Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37698903›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2023

Factors Influencing Surgical Decision-Making in the Posterior Laminectomy With Fixation for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (POLYFIX-DCM) Trial: Survey Study.

Stefan Yordanov, Xiaoyu Yang, Oliver Mowforth, Andreas K Demetriades, Marcel Ivanov, Pierluigi Vergara, Adrian Gardner, Erlick Pereira, Antony Bateman, Alexander Alamri and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

16 authors.

Stefan Yordanov *Academic Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosurgery, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7008-6012
Xiaoyu YangAcademic Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosurgery, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9055-1230
Oliver Mowforth *Academic Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosurgery, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6788-745X
Andreas K DemetriadesDepartment of Neurosurgery, Royal Infirmary Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2004-9448
Marcel Ivanov *Neurosurgery Department, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3016-8931
Pierluigi VergaraDepartment of Spinal Surgery, East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust, Ipswich, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8330-9430
Adrian GardnerThe Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6532-7950
Erlick Pereira *Department of Neurosurgery, St Georges University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0452-4023
Antony BatemanRoyal Derby Spinal Centre, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5093-7243
Alexander Alamri *Department of Neurosurgery, St Georges University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9345-9237
Jibin FrancisAcademic Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosurgery, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1478-5916
Rikin Trivedi *Academic Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosurgery, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8036-9275
Mark Kotter *Academic Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosurgery, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5145-7199
Benjamin Davies *Academic Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosurgery, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0591-5069
Alexandru Budu *Department of Neurosurgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6783-6943
POLYFIX-DCM research Collaborative Group *See Acknowledgements, .

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDegenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is estimated to affect 2% of the adult population. DCM occurs when degenerative processes cause compression and injure the spinal cord. Surgery to remove the stress caused by the compression of the spinal cord is the mainstay of treatment, with a range of techniques in use. Although various factors are described to inform the selection of these techniques, there needs to be more consensus and limited comparative evidence.

objectiveThe main objective of this survey was to explore the variation of practice and decision-making, with a focus on laminectomy versus laminectomy and fusion in posterior surgery of the cervical spine. We present the results of a survey conducted among the principal investigators (PIs) of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) randomized controlled trial on posterior laminectomy with fixation for degenerative cervical myelopathy (POLYFIX-DCM).

methodsA series of 7 cases were shared with 24 PIs using SurveyMonkey. Each case consisted of a midsagittal T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and lateral cervical x-rays in flexion and extension. Surgeons were asked if their preferred approach was anterior or posterior. If posterior, they were asked whether they preferred to instrument and whether they had the equipoise to randomize in the NIHR POLYFIX-DCM trial. Variability in decision-making was then explored using factors reported to inform decision-making, such as alignment, location of compression, number of levels operated, presence of mobile spondylolisthesis, and patient age.

resultsThe majority of PIs (16/30, 53%) completed the survey. Overall, PIs favored a posterior approach (12/16, 75%) with instrumentation (75/112, average 66%) and would randomize (67/112, average 62%) most cases. Factors reported to inform decision-making poorly explained variability in responses in both univariate testing and with a multivariate model (R2=0.1). Only surgeon experience of more than 5 years and orthopedic specialty training background were significant predictors, both associated with an anterior approach (odds ratio [OR] 1.255; P=.02 and OR 1.344; P=.007, respectively) and fusion for posterior procedures (OR 0.628; P<.001 and OR 1.344; P<.001, respectively). Surgeon experience also significantly affected the openness to randomize, with those with more than 5 years of experience less likely to randomize (OR -0.68; P<.001).

conclusionsIn this representative sample of spine surgeons participating in the POLYFIX-DCM trial as investigators, there is no consensus on surgical strategy, including the role of instrumented fusion following posterior decompression. Overall, this study supports the view that there appears to be a clinical equipoise, and conceptually, a randomized controlled trial appears feasible, which sets the scene for the NIHR POLYFIX-DCM trial.

Indexed as

cervical myelopathydecision-makingdecompressiondegenerationdisabilitydisc herniationlaminectomymyelopathyossification posterior longitudinal ligamentquestionnairerecoveryspinal cordspondylosisspondylotic stenosisstresssurgeonssurgery

Identifiers

PMID37698903
PMCPMC10523224

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.