ArticleScientific reports2023
Nationwide sample data analysis of additional surgery rate after anterior or posterior cervical spinal surgery.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The use of cervical interfacet devices and related clinical outcomes.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 · 2025Article
- Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: An Overview.Cureus · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgical outcomes of degenerative cervical spinal disease are dependent on the selection of surgical techniques. Although a standardized decision cannot be made in an actual clinical setting, continued education is provided to standardize the medical practice among surgeons. Therefore, it is necessary to supervise and regularly update overall surgical outcomes. This study aimed to compare the rate of additional surgery between anterior and posterior surgeries for degenerative cervical spinal disease using the National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort (NHIS-NSC) nationwide patient database. The NHIS-NSC is a population-based cohort with about a million participants. This retrospective cohort study included 741 adult patients (> 18 years) who underwent their first cervical spinal surgery for degenerative cervical spinal disease. The median follow-up period was 7.3 years. An event was defined as the registration of any type of cervical spinal surgery during the follow-up period. Event-free survival analysis was used for outcome analysis, and the following factors were used as covariates for adjustment: location of disease, sex, age, type of insurance, disability, type of hospital, Charles comorbidity Index, and osteoporosis. Anterior cervical surgery was selected for 75.0% of the patients, and posterior cervical surgery for the remaining 25.0%. Cervical radiculopathy due to foraminal stenosis, hard disc, or soft disc was the primary diagnosis in 78.0% of the patients, and central spinal stenosis was the primary diagnosis in 22.0% of them. Additional surgery was performed for 5.0% of the patients after anterior cervical surgery and 6.5% of the patients after posterior cervical surgery (adjusted subhazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-1.74). The rates of additional surgery were not different between anterior and posterior cervical surgeries. The results would be helpful in evaluating current practice as a whole and adjusting the health insurance policy.
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.