ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2015
Comparison between anterior cervical discectomy with fusion and anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a meta-analysis.
Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality assessment of systematic reviews of surgical treatment of cervical spine degenerative diseases: an overview.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2022Pooled it
- Case Report: Concurrent esophageal and spinal cord compression in cervical spondylosis: integrated anterior osteophytectomy and zero-profile ACDF for dual pathology decompression.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid use in elderly patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a retrospective study.The Journal of international medical research · 2024Article
- Challenges and outcomes of upper cervical spinal tuberculosis surgery in pandemic-Case series study.International journal of surgery case reports · 2024Article
- Anterior percutaneous full-endoscopic transcorporeal decompression of the spinal cord via one vertebra with two bony channels for adjacent two-segment cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a technical note.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Anterior 1-2 Level Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion for Degenerative Cervical Disease: A Retrospective Study With Lordotic Porous Tantalum Cages. Long-Term Changes in Sagittal Alignment and Their Clinical and Radiological Implications After Cage Subsidence.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- Biomechanical Comparison of 1-Level Corpectomy and 2-Level Discectomy for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Finite Element Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020Article
- Increased Height of Fused Segments Contributes to Early-Phase Strut Subsidence after Anterior Cervical Corpectomy with Fusion for Multilevel Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament.Spine surgery and related research · 2020Article
- The Change of Range of Motion at Anterior Compression of the Cervical Cord after Laminoplasty in Patients with Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.Korean Journal of Spine · 2016Article
- Cervical Laminectomy with Lateral Mass Screw Fixation in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Neurological and Sagittal Alignment Outcome: Do We Need Lateral Mass Screws at each Segment?Indian journal of orthopaedicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhether anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) or anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion (ACCF) is superior in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to quantitatively compare the efficacy and safety of ACDF and ACCF in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SinoMed (Chinese BioMedical Literature Service System, People's Republic of China), and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, People's Republic of China) were systematically searched to identify all available studies comparing efficacy and safety between patients receiving ACDF and ACCF. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was pooled to compare the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores, visual analog scale scores, hospital stay, operation time, and blood loss. The risk ratio was pooled to compare the incidence of complications and fusion rate. Pooled estimates were calculated by using a fixed-effects model or a random-effects model according to the heterogeneity among studies.
resultsEighteen studies (17 observational studies and one randomized controlled trial) were included in this meta-analysis. Our results suggest that hospital stay (WMD =-1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.29, -0.27; P=0.014), operation time (WMD =-26.9, 95% CI: -46.13, -7.67; P=0.006), blood loss (WMD =-119.36, 95% CI: -166.94, -71.77; P=0.000), and incidence of complications (risk ratio =0.51, 95% CI: 0.33, 0.80; P=0.003) in the ACDF group were significantly less than that in the ACCF group. However, other clinical outcomes, including post-Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (WMD =-0.27, 95% CI: -0.57, 0.03; P=0.075), visual analog scale score (WMD =0.03, 95% CI: -1.44, 1.50; P=0.970), and fusion rate (risk ratio =1.04, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.09; P=0.158), between the two groups were not significantly different.
conclusionEvidence from the meta-analysis of 18 studies demonstrated that surgical options of cervical spondylotic myelopathy using ACDF or ACCF seemed to have similar clinical outcomes. However, ACDF was found to be superior to ACCF in terms of hospital stay, operation time, blood loss, and incidence of complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.