Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35678891›Full record

ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2023

Instrumented fusion versus instrumented non-fusion following expansive open-door laminoplasty for multilevel cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament.

Hang Shi, Lu Chen, Lei Zhu, Zan-Li Jiang, Xiao-Tao Wu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hang ShiDepartment of Spine Surgery, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210009, Jiangsu, China.
Lu ChenDepartment of Spine Surgery, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210009, Jiangsu, China.
Lei ZhuDepartment of Spine Surgery, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210009, Jiangsu, China.
Zan-Li JiangDepartment of Spine Surgery, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210009, Jiangsu, China.
Xiao-Tao WuDepartment of Spine Surgery, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210009, Jiangsu, China. wuxiaotaospine@seu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1974-8193
Zhongda Hospital Southeast University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the outcomes of expansive open-door laminoplasty with instrumented fusion (ELIF) and expansive open-door laminoplasty with instrumented non-fusion (ELINF) for multilevel cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL).

methodsPatients who underwent ELIF or ELINF due to multilevel cervical OPLL from June 2013 to June 2019 were identified. Clinical and radiological outcomes were compared between the two groups.

resultsA total of 78 patients were enrolled in this study with a minimum follow-up of 24 months, including 42 patients in the ELIF group and 36 patients in the ELINF group. At the final follow-up, sagittal vertical axis (SVA) and C2-C7 Cobb angle in the ELIF group were significantly better than those in the ELINF group, and cervical range of movement (ROM) in the ELIF group decreased significantly than that in the ELINF group. The incidence of OPLL progression at the final follow-up was 4.76% (2/42) in the ELIF group and 27.78% (10/36) in the ELINF group. Postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, neck disability index (NDI), and visual analog scale (VAS) score improved significantly in each group, but JOA score and recovery rate (RR) in the ELIF group were significantly better than those in the ELINF group at the final follow-up. When K-line was positive, the difference in the final JOA score between the two groups was not significant, but the RR in the ELIF group was significantly better than that in the ELINF group. When K-line was negative, the final JOA score and RR in the ELIF group were significant higher than those in the ELINF group.

conclusionsELIF and ELINF were two effective surgical procedures for treating multilevel cervical OPLL. However, ELIF was superior to ELINF due to better postoperative JOA score and RR, significant improvement of C2-C7 Cobb angle and maintenance of SVA, and suppressant effect on OPLL progression, especially for patients with K-line ( - ) OPLL.

Indexed as

LaminoplastyOssification of Posterior Longitudinal LigamentCervical VertebraeHumansLongitudinal LigamentsOsteogenesisRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeExpansive open-door laminoplasty with instrumented fusionExpansive open-door laminoplasty with instrumented non-fusionOssification of the posterior longitudinal ligamentProgressionRecovery rate

Identifiers

PMID35678891
OpenAlexW4281645845

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.