Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35392022›Full record

ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2022

Four-level anterior versus posterior cervical fusions: Perioperative outcomes and five-year reoperation rates: Outcomes after four-level anterior versus posterior cervical procedures.

Peter Y Joo, Rahul H Jayaram, William M McLaughlin, Bijan Ameri, Alexander J Kammien, Paul M Arnold, Jonathan N Grauer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Risk of Postoperative Complications After Total Hip and Total Knee Arthroplasty in Behcet Syndrome Patients.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Peter Y JooDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.
Rahul H JayaramDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.
William M McLaughlinDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.
Bijan AmeriDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.
Alexander J KammienDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.
Paul M ArnoldDepartment of Neurosurgery, Carle Illinois College of Medicine, Champaign, IL, United States.
Jonathan N GrauerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.
Yale University · USIllinois College · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Multilevel cervical pathology can often be addressed via anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical fusion (PCF). While posterior procedures may be technically easier for four-level pathology, there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches that make it of interest to compare outcomes. The purpose was to compare perioperative adverse events and long-term cervical reoperation rates of four-level ACDF and PCF. Methods: The 2010 to Q1 2020 PearlDiver MSpine database was queried. Patients undergoing isolated elective four-level ACDF or PCF were identified (excluding cases performed for trauma, neoplasm, and/or infections) and 1:1 matched based on age, sex, and comorbidities. Ninety-day adverse events were compared with univariate and multivariate analyses. Five-year incidences of subsequent cervical reoperations were also compared. Results: A total of 3,714 patients 1:1 matched for four-level ACDF and PCF performed for degenerative pathologies were identified (1,857 for each of the study groups). On multivariate analysis controlling for age, sex, and comorbidities, PCF was found to have significantly greater odds ratios (OR) for any (OR 2.12), serious (OR 2.31), and minor (OR 1.95) adverse events, as well as for length of stay ≥3 days (OR 1.76), p<0.001 for each. However, PCF had nearly three times lower odds of dysphagia compared to ACDF (OR 0.36, p<0.001). At five years, four-level ACDF cases were found to have significantly higher reoperation rates compared to four-level PCF cases (26.3% vs 18.3%, p<0.001). Conclusion: In evaluating four-level cervical cases, compared to anterior approach cases, posterior approach procedures were associated with approximately double the odds of any, serious, and minor adverse events, but around one third the rate of dysphagia and two thirds the rate of five-year reoperations. While the pathology may dictate surgical approach, this data suggests that the choice between four-level anterior versus posterior approach becomes a balance of risks/benefit considerations.

Indexed as

ACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusionBig dataCervical myelopathyCI, confidence intervalCPT, Current Procedural TerminologyDysphagiaECI, Elixhauser Comorbidity IndexICD, International Classification of DiseaseLOS, length of stayMulti-level cervical fusionOR, odds ratioPCF, posterior cervical fusionRadiculopathySD, standard deviationSpinal arthrodesisStenosis

Identifiers

PMID35392022
PMCPMC8980614
OpenAlexW4221104905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.