Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 614

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Mummaneni, Praveen V., Burkus, J. Kenneth, Haid, Regis W., Traynelis, Vincent C., Zdeblick, Thomas A.·2007·Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine

Abstract

Object: The authors report the results of a prospective randomized multicenter study in which the results of cervical disc arthroplasty were compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients treated for symptomatic single-level cervical degenerative disc disease (DDD). Methods: Five hundred forty-one patients with single-level cervical DDD and radiculopathy were enrolled at 32 sites and randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: 276 patients in the investigational group underwent anterior cervical discectomy and decompression and arthroplasty with the PRESTIGE ST Cervical Disc System (Medtronic Sofamor Danek); 265 patients in the control group underwent decompressive ACDF. Eighty percent of the arthroplasty-treated patients (223 of 276) and 75% of the control patients (198 of 265) completed clinical and radiographic follow-up examinations at routine intervals for 2 years after surgery. Analysis of all currently available postoperative 12- and 24-month data indicated a two-point greater improvement in the neck disability index score in the investigational group than the control group. The arthroplasty group also had a statistically significant higher rate of neurological success (p = 0.005) as well as a lower rate of secondary revision surgeries (p = 0.0277) and supplemental fixation (p = 0.0031). The mean improvement in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary scores was greater in the investigational group at 12 and 24 months, as was relief of neck pain. The patients in the investigational group returned to work 16 days sooner than those in the control group, and the rate of adjacent-segment reoperation was significantly lower in the investigational group as well (p = 0.0492, log-rank test). The cervical disc implant maintained segmental sagittal angular motion averaging more than 7°. In the investigational group, there were no cases of implant failure or migration. Conclusions: The PRESTIGE ST Cervical Disc System maintained physiological segmental motion at 24 months after implantation and was associated with improved neurological success, improved clinical outcomes, and a reduced rate of secondary surgeries compared with ACDF.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3171/spi.2007.6.3.198

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 614

Metadata

Authors
Mummaneni, P. V., Burkus, J. K., Haid, R. W., Traynelis, V. C., & Zdeblick, T. A.
Venue
Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine
Published
2007-03
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
198-209
ISSN
  • 1547-5646 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-5654
OpenAlex
W2029221685
Cited by
614
References
6
FWCI
25.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3171/spi.2007.6.3.198
The paper
Mummaneni, P. V., Burkus, J. K., Haid, R. W., Traynelis, V. C., & Zdeblick, T. A. (2007). Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2007.6.3.198

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.