In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to thoroughly describe and objectively compare the efficacy of anterior cervical plate (ACP) and stand-alone cage (SAC). Although recognized as an effective procedure for cervical degenerative disease (CDD), a debate between the methods of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion exists. ACP provides stability to the fusion construct; however, some complications have been reported, such as dysphagia, adjacent disc disease, and soft tissue injury. To overcome these complications, a SAC was later introduced. A systematic search was conducted on the basis of PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines to identify relevant studies through PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane database. A total of 14 studies (960 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Twenty outcomes were clinically and radiologically compared between the two procedures. ACP and SAC were comparable in terms of dysphasia rate, loss of segmental angle, loss of disc height, the Odom criteria, Robinson’s criteria, hospital stay, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, and fusion time. However, SAC was superior in terms of shorter operation time, less blood loss, lower dysphagia rate, and lower rate of adjacent level disease, whereas ACP was advantageous in terms of lower subsidence rate, better maintenance of the cervical global and segmental angles and disc height, and higher fusion rate. Both procedures can be used in patients with CDD, although it might be more beneficial to choose ACP in patients with multi-level pathologies, wherein better mechanical stability is provided. However, SAC may be more beneficial to use in patients with comorbidities, anemia, or swelling problems because it offers lower complication rates.

Methods: Spine surgeons of the Asia–Pacific Spine Society were asked to respond to a web-based survey on IONM. The questionnaire covered various aspects of IONM, including its common modality, Tc-MEP details, necessities for consistent use, and recommended modalities in major spine surgeries and representative surgical procedures. Results: Responses were received from 193 of 626 spine surgeons. Among these respondents, 177 used IONM routinely. Among these 177 respondents, 17 mainly used SEP, whereas the majority favored Tc-MEPs. Although a >50% decrease is the commonly used alarm point in Tc-MEP, half of the Tc-MEP users had no protocols planned for such scenarios. Moreover, half of the Tc-MEP users experienced complications, with bite injuries being the most common. Most respondents strongly recommended IONM in deformity surgery for pediatric and adult populations and tumor resection surgery for intramedullary spinal cord tumors. Conversely, IONM was the least recommended in lumbar spinal canal stenosis surgery. Conclusions Spine surgeons in Asia–Pacific countries favored IONM use, indicating widespread routine utilization. Tc-MEP was the predominant modality for IONM, followed by SEPs.

Methods: Spine surgeons of the Asia–Pacific Spine Society were asked to respond to a web-based survey on IONM. The questionnaire covered various aspects of IONM, including its common modality, Tc-MEP details, necessities for consistent use, and recommended modalities in major spine surgeries and representative surgical procedures. Results: Responses were received from 193 of 626 spine surgeons. Among these respondents, 177 used IONM routinely. Among these 177 respondents, 17 mainly used SEP, whereas the majority favored Tc-MEPs. Although a >50% decrease is the commonly used alarm point in Tc-MEP, half of the Tc-MEP users had no protocols planned for such scenarios. Moreover, half of the Tc-MEP users experienced complications, with bite injuries being the most common. Most respondents strongly recommended IONM in deformity surgery for pediatric and adult populations and tumor resection surgery for intramedullary spinal cord tumors. Conversely, IONM was the least recommended in lumbar spinal canal stenosis surgery. Conclusions Spine surgeons in Asia–Pacific countries favored IONM use, indicating widespread routine utilization. Tc-MEP was the predominant modality for IONM, followed by SEPs.

Methods: Spine surgeons of the Asia–Pacific Spine Society were asked to respond to a web-based survey on IONM. The questionnaire covered various aspects of IONM, including its common modality, Tc-MEP details, necessities for consistent use, and recommended modalities in major spine surgeries and representative surgical procedures. Results: Responses were received from 193 of 626 spine surgeons. Among these respondents, 177 used IONM routinely. Among these 177 respondents, 17 mainly used SEP, whereas the majority favored Tc-MEPs. Although a >50% decrease is the commonly used alarm point in Tc-MEP, half of the Tc-MEP users had no protocols planned for such scenarios. Moreover, half of the Tc-MEP users experienced complications, with bite injuries being the most common. Most respondents strongly recommended IONM in deformity surgery for pediatric and adult populations and tumor resection surgery for intramedullary spinal cord tumors. Conversely, IONM was the least recommended in lumbar spinal canal stenosis surgery. Conclusions Spine surgeons in Asia–Pacific countries favored IONM use, indicating widespread routine utilization. Tc-MEP was the predominant modality for IONM, followed by SEPs.