SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2026
Comparison of hybrid surgeries for the treatment of three-level cervical degenerative disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In recent years, hybrid surgery (HS) has emerged as one of the major surgical modalities for the treatment of multisegmental cervical degenerative disease (CDD). Two types of HS have been introduced (HS1, 1-level TDR with 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, ACDF or HS2, 2-level TDR with 1-level ACDF), and the clinical and radiological results could differ. Methods: This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement. The Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed and Embase were comprehensively searched from inception to December 19, 2025. Results: Five studies were included in this network meta-analysis. The Neck disability index (NDI) in the HS1 was significantly lower than that in the ACDF. The C2-7 range of motions (ROMs) in the HS1 and HS2 were both significantly greater than those in the ACDF. The C2-7 ROM in the HS1 was significantly lower than that in the HS2. The ROMs of the upper and lower segments in the HS1 and HS2 were both significantly lower than those in the ACDF. No significant difference was identified in the ROM of the upper or lower segment between the HS1 and the HS2. Conclusion: HS1, HS2 and ACDF are all safe and effective surgical options for three-level CDD. HS1 and HS2 could better preserve the C2-7 ROM. ACDF is associated with an increased ROM of adjacent segments. Compared with HS1, HS2 could better preserve the C2-7 ROM. HS1, HS2 and ACDF presented similar incidences of ASD. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251271417, PROSPERO (CRD420251271417).
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.