{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,3]],"date-time":"2026-09-03T19:01:42Z","timestamp":1788462102192,"version":"build-2803163510"},"reference-count":19,"publisher":"Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,1,1]],"date-time":"2026-01-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1767225600000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["lww.com","ovid.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,1]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Anterior plating has conventionally been the standard for multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, concerns about complications linked to plate and screw constructs have prompted interest in alternative solutions such as standalone spacers with or without screws. This study compares clinical and radiological outcomes of standalone cages and anchored cage devices in multilevel ACDF.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      A retrospective analysis of 85 patients treated for multilevel ACDF over 5 years at a tertiary spinal center on patients receiving either standalone cages or anchored cage devices. Outcomes assessed included the Odom's Criteria, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for neck and upper limb pain, fusion rates, subsidence, cobbs angle, C2-C7 SVA, and complications. Statistical analysis utilized\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">t<\/jats:italic>\n                      -tests and Chi-square tests with statistical significance set at\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P<\/jats:italic>\n                      &lt; 0.05.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>A total of 85 patients (46 standalone and 39 anchored cage) with an average follow-up of 3.2 years were included. Both groups exhibited comparable clinical improvements postoperatively. Anchored cage devices had higher fusion rates (91% vs. 88%) but greater subsidence (32.1% vs. 29.0%). Dysphagia incidence was marginally higher in standalone cages. No statistically significant differences in clinical or radiological outcomes were observed.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusion:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Both standalone cages and anchored cage devices are effective for multilevel ACDF, with comparable short-term outcomes. Device selection should consider surgeon preference, cost, and patient-specific factors. Further long-term studies are needed to validate these findings.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.4103\/jcvjs.jcvjs_195_25","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,1,15]],"date-time":"2026-01-15T15:02:35Z","timestamp":1768489355000},"page":"43-47","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/lww.0000000000001000","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["Comparative review of anchored cage devices and standalone cages in multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgeries"],"prefix":"10.4103","volume":"17","author":[{"given":"Adnan","family":"Shaikh","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Spinal Surgery, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, UK"},{"name":"Department of Neurosurgery, St George\u2019s Hospital, London, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Laasya V.","family":"Dwarakanath","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Spinal Surgery, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Shahnawaz","family":"Haleem","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Spinal Surgery, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Petr","family":"Rehousek","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Spinal Surgery, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Faizul","family":"Hassan","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Spinal Surgery, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"276","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,1,15]]},"reference":[{"key":"R1-20260420","first-page":"223","article-title":"Anterolateral cervical disc removal and interbody fusion for cervical disk syndrome","volume":"96","author":"Robinson","year":"1955","journal-title":"Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp"},{"key":"R2-20260420","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"602","DOI":"10.3171\/jns.1958.15.6.0602","article-title":"The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks","volume":"15","author":"Cloward","year":"1958","journal-title":"J Neurosurg"},{"key":"R3-20260420","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1756","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000172148.86756.ce","article-title":"Is autograft the gold standard in achieving radiographic fusion in one-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with rigid anterior plate fixation?","volume":"30","author":"Samartzis","year":"2005","journal-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)"},{"key":"R4-20260420","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2138","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000180479.63092.17","article-title":"Long-term results after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with allograft and plating: A 5- to 11-year radiologic and clinical follow-up study","volume":"30","author":"Yue","year":"2005","journal-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)"},{"key":"R5-20260420","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"370","DOI":"10.3340\/jkns.2008.44.6.370","article-title":"Radiologic assessment of subsidence in stand-alone cervical polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage","volume":"44","author":"Ha","year":"2008","journal-title":"J Korean Neurosurg Soc"},{"key":"R6-20260420","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"3760","DOI":"10.1016\/j.asjsur.2023.02.032","article-title":"Multilevel