ArticleActa neurochirurgica2020
Volumetric analysis of bilateral spinal canal decompression via hemilaminectomy versus laminoplasty in cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computerized Three-Dimensional Analysis: A Novel Method to Assess the Effect of Open-Door Laminoplasty.Acta neurochirurgica. Supplement · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is a degenerative process of the cervical spine requiring surgical decompression to prevent neurological deterioration. While both anterior and posterior approaches yield satisfactory results, posterior decompression is preferred in cases of the multilevel disease. In 2015, we described a muscle-sparing, novel technique of bilateral osteoligamentous decompression via hemilaminectomy (OLD) for CSM. In this study, we investigate whether this technique offers comparable volumetric results to laminoplasty in terms of spinal canal enlargement and whether this technique can yield significant clinical improvement.
methodsPatients undergoing OLD due to CSM were prospectively enrolled in this study and then matched to and compared with a historic cohort of patients with CSM treated by laminoplasty. An independent sample t test was performed to analyze whether the volumetric gain in the two separate groups was statistically significant. Patients in the OLD cohort were clinically evaluated with the mJOA score preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. To assess clinical improvement, a paired sample t test was performed.
resultsA total of 38 patients were included in the analysis: 19 underwent OLD and 19 underwent laminoplasty. Both groups were well matched in terms of sex, age, preoperative spinal canal volume, and involved levels. Both surgical methods yielded statistically significant volumetric gain in the cervical spinal canal, but a trend towards a greater volume gain was seen in the OLD group. In the OLD group, a statistically significant clinical improvement was also demonstrated.
conclusionsOur study reveals that OLD can yield a comparable extent of decompression to laminoplasty in CSM while also delivering statistically significant clinical improvement.
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.