ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2022
Recurrent spinal stenoses after implant removal: A case report.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and importance: Cervical spinal stenoses is becoming more and more common due to the aging population. The degenerative changes in the spine including discopathy or spondylosis will constrict and narrow the spinal canal and the usual site for the stenoses is in the cervical and lumbar region. The mainstay of the treatment is surgical, however there still a controversy regarding which approach is the best for the patient with cervical stenoses. Case presentation: In this case reports we present a case of 63-year-old male who came to our center due to weakness of arms and legs due to cervical spinal stenoses and underwent treatment after which the implant was removed, and the symptoms worsens. Clinical discussion: We performed Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) and insertion of a cages to stabilize the spine. ACDF associated with lower intraoperative blood loss, similar surgical duration, and complication rate compared with laminoplasty. From the radiological outcome, ACDF showed a better-preserved cervical lordosis, which could affects patient's quality of life. Conclusion: ACDF is one of the viable methods for the treatment of the cervical stenoses with lower complication rate and good clinical outcomes.
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.