anterior cervical fusion with standalone cage or cage-and-plate after cervical discectomy: Benefits and drawbacks","volume":"46","author":"Eghbal","year":"2023","journal-title":"Asian J Surg"},{"key":"R7-20260420","first-page":"e72386","article-title":"Clinical and radiological outcomes of anchored stand-alone cage compared to conventional plating in multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review","volume":"16","author":"Ghobrial","year":"2024","journal-title":"Cureus"},{"key":"R10-20260420","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1521","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-021-06833-0","article-title":"Correlation of supine MRI and standing radiographs for cervical sagittal balance in myelopathy patients: A cross-sectional study","volume":"30","author":"Boudreau","year":"2021","journal-title":"Eur Spine J"},{"key":"R11-20260420","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"12","DOI":"10.1186\/s41983-019-0062-2","article-title":"Fixation of multiple level anterior cervical disc using cages versus cages and plating","volume":"55","author":"Elsayed","year":"2019","journal-title":"Egypt J Neurol Psychiatry Neurosurg"},{"key":"R12-20260420","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"99","DOI":"10.1186\/s12891-015-0546-x","article-title":"The design evolution of interbody cages in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review","volume":"16","author":"Chong","year":"2015","journal-title":"BMC Musculoskelet Disord"},{"key":"R13-20260420","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"873","DOI":"10.1007\/s00701-018-3490-3","article-title":"Incidence and clinical relevance of cage subsidence in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review","volume":"160","author":"Noordhoek","year":"2018","journal-title":"Acta Neurochir (Wien)"},{"key":"R14-20260420","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"E375","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0000000000000768","article-title":"A zero-profile anchored spacer in multilevel cervical anterior interbody fusion: biomechanical comparison to established fixation techniques","volume":"40","author":"Scholz","year":"2015","journal-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)"},{"key":"R15-20260420","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"446","DOI":"10.1177\/2192568218774576","article-title":"Comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with a stand-alone interbody cage versus a conventional cage-plate technique: A systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"9","author":"Cheung","year":"2019","journal-title":"Global Spine J"},{"key":"R16-20260420","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e15767","DOI":"10.1097\/MD.0000000000015767","article-title":"Dysphagia in Zero-P versus cage-plate constructs after ACDF","volume":"98","author":"Yang","year":"2019","journal-title":"Medicine (Baltimore)"},{"key":"R17-20260420","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e548","DOI":"10.1016\/j.wneu.2018.02.088","article-title":"Relationship Between Cervical Sagittal Alignment and Patient Outcomes After Anterior Cervical Fusion Surgery Involving 3 or More Levels","volume":"113","author":"Jeon","year":"2018","journal-title":"World Neurosurg"},{"key":"R18-20260420","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"904","DOI":"10.1080\/02688697.2021.2005772","article-title":"A pragmatic single centre retrospective comparative review of complication profile between PEEK cages and Zero-P cage screw constructs","volume":"38","author":"Balakumar","year":"2024","journal-title":"Br J Neurosurg"},{"key":"R19-20260420","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"119","DOI":"10.3340\/jkns.2015.58.2.119","article-title":"Cervical Stand-Alone Polyetheretherketone Cage versus Zero-Profile Anchored Spacer in Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion : Minimum 2-Year Assessment of Radiographic and Clinical Outcome","volume":"58","author":"Cho","year":"2015","journal-title":"J Korean Neurosurg Soc"},{"key":"R20-20260420","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"13","DOI":"10.21608\/esj.2019.5408.1068","article-title":"Anchored spacers versus standalone cages in two levels anterior cervical discectomy for treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease: A comparative study","volume":"28","author":"Dawood","year":"2018","journal-title":"Egypt Spine J"},{"key":"R21-20260420","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"E375","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0000000000000768","article-title":"A zero-profile anchored spacer in multilevel cervical anterior interbody fusion: Biomechanical comparison to established fixation techniques","volume":"40","author":"Scholz","year":"2015","journal-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)"}],"container-title":["Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ovid.com\/10.4103\/jcvjs.jcvjs_195_25","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,13]],"date-time":"2026-08-13T19:40:07Z","timestamp":1786650007000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ovid.com\/10.4103\/jcvjs.jcvjs_195_25"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,1]]},"references-count":19,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4103\/jcvjs.jcvjs_195_25","relation":{},"ISSN":["0974-8237","0976-9285"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0974-8237","type":"print"},{"value":"0976-9285","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,1]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2025-10-05","name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2025-11-05","name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}