Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27683692›Full record

ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2016

Comparison of surgical outcomes after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: does the intra-operative use of a microscope improve surgical outcomes.

Owoicho Adogwa, Aladine Elsamadicy, Elizabeth Reiser, Cole Ziegler, Kyle Freischlag, Joseph Cheng, Carlos A Bagley

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. From small seeds grow big trees.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2016
    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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Owoicho AdogwaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA ;
Aladine ElsamadicyDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA ;
Elizabeth ReiserUniversity of Alabama in Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA ;
Cole ZieglerDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA ;
Kyle FreischlagDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA ;
Joseph ChengDepartment of Neurosurgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA ;
Carlos A BagleyDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA.
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · USVanderbilt University Medical Center · USDuke University · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

NRSA Training CoreTL1TR002555 · NCATS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI EDELMAN, DAVID · 2018 to 2022
$3.7M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe primary aim of this study was to assess and compare the complications profile as well as long-term clinical outcomes between patients undergoing an Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) procedure with and without the use of an intra-operative microscope.

methodsOne hundred and forty adult patients (non-microscope cohort: 81; microscope cohort: 59) undergoing ACDF at a major academic medical center were included in this study. Enrollment criteria included available demographic, surgical and clinical outcome data. All patients had prospectively collected patient-reported outcomes measures and a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients completed the neck disability index (NDI), short-form 12 (SF-12) and visual analog pain scale (VAS) before surgery, then at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Clinical outcomes and complication rates were compared between both patient cohorts.

resultsBaseline characteristics were similar between both cohorts. The mean ± standard deviation duration of surgery was longer in the microscope cohort (microscope: 169±34 minutes vs. non-microscope: 98±42 minutes, P<0.001). There was no significant difference between cohorts in the incidence of nerve root injury (P=0.99) or incidental durotomy (P=0.32). At 3 months post-operatively, both cohorts demonstrated similar improvement in VAS-neck pain (P=0.69), NDI (P=0.86), SF-12 PCS (P=0.84) and SF-12 MCS (P=0.75). At 2-year post-operatively, both the microscope and non-microscope cohorts demonstrated similar improvement from base line in NDI (microscope: 13.52±25.77 vs. non-microscope: 19.51±27.47, P<0.18), SF-12 PCS (microscope: 4.15±26.39 vs. non-microscope: 11.98±22.96, P<0.07), SF-12 MCS (microscope: 9.47±32.38 vs. non-microscope: 16.19±30.44, P<0.21). Interestingly at 2 years, the change in VAS neck pain score was significantly different between cohorts (microscope: 2.22±4.00 vs. non-microscope: 3.69±3.61, P<0.02).

conclusionsOur study demonstrates that the intra-operative use of a microscope does not improve overall surgery-related outcomes, nor does it lead to superior long-term outcomes in pain and functional disability, 2 years after index surgery.

Indexed as

anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF)cervical spineintra-operative microscopepatient-reported outcomesSurgical outcomes

Identifiers

PMID27683692
PMCPMC5039832
OpenAlexW2268171016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.