Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

One-Way ANOVA: Equal Sample Sizes01:15

One-Way ANOVA: Equal Sample Sizes

One-Way ANOVA can be performed on three or more samples with equal or unequal sample sizes. When one-way ANOVA is performed on two datasets with samples of equal sizes, it can be easily observed that the computed F statistic is highly sensitive to the sample mean.
Different sample means can result in different values for the variance estimate: variance between samples. This is because the variance between samples is calculated as the product of the sample size and the variance between the...
One-Way ANOVA: Unequal Sample Sizes01:15

One-Way ANOVA: Unequal Sample Sizes

One-way ANOVA can be performed on three or more samples of unequal sizes. However, calculations get complicated when sample sizes are not always the same. So, while performing ANOVA with unequal samples size, the following equation is used:
Randomized Experiments01:13

Randomized Experiments

The randomization process involves assigning study participants randomly to experimental or control groups based on their probability of being equally assigned. Randomization is meant to eliminate selection bias and balance known and unknown confounding factors so that the control group is similar to the treatment group as much as possible. A computer program and a random number generator can be used to assign participants to groups in a way that minimizes bias.
Simple randomization
Simple...
Comparing Experimental Results: Student's t-Test01:09

Comparing Experimental Results: Student's t-Test

The t-test is a statistical method used to compare the sample mean with a population mean or compare two means from two data sets. The test statistic is calculated from the standard deviation, mean, and number of measurements in the data set at a selected confidence interval and then compared to a table of critical values at this confidence level. If the test statistic is smaller than the critical value, the null hypothesis is accepted. In this case, we state that the difference between the...
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs01:15

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs

Bioequivalence experimental study designs play a pivotal role in testing the effectiveness of various treatments. Key among these are the repeated measures, cross-over, carry-over, and Latin square designs. In the repeated measures design, each subject receives all treatments, allowing for temporal comparisons. This type of design is useful in reducing variability but requires careful planning to avoid bias.The cross-over design, an economical method, involves sequential administration of...
McNemar's Test01:23

McNemar's Test

McNemar's Test is a nonparametric statistical test used to determine if there is a significant difference in proportions between two related groups when the outcome is binary (e.g., yes/no, success/failure). It is beneficial when we have paired data, such as pre-test/post-test designs, where the same subjects are measured under two different conditions. The test is named after the statistician Quinn McNemar, who introduced it in 1947. It is commonly used in situations where subjects are...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Millimeter-Wave Imaging for Idiopathic Scoliosis Screening: Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

JMIR pediatrics and parenting·2026
Same author

Protective effects of a commercial total flavonoid preparation from <i>Puerariae Lobatae Radix</i> on exhaustive exercise-induced liver injury in mice.

Frontiers in pharmacology·2026
Same author

Halicin-loaded injectable hyaluronic acid hydrogel for ferroptosis-driven osteosarcoma therapy via Fe<sup>2+</sup> accumulation.

International journal of biological macromolecules·2026
Same author

Platelet-rich plasma-primed bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomes inhibit neuronal apoptosis and autophagy, and promote nerve regeneration via the miR-29a-3p/PTEN/PI3K/Akt/mTOR axis after spinal cord injury.

Journal of molecular histology·2026
Same author

Knockdown of DLGAP5 inhibits microglia activation in spinal cord injury rats through limiting NF-κB activation.

International immunopharmacology·2026
Same author

Atractylodin Suppresses Fibrotic Scar Formation and Enhances Functional Recovery Following Spinal Cord Injury.

Journal of integrative neuroscience·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 10, 2026

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Ovine Model
06:11

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Ovine Model

Published on: October 5, 2009

13.0K

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using Cages With Different Sized Windows: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Chengkun Zhao1, Shijie Wang, Jingjing Zhang

  • 1Department of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.

Spine
|August 25, 2025
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Large window polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) increase subsidence risk. Different cage window sizes yield similar fusion and clinical outcomes in ACDF surgery.

Keywords:
anterior cervical discectomy and fusionclinical outcomesfusion outcomespolyetheretherketone cagesubsidence ratewindow size

More Related Videos

Cone Beam Intraoperative Computed Tomography-based Image Guidance for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
05:37

Cone Beam Intraoperative Computed Tomography-based Image Guidance for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion

Published on: August 6, 2019

6.5K
Uniportal Full Endoscopic Posterolateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
10:40

Uniportal Full Endoscopic Posterolateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Published on: June 6, 2025

242

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 10, 2026

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Ovine Model
06:11

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Ovine Model

Published on: October 5, 2009

13.0K
Cone Beam Intraoperative Computed Tomography-based Image Guidance for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
05:37

Cone Beam Intraoperative Computed Tomography-based Image Guidance for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion

Published on: August 6, 2019

6.5K
Uniportal Full Endoscopic Posterolateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
10:40

Uniportal Full Endoscopic Posterolateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Published on: June 6, 2025

242

Area of Science:

  • Spine surgery
  • Orthopedic biomechanics
  • Biomaterials in medicine

Background:

  • Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages are utilized in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).
  • These cages feature windows for bone graft integration.
  • The influence of PEEK cage window size on subsidence has not been previously investigated.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess the impact of varying PEEK cage window sizes on subsidence rates following ACDF.
  • To compare fusion and clinical outcomes across different cage window sizes in ACDF.

Main Methods:

  • Prospective randomized controlled trial involving 95 patients (153 levels).
  • Patients were randomized into three groups based on cage window size: large, middle, and small.
  • Subsidence, fusion (using CT scans), and clinical outcomes (NDI, JOA, VAS) were evaluated at 1 and 12 months postoperatively.

Main Results:

  • A significantly higher subsidence rate was observed in the large window group compared to middle and small window groups.
  • No statistically significant differences in fusion rates or clinical outcomes (NDI, JOA, VAS) were found among the groups.
  • All groups demonstrated significant clinical improvement from baseline at 12 months.

Conclusions:

  • ACDF using large window PEEK cages is associated with an increased risk of cage subsidence.
  • PEEK cages with varying window sizes appear to provide comparable fusion and clinical results in ACDF procedures.