ArticleGlobal spine journal2024
No Difference in Two-Year Revisions Between Hybrid Fusion and Two-Level Anterior Discectomy and Fusion: A National Database Study.
Article in Global spine journal, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nationwide Comparison of 2 year Revision Surgery Risk After Hybrid Cervical Surgery with 2-Level ACDF and 2-Level CDR Surgical Technique.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Comparative Outcomes of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Vs Hybrid Surgery in Multilevel Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective Cohort.
objectiveThis study utilized a large national database to compare two-year revision rates, in addition to complications and costs, of hybrid surgery (HS) compared to two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).
methodsThis study used the PearlDiver Mariner dataset selecting for patients aged 18 and older who had at least 90-day active longitudinal follow-up who underwent two-level ACDF or two-level Hybrid surgery (single level ACDF and single level CDA). Patients with prior spinal trauma, infection, cancer, or posterior fusion were excluded. Primary outcomes measures were 90-day major and minor medical complications, ED visits, readmissions, as well as two-year revisions. Patients were also assessed for postoperative dysphagia, incidental durotomy, vascular injury, 90-day surgical site, and implant complications. Additionally, hospitalization and postoperative costs were evaluated.
resultsThere were 4570 two-level ACDF surgeries and 888 hybrid surgeries. After matching the cohorts, no statistical differences in demographics were found. There were no differences in reoperation rates at all measured time points nor 2-year complications. HS had a lower incidence of major (1.6% vs 3.1%,
conclusionHybrid surgery is a safe and effective surgical treatment for cervical disease in appropriately selected patients.
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.