Tantalum Fusion Device in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion For Treatment of Cervical Degeneration Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis study is to evaluate the outcomes of a tantalum fusion device in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of cervical degeneration disease. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A great interest has raised for porous tantalum in cervical fusion, but several studies reported the divergent clinical outcome and fusion rate. No systematic review and meta-analysis has been conducted up to present to evaluate the outcomes of the tantalum fusion device. METHODS: We comprehensively searched multiple databases for studies that investigated the tantalum fusion device in ACDF. The retrieved results were last updated on February 15, 2018. Outcomes of interest comprised of operative parameters, fusion rate, the incidence of adverse events as well as patient-reported outcomes, including the Neck Disability Index (NDI) score, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, Short Form-36 Physical Component Scores and complications. RESULTS: Ten studies included were included in this review and 6 randomized controlled trial studies included. All studies were pooled to evaluate the outcome of fusion rate, NDI, and VAS after tantalum fusion treatment. The results of the meta-analysis showed that implantation of the tantalum fusion device is associated with significantly shorter operative and fewer adverse events when compared with autologous iliac crest bone graft. However, no difference was found with regards to the fusion rate, NDI, VAS, and global assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Through this systemic review and meta-analysis, no significant difference was found with regards to fusion rate, postoperative NDI, and VAS between tantalum fusion and iliac crest bone graft in ACDF. More longer-term and randomized studies with large samples are warranted to validate any association found in this study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".