The efficacy of anchored stand-alone spacers in comparison to conventional cage and plate in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials for clinical and radiological outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is commonly performed with cage and plate constructs to stabilise diseased or injured cervical segments. Despite it being a commonly performed procedure, there are notable rates of associated morbidity reported in the literature. Stand-alone spacers represent a novel form of instrumentation to conventional cage and plate constructs. Research question: Do stand-alone spacers have improved operative characteristics and postoperative outcomes in ACDF cohorts when compared to cage and plate constructs? Methods: guidelines. Studies of interest included cage and plate instrumentation versus anchored stand-alone spacers for patients undergoing ACDF. Pre- and post-operative clinical and radiological outcomes were collated and compared for significance between cohorts. Results: 10 RCTs were identified and included with 779 patients total. Mean age of the entire cohort was 50.1 years. 62% (483/779) of the cohort were male. 384 patients underwent ACDF with stand-alone cage, while 395 had ACDF with conventional cage and plate. Stand-alone spacers significantly outperformed conventional instrumentation in terms of estimated blood loss (p < 0.01), total postoperative complications (p < 0.01), dysphagia rates (p = 0.04) and adjacent segment disease (p = 0.04). Non-inferiority was evident in both patient reported outcome measures and radiological outcomes. Conclusion: This meta-analysis highlights the efficacy of stand-alone spacers for the management of primarily cervical spondylitic disease for both single-level and multi-level pathology, and thus presents an attractive alternative to conventional instrumentation for patients undergoing ACDF surgery.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".