Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31902001›Full record

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.

Luca Papavero, Paolo Lepori, Gregor Schmeiser

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors.

Luca PapaveroClinic for Spine Surgery, Schoen Clinic Hamburg Eilbek, Dehnhaide 120, D-22081, Hamburg, Germany. LPapavero@schoen-klinik.de.ORCID 0000-0002-3664-8736
Paolo LeporiGSpine4, I.R.C.C.S, Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0038-6655
Gregor SchmeiserClinic for Spine Surgery, Schoen Clinic Hamburg Eilbek, Dehnhaide 120, D-22081, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2432-8276

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ReoperationCervical VertebraeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesCervical anterior surgeryCervical revision surgeryComplications cervical surgeryImplant failure cervical surgeryMalalignment cervical spine

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.