Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27582129›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of medical research2016

Safety of outpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dexiang Ban, Yang Liu, Taiwei Cao, Shiqing Feng

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of medical research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Impact of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Future endeavors in ambulatory spine surgery.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2019
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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.

Dexiang BanDepartment of Orthopedics, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, 154 Anshan Road, Heping District, Tianjin, 300052, People's Republic of China.
Yang LiuDepartment of Orthopedics, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, 154 Anshan Road, Heping District, Tianjin, 300052, People's Republic of China.
Taiwei CaoDepartment of Orthopedics, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, 154 Anshan Road, Heping District, Tianjin, 300052, People's Republic of China.
Shiqing FengDepartment of Orthopedics, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, 154 Anshan Road, Heping District, Tianjin, 300052, People's Republic of China. fengshiqing_fsq@163.com.
Tianjin Medical University General Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is one of the most prevalent spine surgeries and neurosurgical procedures performed to treat a variety of disorders in the cervical spine. Over the last several years, ACDF has been done in the outpatient setting for less invasive approaches and exposures, as well as modified anesthetic and pain management techniques. Despite the fact that it may be innocuous in other parts of the body, complications in the spine can literally be fatal. The objective of this article is to evaluate the safety of outpatient surgery compared with inpatient surgery in the cervical spine for adult patients.

methodsThe multiple databases including Pubmed, Springer, EMBASE, EBSCO and China Journal Full-text Database were adopted to search for the relevant studies in English or Chinese. Full-text articles involving to the safety of outpatient cervical spine surgery were selected. Review Manager 5.0 was adopted to estimate the effects of the results among selected articles. Forest plots, sensitivity analysis and bias analysis for the articles included were also conducted. Chi-square tests were conducted with SPSS 20.0 software.

resultsFinally, 12 articles were included. The results of meta-analysis suggested that in the articles included, no death occurred, and compared with inpatient surgery, outpatient surgery has a similar risk (RR = 0.99, 95 % CI [0.98, 1.00], P = 0.02; P for heterogeneity = 0.47, I (2) = 0 %). An I (2) value of 0 % indicates no heterogeneity observed. All complications were occurred in both outpatients and inpatients. Among the studies selected, after the outpatient spine surgery, the highest incidences of complication were dysphagia (18/29) and hematoma (4/29). Compared with the overall complication rate in inpatient group, no significant difference was observed (x (2) = 1.820, P = 0.177).

conclusionIn this study, outpatient surgery has a similar risk with inpatient surgery, and no difference of morbidity between outpatient and inpatient was found. Because of short operative time and moderate postoperative pain, we believe that outpatient cervical spine surgery is a safe and convenient alternative procedure, which also decrease the cost of care. Besides, postoperative complications including dysphagia and hematoma should be noticed.

Indexed as

AdultCervical VertebraeDeglutition DisordersDiskectomyHumansPostoperative HemorrhageSpinal FusionACDFComplicationInpatientOutpatient

Identifiers

PMID27582129
PMCPMC5007863
OpenAlexW2507757280

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.