ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2019
Modified expansive laminoplasty and fusion compared with anterior cervical surgeries in treating four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anterior versus posterior decompression and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: 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 · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare modified expansive laminoplasty and fusion (MELF) with anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF), and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), in treating four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).
methodsThis retrospective study included patients with four-level CSM who had undergone surgery at the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University between January 2013 and May 2015. D-values, Cobb's angle, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and quality of life (SF-36 scores) were compared between patients treated with ACCF/ACDF versus MELF.
resultsTwenty-six patients who underwent ACCF/ACDF and 26 who underwent MELF were included, and all showed bone fusion following treatment. The most common complications were dysphasia (12/26) in the ACCF/ACDF group and axial neck pain (7/26) in the MELF group. C5 nerve root palsy was not observed in either group. D value and Cobb's angle changes showed that ACDF/ACCF was more effective in curve correction than MELF. Postoperative improvements in JOA and SF-36 scores were noted in both groups, with no statistically significant between-group differences.
conclusionAnterior and posterior approaches may produce similar clinical outcomes in the surgical management of four-level CSM. MELF may avoid known complications of the posterior approach.
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.