ReviewJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2019
MIS approaches in the cervical spine.
Review in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraoperative neuromonitoring use in posterior endoscopic cervical decompression: can it reduce complications?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 · 2026Article
- Evaluating Three-Dimensional Navigation versus Conventional Fluoroscopy for Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy: An Exploratory Cohort Comparison.Journal of neurological surgery. Part A, Central European neurosurgery · 2026Article
- Intraoperative Navigation in Cervical Spine Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Less Is More: Evaluating the Benefits of Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Enhancing Cervical Foraminotomy Outcomes With Patient-Specific 3D Anatomical Models: A Comparative Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- When Would Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery Not Be Preferable for Metastatic Spine Disease?International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Image Quality Comparison of Three 3D Mobile X-Ray Imaging Guidance Devices Used in Spine Surgery: A Phantom Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Pars interarticularis screws for posterior cervical fusion - investigating a new trajectory using a CT-based multiplanar reconstruction: Part I.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
- Surgical Technique of Central and Over-the-Top Full-Endoscopic Decompression of the Cervical Spine: A Technical Note.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Decompression for Ossified Posterior Longitudinal Ligament: A Technical Note.International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Minimally Invasive Instrumentation of the Cervical Spine: Past, Present, and Future.Acta neurochirurgica. Supplement · 2023Article
- Article
- Percutaneous Posterior Cervical Pedicle Instrumentation (C1 to C7) With Navigation Guidance: Early Series of 27 Cases.Global spine journal · 2022Article
- Image Guidance in Spinal Surgery: A Critical Appraisal and Future Directions.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Effects on pain of percutaneous treatment of cervical disc herniations using DiscoGel: A retrospective analysis.The neuroradiology journal · 2021Article
- Is Kummell's Disease a Misdiagnosed and/or an Underreported Complication of Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures? A Pattern of the Condition and Available Treatment Modalities.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Intraoperative image guidance for cervical spine surgery.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Review
- Percutaneous, Navigated Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Pedicle Screw Fixation.International journal of spine surgery · 2020Article
- Guidelines for navigation-assisted spine surgery.Frontiers of medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive surgical approaches for the treatment of spinal pathologies have accelerated over the past three decades and resulted in superior functional outcomes with less complications. Yet cervical pathologies have been slower to gain traction for multiple anatomical factors and its "high-risk" profile. Various minimally invasive techniques for cervical disease have now been described and validated in long-term studies with comparable outcomes to traditional open approaches and concomitant reduction in morbidity and socioeconomic costs. Transnasal operations can be used to treat ventral upper cervical disease, circumventing traditional and morbid transoral approaches. Posterior-based focused treatments for radiculopathy and myelopathy such as tubular-guided foraminotomies and unilateral laminotomies for bilateral cord decompression have also been described and becoming increasingly less invasive. Cervical fusions can now be performed percutaneously through modified, stand-alone facet joint cages that can be packed with allogeneic bone graft. These advances have been facilitated by the development of intraoperative imaging technologies (intraoperative CT) and 3-dimensional stereotactic navigation software. While this review focuses on these procedures and evidence-based outcomes data, the future for MIS applications in cervical spine surgery will continue to evolve over the coming years with wider indications and technological adjuncts.
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.