ArticleYonsei medical journal2021
Revision Surgery for a Failed Artificial Disc.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2021. 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.
- Patient outcomes and surgical strategies in revision cervical arthroplasty following M6-C™ disc-related osteolysis.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 · 2025Article
- Innovative Approaches for the Treatment of Spinal Disorders: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of orthopaedics and sports medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical management of bone loss in cervical total disc arthroplasty: literature review and treatment recommendations.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 · 2024Review
- Article
- Radiological Changes in Adjacent and Index Levels after Cervical Disc Arthroplasty.Yonsei medical journal · 2022Article
- National trends in post-operative complications for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus cervical disc arthroplasty from 2012 to 2022.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to present our experience with failures in C-TDR and revision surgery outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively examined patients who underwent revision surgery due to the failure of C-TDR between May 2005 to March 2019. Thirteen patients (8 males and 5 females) were included in this study. The mean age was 46.1 years (range: 22-61 years), and the average follow-up period was 19.5 months (range: 12-64 months). The outcome measures of pre- and post-operative neck and arm pain using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and functional impairment were assessed using a modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scale and the Neck Disability Index (NDI).
resultsThe main complaints of patients were posterior neck pain (77%), radiculopathy (62%), and/or myelopathy (62%). The causes of failure of C-TDR were improper indications for the procedure, osteolysis and mobile implant use, inappropriate techniques, and postoperative infection. The most common surgical level was C5-6, followed by C4-5. After revision surgery, the neck and arm pain VAS (preoperative vs. postoperative: 5.46 vs. 1.31; 4.86 vs. 1.08), a modified JOA scale (14.46 vs. 16.69), and the NDI (29.77 vs. 9.31) scores were much improved.
conclusionC-TDR is good surgical option. However, it is very important to adhere to strict surgical indications and contraindications to avoid failure of C-TDR. The results of reoperations were good regardless of the approach. Therefore, various reoperation options could be considered in patients with failed C-TDR.
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.