ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2020
Multilevel cervical arthroplasty-clinical and radiological outcomes.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Future of Arthroplasty in the Spine.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- The footprint mismatch of cervical disc arthroplasty comes from degenerative factor besides ethnic factor.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Effects of Obesity on Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Complications.Neurospine · 2023Article
- A Comparison of 2 Anterior Hybrid Techniques for 3-Level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) is a valid option for single-level cervical disc disease (CDD) as an alternative to fusion. However, the use in 3- and 4-level disc disease is under scrutiny with scarce data published so far. Our aim was to study clinical and radiological outcomes of arthroplasty in patients with multilevel CDD.
methodsRetrospective analysis of clinical records, pre- and post-operative neutral/dynamic X-rays of patients who underwent CDA in multilevel CDD (2-4 levels). We evaluated sagittal balance parameters (C2-7 and index angle, SVA), global and segmental range of motion (ROM)), neck and arm VAS, Odom's criteria, re-operation rate, adjacent segment disease (ASD), willingness to undertake the same procedure again. Rate of heterotopic ossification (HO) was studied for follow-up >2 years. A subgroup analysis was performed regarding 2-level versus 3- or 4-level arthroplasty.
resultsThirty-two patients were included, 6 males and 26 females, mean age of 46 years (range, 30-63). Seventy-seven cervical disc levels were treated with the same artificial disc. Twenty-one patients were operated on 2 levels, nine in 3 levels, and 2 patients in 4 levels. Post-operatively, there was a decrease in SVA (-2.2±8.36 mm, P=0.098) and an increase in global (3.7±9.6º, P=0.042) and index (1.3±6.1º, P=0.071) ROM. Mean nVAS and aVAS decreased (7.5±1.1 to 2.5±1.5; 6.3±1.9 to 2.2±1.7, P<0.05). Two-level versus 3-4 level patient subgroups showed a lower SVA (-1.3±8.1 mm P=0.47; -3.4±6.3 mm P=0.107), a slight increase in global (1.6±9.4º P=0.44; 7.2±11.7º P=0.07) and index (1.1±4.7º P=0.12; 1.3±8.1º P=0.35) ROM. HO was present in 9.9% (7/71) of disc levels operated, none of them with grade 3 or 4.
conclusionsMultilevel CDA provides good clinical and radiological outcomes, preserving global and segmental cervical mobility, while having a beneficial effect on sagittal balance. These results hold for 2 to 4 levels, making this technique a valuable option in selected patients with cervical multilevel CDD.
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.