Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29605899›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 Society2018

Reoperation and complications after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and cervical disc arthroplasty: a study of 52,395 cases.

Michael P Kelly, Claire D Eliasberg, Max S Riley, Remi M Ajiboye, Nelson F SooHoo

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
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, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05522010 (Dynamic Cervical Implant), which is not on this map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT05522010 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Dynamic Cervical Implant (DCI) Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy And Fusion(ACDF) For The Treatment Of Single-Level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD): An RCT

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssiut UniversityRan2022 to 2024Enrolled50ConditionsCervical Degenerative Disc DiseaseArmsCervical spine surgery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Complications of cervical total disc replacement and their associations with heterotopic ossification: 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 · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Predictors of failure after primary anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for subaxial traumatic spine injuries.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
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Full endoscopic cervical spine surgery.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Clinical and radiological evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up: a prospective study of 384 patients.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 · 2019
    Article
  20. 30-Day unplanned surgery in cervical spondylotic myelopathy surgically treated: a single-center experience.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 · 2019
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Michael P KellyDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Ave, Campus Box 8233, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA. kellymi@wudosis.wustl.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6221-7406
Claire D EliasbergHospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Max S RileyDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Ave, Campus Box 8233, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
Remi M AjiboyeDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Nelson F SooHooDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
University of California, Los Angeles · USWashington University in St. Louis · USHospital for Special Surgery · US

Funding

WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational SciencesUL1TR000448 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2012 to 2016
$41.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000448NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002345
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to analyze rates of perioperative complications and subsequent cervical surgeries in patients treated for cervical degenerative disc disease with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and those treated with artificial cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA) for up to 5-year follow-up.

methodsCalifornia's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development discharge database was analyzed for patients aged 18-65 years undergoing single-level ACDF or ACDA between 2003 and 2010. Medical comorbidities were identified with CMS-Condition Categories. Readmissions for short-term complications of the procedure were identified and rates of subsequent cervical surgeries were calculated at 90-day and 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up. Multivariate regression modeling was used to identify associations with complications and subsequent cervical surgeries correcting for patient and provider characteristics.

resultsA total of 52,395 eligible cases were identified: 50,926 ACDF and 1469 ACDA. Readmission was less common in the ACDA group (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.48-1.0, p = 0.048). Subsequent cervical spine surgery was more common in the ACDF group in the immediate perioperative period (within 90 days of surgery) (ACDF 3.35% vs. ACDA 2.04%, OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.44-0.92, p = 0.015). At 1-, 3-, and 5-year postoperatively, rates of subsequent cervical surgeries were similar between the two cohorts.

conclusionsWe found no protective benefit for ACDA versus ACDF for single-level disease at up to 5-year follow-up in the largest cohort of patients examined to date. Early complications were rare in both cohorts stressing the value of large cohort studies to study risk factors for rare events. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Indexed as

ArthroplastyDiskectomySpinal FusionAdolescentAdultAgedCervical VertebraeHumansIntervertebral DiscIntervertebral Disc DegenerationMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsReoperationRetrospective StudiesYoung AdultArtificial discCervical degenerative disc diseaseReoperationsSpinal fusionTotal disc arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID29605899
PMCPMC6488512
OpenAlexW2795013239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.