Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34351401›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2021

Effect of Arthroplasty vs Fusion for Patients With Cervical Radiculopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Tonje Okkenhaug Johansen, Jarle Sundseth, Oddrun Anita Fredriksli, Hege Andresen, John-Anker Zwart, Frode Kolstad, Are Hugo Pripp, Sasha Gulati, Øystein Petter Nygaard

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00735176 (Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy With Arthroplasty Compared With Discectomy With Fusion and Cage), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

NCT00735176 nacompletednot on this map

Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy With Arthroplasty Compared With Discectomy With Fusion and Cage (ACDF. Clinical, Radiological and Biomechanical Aspects. A Randomized Multicenter Study.

TypeinterventionalSponsorNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyRan2008 to 2017Enrolled136ConditionsRadiculopathy, CervicalArmsCervical arthroplasty, Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Risk factors for failure to achieve minimal clinically important difference following cervical disc replacement.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Tonje Okkenhaug JohansenDepartment of Neurosurgery, St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Jarle SundsethDepartment of Neurosurgery, Oslo University Hospital Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway.
Oddrun Anita FredriksliDepartment of Neurosurgery, St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Hege AndresenDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
John-Anker ZwartFaculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Frode KolstadDepartment of Neurosurgery, Oslo University Hospital Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway.
Are Hugo PrippResearch Support Services, Oslo Centre of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Sasha GulatiDepartment of Neurosurgery, St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Øystein Petter NygaardDepartment of Neurosurgery, St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Oslo University Hospital · NOSt Olav's University Hospital · NONorwegian University of Science and Technology · NOUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Surgical treatment for cervical radiculopathy is increasing. Treatment with motion preserving anterior cervical disc arthroplasty was introduced to prevent symptomatic adjacent segment disease, and there is need to evaluate results of this treatment compared with standard anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Objective: To investigate clinical outcomes at 5 years for arthroplasty vs fusion in patients who underwent surgical treatment for cervical radiculopathy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, single-blinded, randomized clinical trial included patients aged 25 to 60 years with C6 or C7 radiculopathy referred to study sites' outpatient clinics from 2008 to 2013. Data were analyzed from December 2019 to December 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to arthroplasty or fusion. Patients were blinded to which treatment they received. The surgical team was blinded until nerve root decompression was completed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was change in Neck Disability Index (NDI) score. Secondary outcomes were arm and neck pain, measured with numeric rating scales (NRS); quality of life, measured with the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D); reoperation rates; and adjacent segment disease. Results: Among 147 eligible patients, 4 (2.7%) declined to participate and 7 (4.8%) were excluded. A total of 136 patients were randomized (mean [SD] age, 44.1 [7.0] years; 73 (53.7%) women), with 68 patients randomized to arthroplasty and 68 patients randomized to fusion. A total of 114 patients (83.8%) completed the 5-year follow-up. In the arthroplasty group, the mean NDI score was 45.9 (95% CI, 43.3 to 48.4) points at baseline and 22.2 (95% CI, 18.0 to 26.3) points at 5 years follow-up, and in the fusion group, mean NDI score was 51.3 (95% CI, 48.1 to 54.4) points at baseline, and 21.3 (95% CI, 17.0 to 25.6) points at 5 years follow-up. The changes in mean NDI scores between baseline and 5 years were statistically significant for arthroplasty (mean change, 24.8 [95% CI, 19.8 to 29.9] points; P < .001) and fusion (mean change, 29.9 [95% CI, 24.0 to 35.9] points; P < .001), but the change in mean NDI scores was not significantly different between groups (difference, 5.1 [95% CI, -2.6 to 12.7] points; P = .19). There were no significant differences in changes in arm pain (mean [SE] change, 3.5 [0.5] vs 3.1 [0.4]; P = .47), neck pain (mean [SE] change, 3.0 [0.5] vs 3.4 [0.5]; P = .50), EQ-5D (mean [SE] change, 0.39 [0.4] vs 0.45 [0.6]; P = .46), patients requiring reoperation (10 patients [14.7%] vs 8 patients [11.8%]; P = .61), and adjacent segment disease (0 patients vs 1 patient [1.5%]; P = .32) between the arthroplasty and fusion groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, patients treated with arthroplasty and fusion reported similar and substantial clinical improvement at 5 years. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00735176.

Indexed as

AdultArthroplastyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRadiculopathySpinal Fusion

Identifiers

PMID34351401
PMCPMC8343489
OpenAlexW3189562098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.