ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2023
Comparative Study between Caspar Cervical Retractor System and Traditional S Retractor in Application on Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fixation.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of microscopy‑assisted anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in a selected cohort with soft giant cervical disc herniation‑induced cervical spondylotic myelopathy.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2025Article
- Airway Compromise in Adults Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Review
- A Novel Intraoperative Posture-Adjustment Apparatus for Correction of Cervical Lordosis in Anterior Cervical Surgery.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAlthough Caspar cervical retractor system (CCRS) is commonly utilized in anterior cervical decompression and fixation (ACDF), most urban hospitals still use both traditional S retractor and CCRS in conventional anterior cervical surgeries. Related data to evaluate the effect are required to be reported. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy between using the traditional cervical S retractor and CCRS in anterior cervical decompression and fixation ACDF.
methodsThe retrospective study that total 360 patients received ACDF using different retractors (traditional S retractor or CCRS) were enrolled in this study from January 2010 to January 2020. Width change rate of cervical prevertebral soft tissue, throat symptoms, and subjective experiences of the operating surgeons were evaluated by t-test or analysis of variance (ANOVA) respectively.
resultsThe width change rate of prevertebral soft tissue was significantly higher in the S retractor group than that of the CCRS group both in single segment group (40.9% vs 20.8%, P < 0.05) and double segments group (45.8% vs 25.2%; p < 0.05). In the three segments group, the width change rate of prevertebral soft tissue was higher in the S retractor group than that of the CCRS group, but with no statistical significance (27.3% vs 23.6%; P > 0.05). The incidence rates of dysphagia, dyspnea, and throat discomfort in the traditional S retractor group were significantly higher compared to the CCRS group (P < 0.05), while satisfactory rate of surgeon was higher in the CCRS group (P < 0.05). However, there was no correlation between anterior soft tissue rate and operative time (P > 0.05), as well as the width change rate of anterior soft tissue and the DNRS score (P > 0.05).
conclusionCCRS was superior compared to the traditional S retractor in reducing the postoperative complications and the postoperative fatigue of surgeon. Meanwhile, the width change rate of prevertebral soft tissue was not related to operative time and DNRS score.
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.