Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34812993›Full record

ReviewAdvances in therapy2022

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Open-Door Laminoplasty, French-Door Laminoplasty, Laminectomy and Fusion, and Laminectomy Alone for Multilevel Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Bayesian Network Analysis.

Xian Li, Hui Yu, Kristian Welle, Martin Gathen, Li Zhang, Jin Xiao, Koroush Kabir

Abstract readReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Efficacy and safety of laminoplasty combined with C3 laminectomy for patients with multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Clinical efficacy and safety analysis of the "Pre-set screw path technique" in cervical posterior single door laminoplasty with supportive titanium plate fixation: a prospective randomized controlled study.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 · 2026
    Trial
  3. [Effects of opening toward symptomatic side versus ossified side on effectiveness of unilateral open-door laminoplasty for cervical ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament with symptom-ossification mismatch].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Impact of frailty on short- and long-term outcomes following cervical laminoplasty for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a retrospective cohort study.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
  7. [Short-term effectiveness of floating island laminectomy surgery for thoracic spinal stenosis and myelopathy caused by ossification of ligamentum flavum].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Emerging Technologies within Spine Surgery.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Xian Li *Department of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Xiyuan Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Science, Beijing, 100091, China.
Hui Yu *Department of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Bonn, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Kristian WelleDepartment of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Bonn, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Martin GathenDepartment of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Bonn, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Li ZhangDepartment of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Bonn, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Jin XiaoDepartment of Orthopedics, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, 510080, China. xiaojinhn@163.com.
Koroush KabirDepartment of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Bonn, 53127, Bonn, Germany. Koroush.Kabir@ukbonn.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0110-7745
University Hospital Bonn · DEGuangdong Academy of Medical Sciences · CNXiyuan Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of open-door laminoplasty (OLP), French-door laminoplasty (FLP), laminectomy and fusion (LF), and laminectomy alone (LA) in treating multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy (MDCM).

methodsEmbase, PubMed, and Cochrane library were searched from their inception date to 7 January 2021. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing OLP, FLP, LF, and LA were identified to perform a network meta-analysis (NMA).

resultsA total of 30 studies with 2671 patients were included. Our NMA results showed no significant difference between LF and OLP, but both are superior to LA and FLP in the comparison of JOA (Japanese Orthopaedic Association) score improvement. LF showed a most unsatisfactory outcome in postoperative range of motion (ROM) compared with LA or OLP or with FLP. For the complication outcome, no significant differences were found. The surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) for JOA improvement was as follows: LF, OPL, LA, and FLP. For ROM reduction it was LA, OPL, FPL, and LF. For complications it was LF, LA, OLP, and FLP.

conclusionsConsidering all the evaluated criteria, none of the procedures showed the best outcome with least complications and optimal efficacy. However, OLP can be most recommended because of its second-ranking spectra in both of JOA improvement and ROM reduction, also with an acceptable incidence of complications, with the third least.

Indexed as

LaminoplastySpinal Cord DiseasesBayes TheoremCervical VertebraeHumansLaminectomyRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeFrench-door laminoplastyLaminectomy aloneLaminectomy and fusionMultilevel degenerative cervical myelopathyNetwork meta-analysisOpen-door laminoplasty

Identifiers

PMID34812993
OpenAlexW3217220172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.