ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2020
Revision surgery in cervical spine.
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, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-reported Outcomes in Primary versus Revision Cervical and Lumbar Spine Surgery: An Analysis of the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the efficacy of posterior hemivertebrectomy combined with two or more segments fusion.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- The Incidence, Changes and Treatments of Cervical Deformity After Infection and Inflammation.Neurospine · 2023Article
- Incidence and local risk factors of infection after anterior sub-axial cervical spine surgery: retrospective database analysis of 4897 consecutive procedures.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- Barbed Suture versus Interrupted Suture in Posterior Cervical Spine Surgery: Are They Equivalent?Spine surgery and related research · 2022Article
- Reliability and Utility of Various Methods for Evaluation of Bone Union after Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Early Reoperation Rates and Its Risk Factors after Instrumented Spinal Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Spinal Disease: A Nationwide Cohort Study of 65,355 Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- PEEK versus titanium-coated PEEK cervical cages: fusion rate.Acta neurochirurgica · 2022Article
- Complex Revision Surgery for Cervical Deformity or Implant Failure.Neurospine · 2020Article
- Anterior Reconstruction Techniques for Cervical Spine Deformity.Neurospine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo report the indications, presurgical planning, operative techniques, complications for making decisions in cervical revision surgery (CRS).
methodsHundred and two patients underwent CRS over a four-year period. Epidemiological data, the type of first surgery, CRS surgical techniques and complications were retrospectively evaluated. Pain and neurological symptoms were assessed according to the validated Odom criteria. CRS indications were classified into five categories: adjacent segment disease (ASD), infection (INF), implant failure-pseudarthrosis (IFP), non-infectious complication, and deformity. Patients were classified into three groups, according to the approach of the index procedure: anterior, posterior, or 360°.
resultsThe mean patient age was 63 years (59% males). ASD (40%), INF (23%), and IFP (22%) were observed in 85% of patients. CRS was performed with the same approach that was used in the index procedure in 64% of the anterior group and in 83% of the posterior group. In the 360° group, 64% of CRSs was performed with a posterior access. The early complication rate was 4.9%. The outcome was excellent in 19 patients (19%), good in 37 patients (36%), satisfactory in 27 patients (26%), and poor in six patients (6%). Thirteen patients (13%) were lost to follow-up. No implants failed radiologically or required surgical revision.
conclusionsCRS required painstaking planning and mastery of a variety of surgical techniques. The results were rewarding in half and satisfactory in a quarter of the patients. The complication rate was lower than expected. In the most complex cases, referral to a specialized center is recommended. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31902001What 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.