Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28718168›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2017

Higher reoperation rate following cervical disc replacement in a retrospective, long-term comparative study of 715 patients.

Martin Skeppholm, Thomas Henriques, Tycho Tullberg

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The lexicon for periprosthetic bone loss versus osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review.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 · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. ProDisc-C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the surgical treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease: two-year outcomes of Asian prospective randomized controlled multicentre study.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 · 2022
    Trial
  3. Posterior migration of the mobile core in an unconstrained cervical disc replacement: a case report.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
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Clinical management of bone loss in cervical total disc arthroplasty: literature review and treatment recommendations.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 · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Posterior endoscopic cervical foramiotomy and discectomy: clinical and radiological computer tomography evaluation on the bony effect of decompression with 2 years follow-up.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 · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Analysis of re-operations after cervical total disc replacement in a consecutive series of 535 patients receiving the ProDisc-C device.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 · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review : A survey of the "medical" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2017.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 · 2018
    Review
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Martin SkeppholmKarolinska Institute, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics (LIME), Medical Management Centre, Health Economics and Economic Evaluation Research Group, Tomtebodavägen 18 A, SE-171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. martin.skeppholm@rkc.se.
Thomas HenriquesCenter for Spine Surgery in Stockholm, Södra Fiskartorpsvägen 15 H, 114 85, Stockholm, Sweden.
Tycho TullbergStockholm Spine Center, Löwenströmska Sjukhuset, 194 89, Upplands Väsby, Sweden.
Karolinska Institutet · SESpine Center Göteborg · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate rates of secondary surgical interventions in a cohort treated with fusion (ACDF), artificial disc replacement (ADR) or a posterior surgical procedure (PP) because of a cervical degenerative pathology.

methods715 patients treated with any primary cervical surgical intervention between the years 2000 and 2010 were retrospectively evaluated regarding frequency of secondary surgery between the years 2000 and 2015, thus giving a follow-up time of minimum 5 years. Reasons for secondary surgery as well as choice of new intervention were evaluated. Data were collected from a single-center setting.

resultsFollow-up rate was 94%. 79 (11%) patients in total underwent a new operation during follow-up. 50/504 (10%), 27/172 (15%), and 2/39 (5%) of the patients had a second surgical intervention in the ACDF, ADR, and PP groups, respectively. There was a statistically significant higher rate of repeated surgery in the ADR group compared to the ACDF group, OR 1.7 (CI 1.06-2.8), p = 0.03. Risk for repeated surgery at index level was even higher for ADR, OR 5.1 (CI 2.4-10.7), p < 0.001. Reoperation rate because of ASD in the whole cohort did not differ between ACDF and ADR groups, p = 0.40.

conclusionThe group initially treated with artificial disc replacement showed higher rate of reoperations and more implant-related complications. In this cohort, artificial disc replacement was not protective against reoperation because of adjacent segment pathology.

Indexed as

AdultCervical VertebraeDecompression, SurgicalDiskectomyFemaleHumansIntervertebral Disc DegenerationLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedProstheses and ImplantsRadiographyReoperationRetrospective StudiesSpinal FusionTomography, X-Ray ComputedCervical spineReoperation rateSecondary surgery

Identifiers

PMID28718168
OpenAlexW2735991859

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.