Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33292175›Full record

ReviewBMC musculoskeletal disorders2020

Surgical decision-making for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament versus other types of degenerative cervical myelopathy: anterior versus posterior approaches.

Suzanna Sum Sum Kwok, Jason Pui Yin Cheung

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Letter to the editor concerning "anterior cervical tunnectomy and fusion (ACTF): A novel technique for cervical Canal decompression" by C. Qiu et al. (Eur spine J. 2023; 32:2110-2119).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 · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Suzanna Sum Sum KwokDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, The University of Hong Kong, Professorial Block, 5th Floor, 102 Pokfulam Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, SAR, China.
Jason Pui Yin CheungDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, The University of Hong Kong, Professorial Block, 5th Floor, 102 Pokfulam Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, SAR, China. cheungjp@hku.hk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7052-0875
Queen Mary Hospital · CN

Funding

Sanming Project of Medicine in Shenzhen (CN) SZSM201612055
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe debate between anterior or posterior approach for pathologies such as cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) have drawn heated debate but are still inconclusive. A narrative review was performed specifically to study the differences pertaining to OPLL and other causes of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Current evidence suggests that anterior approach is preferred for K-line (-) OPLL, K-line (+) with canal occupying ratio > 60% and DCM with pre-existing cervical kyphosis. Posterior approach is preferred for K-line (+) OPLL with canal-occupying ratio < 50-60%, and multi-level CSM. No particular advantage for either approach was observed for DCM in a lordotic cervical spine. Anterior approach is generally associated with more complications and thus needs to be weighed carefully during decision-making. The evidence is not convincing for comparing single versus multi-level involvement, and the role of patients' co-morbidity status, pre-existing osteoporosis and co-existent spinal pathologies in influencing patient outcome and surgical options. This should be a platform for future research directives.

conclusionFrom this review, evidence is still inconclusive but there are some factors to consider, and DCM and OPLL should be considered separately for decision-making. Anterior approach is considered for pre-existing cervical kyphosis in DCM, for K-line (-) regardless of canal-occupying ratio, and K-line (+) and canal-occupying ratio > 60% for OPLL patients. Posterior approach is considered for patients with multi-level pathology for DCM, and K-line (+) and canal-occupying ratio < 50-60% for OPLL.

Indexed as

Ossification of Posterior Longitudinal LigamentSpinal Cord DiseasesCervical VertebraeDecompression, SurgicalHumansLongitudinal LigamentsOsteogenesisTreatment OutcomeCervical myelopathyCervical spineCervical spondylotic myelopathyCSMDCMDegenerative cervical myelopathyOPLLOssification of the posterior longitudinal ligament

Identifiers

PMID33292175
PMCPMC7724709
OpenAlexW3113172212

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.