ArticleSAGE open medicine2018
Anterior versus posterior approach to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy, clinical and radiological results with long period of follow-up.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of anterior and posterior approaches for functional improvement in cervical myelopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 33,025 patients.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Review
- Clinical and Radiological Outcome of Posterior Cervical Fusion Using Philips AlluraXper FD20 Angiography Suite.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- The value of Clinical signs in the diagnosis of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy - A Systematic review and Meta-analysis.Global spine journal · 2024Review
- The Frequency of Symptoms in Patients With a Diagnosis of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Results of a Scoping Review.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Impact of Preoperative Frailty on Outcomes in Patients with Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Undergoing Anterior vs. Posterior Cervical Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Minimally invasive fenestration for decompression of C2-C3 spinal stenosis.BMJ case reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Anterior vs Posterior Approach in Multilevel Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Nationwide Propensity-Matched Analysis of Complications, Outcomes, and Narcotic Use.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- Current concepts of spondylosis and posterior spinal motion preservation for radiologists.Skeletal radiology · 2021Review
- Surgical decision-making for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament versus other types of degenerative cervical myelopathy: anterior versus posterior approaches.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Review
- Kyphosis Correction in Patients Undergoing a Four-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.Cureus · 2020Article
- Sagittal alignment of the cervical spine: do we know enough for successful surgery?Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2020Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical spondylotic myelopathy increases with age, but not all cases are symptomatic. It is usually diagnosed clinically and radiologically (X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging). Surgical treatment is indicated in severe symptomatic cases, while treatment controversy exists in the presence of less severe cases. Anterior and posterior approaches are generally used for decompression with no significant differences in the results of both.
methodsA total of 287 patients of cervical spondylotic myelopathy were treated at our hospital between January 2004 and December 2015. Only 140 patients were eligible for our study. They had at least 5 years of follow-up using full clinical scores and radiological evaluation. They were divided into two groups: group I with 73 patients (aged 23-79 years) underwent posterior decompression, lateral mass instrumentation, and fusion, while group II with 67 patients (aged 33-70 years) underwent anterior decompression, instrumentation, and fusion. Neck Disability Index, local score, and X-ray were used in the evaluation of the patients.
resultsPreoperative mean ± standard deviation of Neck Disability Index of both the groups was 32.06 ± 6.33 and 29.88 ± 5.48, which improved in the last visit (>5 years) to 5.81 ± 7.39 and 2.94 ± 5.48 for groups I and II, respectively (p value <0.05). The local score of groups I and II was (P = 1, F = 21, G = 31, E = 19) and (P = 1, F = 12, G = 36, E = 18), which on discharge day improved to (P = 1, F = 4, G = 12, E = 55) and (P = 0, F = 3, G = 6, E = 58) at last follow-up, respectively. Fusion rate was nearly equal for both the groups during all the follow-up intervals and it was 91.1% and 91.7% in the last follow-up.
conclusionThere were no significant differences in the clinical and radiological results between the anterior and posterior approaches used in the surgical treatment of spondylotic cervical myelopathy. However, statistically significant results of Neck Disability Index of anterior approach were not clinically important and may be due to changes in the size and shape of the neck in group II.
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.