Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36061960›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2022

Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Keyhole Foraminotomy versus Microscopic Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Single Level Unilateral Cervical Radiculopathy.

Weihu Ma, Yujie Peng, Song Zhang, Yulong Wang, Kaifeng Gan, Xuchen Zhao, Dingli Xu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of general medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Comparative effectiveness of posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy with fusion for single-level cervical radiculopathy: a target trial emulation 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
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  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.

Weihu MaOrthopedic Department, Ningbo No.6 Hospital, Zhejiang, Ningbo, People's Republic of China.
Yujie PengClinical Medical Department, Medical School of Ningbo University Zhejiang, Ningbo, People's Republic of China.
Song ZhangClinical Medical Department, Medical School of Ningbo University Zhejiang, Ningbo, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0001-6513-9861
Yulong WangClinical Medical Department, Medical School of Ningbo University Zhejiang, Ningbo, People's Republic of China.
Kaifeng GanOrthopedic Department, The Affiliated Lihuili Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, People's Republic of China.
Xuchen ZhaoClinical Medical Department, Medical School of Ningbo University Zhejiang, Ningbo, People's Republic of China.
Dingli XuClinical Medical Department, Medical School of Ningbo University Zhejiang, Ningbo, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-9046-0718

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes between microscopic anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and percutaneous endoscopic cervical keyhole foraminotomy (PECF) for single level unilateral cervical radiculopathy. Methods: A total of 127 patients (59 in PECF VS 68 in ACDF) were enrolled in this study from April 2016 to May 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Clinical data including baseline data, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Visual Analogue Scale for neck and arm (VAS-n, VAS-a) were collected and compared. Radiological evaluation such as disc height, ROM of cervical, Cobb's angle of cervical and Cobb's angle of operated segment was measured by two experienced radiologists in twice. Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups in the baseline data, and hospital stay was significantly decreased in PECF group than ACDF group (P < 0.001). PECF group did not yield superior better outcomes in NDI, VAS-a and VAS-n than ACDF group except at 1-month follow-up. As for radiological outcomes, PECF group has significantly better cervical motion, cervical angle and segmental angle than ADCF group at 12- and 24-month follow-up visit (P < 0.05); however, ACDF had shown better disc height restoration and maintenance than PECF (P < 0.05). More complications including surface hematoma and swallowing difficulty were occurred in ADCF group. Conclusion: Percutaneous endoscopic cervical keyhole foraminotomy could be the alternative method for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in selective cases. However, the indication should be fulfilled, more studies need to be conducted to further testify the efficacy of PECF.

Indexed as

microscopic anterior cervical discectomy and fusionpercutaneous endoscope cervical keyhole foraminotomyunilateral cervical radiculopathy

Identifiers

PMID36061960
PMCPMC9439641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.