ArticleCureus2021
Management of Malpositioned Cervical Interfacet Spacers: An Institutional Case Series.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Targeted anterior expansion of the cervical facet joints achieves indirect foraminal decompression and reduces spondylolisthesis via a posterior approach: a cadaveric study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Perioperative and safety outcomes following tissue-sparing posterior cervical fusion to revise a pseudarthrosis: A multicenter retrospective review of 150 cases.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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Posterior cervical foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) are the mainstay treatments for cervical radiculopathy. A recent alternative or adjunct involves the placement of interfacet spacers, which promote indirect decompression by increasing foraminal height. Cervical interfacet spacers have been shown to be safe options for indirect decompression and improve short-term clinical outcomes in patients with cervical spine pathologies. However, no previous data regarding malpositioned spacers and their management have been reported. Given this paucity of data, we aim to present examples of malpositioned interfacet spacers and their management. Methods This was a retrospective single-center review. Results Twenty-five patients were identified in which interfacet spacers were used at a single level in 19 cases, two levels in five cases, and three levels in one case. The cohort had a mean follow-up of 14.4 months. Among 60 total spacers placed, two required repositioning (3.3%). The first underwent bilateral placement at C4/5 and developed a unilateral deltoid palsy postoperatively. She was taken back to the operating room the same day for implant removal. A second patient underwent removal after a malpositioned implant at C4/5 was identified on an intraoperative CT scan. A third patient had spacers placed at a referring hospital and presented with progressive neck pain and radiculopathy. She underwent successful removal with a resolution of her symptoms. Conclusions Interfacet spacers represent a novel technique for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy, however, there are limited data on their utilization. We present the first reports of malpositioned spacers and their management. Patients with small facet joints and lateral masses may be at increased risk for malposition, and intraoperative fluoroscopy may not adequately confirm implant placement. Surgeons should use caution when implementing new technology with a low threshold for intraoperative CT to confirm the appropriate placement of these devices.
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.