ArticleBioMed research international2020
Comparative Five-Year Surgical Outcomes of Open-Door versus French-Door Laminoplasty in Multilevel Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.
Article in BioMed research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Surgical options for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine: a narrative review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Review
- Opening Side of Unilateral Open-Door Laminoplasty Does Not Impact Improvement in Arm Pain or Space Available for the Spinal Cord.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Delayed neurological dysfunction following posterior laminectomy with lateral mass screw fixation: A case report and review of literature.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- A Novel Method of Making Hinges Using a Newly Designed Sharp Rongeur to Enhance Radiological and Clinical Outcomes in French-Door Cervical Expansive Laminoplasty.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, open-door laminoplasty, or laminectomy with fusion: Which is the better treatment for four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy?Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the five-year surgical outcomes between Open-Door laminoplasty (ODL) and French-Door laminoplasty (FDL) in the management of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MCSM).
methodsSixty patients with MCSM, who were operated by ODL or FDL, were included in this study and followed up for at least 5 years. The average follow-up period was 69.2 ± 3.2 months. The modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score and radiological assessments including the Cobb angle and cervical range of motion (ROM) were evaluated and compared before surgery and at the final follow-up. The incidence of postoperative complications and medical costs were also compared.
resultsBoth ODL and FDL groups achieved significant improvements of the mJOA score in postoperative 5 years; the average recovery rate (RR) of the mJOA score in the ODL and FDL groups was 72.14 ± 6.97% and 69.53 ± 7.51%, respectively. No statistically significant differences regarding the pre- and postoperative mJOA score, the RR of the mJOA score, the loss and the loss rate of the Cobb angle, and the incidence of postoperative complications existed between ODL and FDL. The mean loss and the loss rate of cervical ROM in the FDL group (18.70 ± 8.91°, 41.08 ± 11.17%) were significantly higher than those of the ODL group (13.81 ± 8.62°, 31.47 ± 12.43%) (
conclusionsBoth ODL and FDL are effective for MCSM. The 5-year neurological results are similar between the two groups. ODL trends to be superior to FDL in postoperative preservation of cervical ROM while FDL reduced medical costs more greatly.
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.