Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36918916›Full record

Observational studyBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023

A real-world analysis of hybrid CDA and ACDF compared to multilevel ACDF.

Kee D Kim, Domagoj Coric, Armen Khachatryan, Brenna L Brady, Timothy Lillehaugen, Mike McCormack, William B Dolman, Richard Ditto

Open access · goldFull text readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Anterior-posterior difference of MRI-based cervical vertebral bone quality score independently predicts overloaded vertebral body wedge deformity after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.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
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kee D KimUC Davis Health, 4860 Y Street Suite, Sacramento, CA, 3740, 95817, USA.
Domagoj CoricAtrium Musculoskeletal Institute, Spine Division, Carolina Neurosurgery and Spine Associates, 225 Baldwin Avenue Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA.
Armen KhachatryanOrthopedic Spine Surgery, The Disc Replacement Center, 3584 West 9000 South #209, Salt Lake City, UT, 84088, USA.
Brenna L BradyMerative, 75 Binney St., Cambridge, MA, 02142, USA. brenna.brady@merative.com.
Timothy LillehaugenMerative, 75 Binney St., Cambridge, MA, 02142, USA.
Mike McCormackZimmer Biomet, 1800 W Center Street, Warsaw, IN, 46580, USA.
William B DolmanZimVie Spine, 10225 Westmoor Drive, Westminster, CO, 80021, USA.
Richard DittoZimmer Biomet, 1800 W Center Street, Warsaw, IN, 46580, USA.
Zimmer Biomet (United States) · USCarolina Neurosurgery and Spine Associates · USUC Davis Health System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (mACDF) is the gold standard for multilevel spinal disease; although safe and effective, mACDF can limit regular spinal motion and contribute to adjacent segment disease (ASD). Hybrid surgery, composed of ACDF and cervical disc arthroplasty, has the potential to reduce ASD by retaining spinal mobility. This study examined the safety of hybrid surgery by utilizing administrative claims data to compare real-world rates of subsequent surgery and post-procedural hospitalization within populations of patients undergoing hybrid surgery versus mACDF for multilevel spinal disease.

methodsThis observational, retrospective analysis used the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Database from July 2013 through June 2020. Propensity score matched cohorts of patients who received hybrid surgery or mACDF were established based on the presence of spinal surgery procedure codes in the claims data and followed over a variable post-period. Rates of subsequent surgery and post-procedural hospitalization (30- and 90-day) were compared between hybrid surgery and mACDF cohorts.

resultsA total of 430 hybrid surgery patients and 2,136 mACDF patients qualified for the study; average follow-up was approximately 2 years. Similar rates of subsequent surgery (Hybrid: 1.9 surgeries/100 patient-years; mACDF: 1.8 surgeries/100 patient-years) were observed for the two cohorts. Hospitalization rates were also similar across cohorts at 30 days post-procedure (Hybrid: 0.67% hospitalized/patient-year; mACDF: 0.87% hospitalized/patient-year). At 90 days post-procedure, hybrid surgery patients had slightly lower rates of hospitalization compared to mACDF patients (0.23% versus 0.42% hospitalized/patient-year; p < 0.05).

conclusionsFindings of this real-world, retrospective cohort study confirm prior reports indicating that hybrid surgery is a safe and effective intervention for multilevel spinal disease which demonstrates non-inferiority in relation to the current gold standard mACDF. The use of administrative claims data in this analysis provides a unique perspective allowing the inclusion of a larger, more generalizable population has historically been reported on in small cohort studies.

Indexed as

Intervertebral Disc DegenerationSpinal FusionAgedArthroplastyCervical VertebraeDiskectomyHumansMedicareRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesAdjacent segment diseaseAnterior cervical fusionCervical arthroplastyCervical spondylosisHybrid surgeryIntervertebral disc surgerySpinal cord diseases

Identifiers

PMID36918916
PMCPMC10012503
OpenAlexW4324143825

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read178
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.