ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2026
Effect of Keeping Caspar Retractor During Prestige LP Cervical Disc Implantation on Intra- and Postoperative Outcomes.
Article in Orthopaedic 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
Abstract
objectivesImplantation of the Prestige LP prosthesis requires substantial endplate modification and insertion forces, yet the manufacturer's guide recommends relaxing or completely removing the Caspar retractor before implantation, which we observed to cause vertebral instability during endplate preparation and prosthesis insertion. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of retaining the Caspar retractor during Prestige LP cervical disc implantation.
methodsA total of 55 patients who underwent cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) between January and December 2025 were retrospectively reviewed. The retractor group maintained the retractor during endplate preparation and prosthesis implantation, while the no-retractor group removed it after discectomy. Clinical outcomes and radiographic parameters were assessed preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively. Statistical analyses were performed using two-way repeated-measures ANOVA, paired and independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U test, and Chi-square test.
resultsClinical outcomes were similar in both groups. The retractor group demonstrated superior intraoperative stability with reduced functional spinal unit (FSU) Cobb angle fluctuations (p = 0.001), fewer fluoroscopy exposures (p = 0.044), and shorter prosthesis implantation times (p = 0.017). The retractor group received significantly larger prostheses (p < 0.001). Postoperatively, the retractor group exhibited greater FSU height, disc height, and larger interfacet distance (all p < 0.005) but these differences diminished by 6 months. The retractor group also showed smaller bone-implant interface gap (p = 0.003) at 1 week, and more segmental range of motion (p < 0.008) and FSU height loss (p = 0.002) at 6 months. Subsidence and heterotopic ossification rates were comparable between groups.
conclusionDuring Prestige LP implantation in CDA, retaining the Caspar retractor enhanced intraoperative stability, improved prosthesis placement accuracy, and reduced fluoroscopy use, achieving comparable clinical outcomes. While associated with greater FSU height loss at 6 months, it did not increase complications, supporting its viability as a standard technical modification for Prestige LP implantation.
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.