Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20302673›Full record

Trial reportBMC surgery2010

Anterior cervical discectomy with fusion in patients with cervical disc degeneration: a prospective outcome study of 258 patients (181 fused with autologous bone graft and 77 fused with a PEEK cage).

Bjarne Lied, Paal Andre Roenning, Jarle Sundseth, Eirik Helseth

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC surgery, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 116 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Porous silicon nitride spacers versus PEEK cages for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical and radiological results of a single-blinded randomized controlled trial.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2017
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bjarne LiedDepartment of Neurosurgery-Rikshospitalet, Oslo University Hospital, N-0027 Oslo, Norway. bjarne.lied@ulleval.no
Paal Andre Roenning
Jarle Sundseth
Eirik Helseth
Oslo University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) is challenging with respect to both patient selection and choice of surgical procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of ACDF, with respect to both patient selection and choice of surgical procedure: fusion with an autologous iliac crest graft (AICG) versus fusion with an artificial cage made of polyetheretherketone (PEEK).

methodsThis was a non-randomized prospective single-center outcome study of 258 patients who underwent ACDF for cervical disc degeneration (CDD). Fusion was attained with either tricortical AICG or PEEK cages without additional anterior plating, with treatment selected at surgeon's discretion. Radicular pain, neck-pain, headache and patient satisfaction with the treatment were scored using the visual analogue scale (VAS).

resultsThe median age was 47.5 (28.3-82.8) years, and 44% of patients were female. 59% had single-level ACDF, 40% had two level ACDF and 1% had three-level ACDF. Of the patients, 181 were fused with AICG and 77 with a PEEK-cage. After surgery, the patients showed a significant reduction in radicular pain (DeltaVAS = 3.05), neck pain (DeltaVAS = 2.30) and headache (DeltaVAS = 0.55). Six months after surgery, 48% of patients had returned to work: however 24% were still receiving workers' compensation.Using univariate and multivariate analyses we found that high preoperative pain intensity was significantly associated with a decrease in pain intensity after surgery, for all three pain categories. There were no significant correlations between pain relief and the following patient characteristics: fusion method (AICG or PEEK-cage), sex, age, number of levels fused, disc level fused, previous neck surgery (except for neck pain), previous neck trauma, or preoperative symptom duration. Two hundred out of the 256 (78%) patients evaluated the surgical result as successful. Only 27/256 (11%) classified the surgical result as a failure. Patient satisfaction was significantly associated with pain relief after surgery.

conclusionsACDF is an effective treatment for radicular pain in selected patients with CDD after six months follow up. Because of similar clinical outcomes and lack of donor site morbidity when using PEEK, we now prefer fusion with PEEK cage to AICG. Lengthy symptom duration was not a negative prognostic marker in our patient population. The number of patients who returned to work 6 months after surgery was lower than expected.

Indexed as

Prostheses and ImplantsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBenzophenonesCervical VertebraeDiskectomyFemaleHumansIntervertebral Disc DegenerationKetonesMaleMiddle AgedPolyethylene GlycolsPolymersSpinal FusionBenzophenonesKetonespolyetheretherketonePolyethylene GlycolsPolymers

Identifiers

PMID20302673
PMCPMC2853514
OpenAlexW2079673771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.