Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31607089›Full record

ArticleNeurospine2019

Effect of Myelopathy on Early Clinical Improvement After Cervical Disc Replacement: A Study of a Local Patient Cohort and a Large National Cohort.

Andre M Samuel, Harold G Moore, Avani S Vaishnav, Steven McAnany, Todd Albert, Sravisht Iyer, Yoshihiro Katsuura, Catherine Himo Gang, Sheeraz A Qureshi

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurospine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Artificial intelligence and machine learning based predictive analytics in cervical myelopathy - a scoping 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 · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andre M SamuelHospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Harold G MooreWeill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Avani S VaishnavHospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Steven McAnanyHospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Todd AlbertHospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Sravisht IyerHospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Yoshihiro KatsuuraHospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Catherine Himo GangHospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Sheeraz A QureshiHospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Hospital for Special Surgery · USCornell University · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
Disparities in COVID Disease Severity and Outcomes in New York CityUL1TR002384 · NCATS · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI JULIANNE L IMPERATO-MCGINLEY · 2017 to 2026
$86.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002384
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCervical disc replacement (CDR) is an effective long-term treatment for both cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. However, there may be unique differences in the early postoperative clinical improvement for patients with and without myelopathy. In addition, previous studies using CDR to treat cervical myelopathy were underpowered to determine risk factors for relatively postoperative medical complications.

methodsTwo different cohorts were studied. A local cohort of patients undergoing CDR by a single surgeon was utilized to study the early postoperative course of clinical improvement. In addition, a national cohort of patients undergoing CDR in the 2015 and 2016 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was utilized to study differences in postoperative medical complications after CDR. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of cervical myelopathy were identified in both cohorts, and perioperative outcomes and complications were compared to patients without myelopathy.

resultsA total of 43 patients undergoing CDR were included in the institutional cohort, of those 16 patients (37% of cohort) had a preoperative diagnosis of cervical myelopathy. A total of 3,023 patients undergoing CDR were included in the national cohort, of those 411 (13% of cohort) had a preoperative diagnosis of cervical myelopathy. In the institutional cohort, the nonmyelopathy group had a lower initial Neck Disability Index (NDI) and saw a faster improvement in NDI by 2 weeks postoperative. However, at 24 weeks there was no significant difference between groups in terms of NDI. Interestingly, only the nonmyelopathy cohort had a significant improvement in modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score by 6 weeks (p<0.05). In the national cohort, myelopathy was associated with longer operative time and length of stay (p<0.05). However, there was no significant difference in perioperative complications (p>0.05) between myelopathy and nonmyelopathy patients.

conclusionSignificant improvements in NDI, visual analogue scale (VAS)-arm pain, and VAS-neck pain are seen in both myelopathy and nonmyelopathy populations undergoing CDR by 6 weeks postoperatively. However, nonmyelopathy populations improve faster by 2 weeks postoperatively. In the national cohort analysis, medical complications were similarly low in both myelopathy and nonmyelopathy groups.

Indexed as

Cervical disc arthroplastyMyelopathyOutcomesRadiculopathy

Identifiers

PMID31607089
PMCPMC6790731
OpenAlexW2977032139

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.