with particular focus on biomaterials, intervertebral cage technologies, cervical spine biomechanics and imaging methods used for fusion assessment. The literature regarding quantitative imaging parameters and emerging applications of artificial intelligence (AI) is also reviewed. Current bone grafts include autologous grafts, allografts, xenografts and polymeric grafts, while the materials for the intervertebral cages comprehend titanium, polyetheretherketone and silicon nitride, with reported fusion rates distributed in a very large range. Computed tomography (CT) remains the standard imaging modality to assess whether fusion has occurred, due to its high spatial resolution. However, the lack of shared diagnostic criteria and the significant interobserver variability continue to limit its reliability. Quantitative parameters, such as Hounsfield Unit measurements and MRI-derived bone quality scores, may contribute to a more objective evaluation, although current evidence remains heterogeneous. In parallel, AI-based imaging analysis is showing promising results for quantitative assessment and longitudinal monitoring of bone fusion; however, large prospective clinical studies are still needed to confirm its clinical applicability. In conclusion, despite advances in surgical technologies and biomaterials, radiological assessment of cervical fusion still lacks universally accepted diagnostic standards. Future AI applications may improve diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility, promoting a more standardized approach in clinical practice.
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.