ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2020
A Comparison of 2 Anterior Hybrid Techniques for 3-Level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of hybrid surgeries for the treatment of three-level cervical degenerative disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Is Motion Preservation With Three-Level Hybrid Cervical Surgery Achieved Without Compromising Clinical Outcomes? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2026Review
- Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: Rationale, Designs, and Results of Randomized Controlled Trials.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- The impact of smoking on outcomes following anterior cervical fusion-nonfusion hybrid surgery: a retrospective single-center cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Novel hybrid surgical techniques that incorporate anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with total disc replacement are widely used. Based on the number of implanted discs, 3-level hybrid surgery can be classified as single fusion combined with double replacement and single replacement combined with double fusion. Few studies to date have directly compared these hybrid techniques. The present study compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of these methods and assessed their characteristics and benefits. MATERIAL AND METHODS Clinical and radiological outcomes were retrospectively evaluated in 64 consecutive patients who underwent 3-level hybrid surgery by single fusion combined with double replacement or single replacement combined with double fusion. RESULTS Significant differences between the 2 groups were observed in postoperative range of motion of C2-C7. C2-C7 cervical lordosis assessed preoperatively and at final follow-up differed significantly in patients who underwent single replacement combined with double fusion. This group showed a higher incidence of heterotopic ossification than patients who underwent double replacement combined with single fusion. CONCLUSIONS Both types of hybrid surgery are safe and effective in treating 3-level cervical degenerative disc diseases. Single replacement combined with double fusion showed greater accuracy in correcting cervical lordosis, but was associated with a higher incidence of heterotopic ossification. In contrast, single fusion combined with double replacement was superior in maintaining cervical range of motion.
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.