ArticleInternational orthopaedics2024
Channel-assisted cervical key hole technology combined with ultrasonic bone osteotome versus posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical foraminotomy: a clinical retrospective study.
Article in International orthopaedics, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasonic osteotome versus high-speed burr in channel-assisted cervical key hole technology: a clinical retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Paediatric orthopaedics: a special issue dedicated to current concepts and recent progress.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe search for more effective and safe treatment methods for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR) has led to the rapid development and increasing popularity of minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF). This study aims to compare two important approaches for MI-PCF surgery: the channel-assisted cervical key hole technology combined with ultrasonic bone osteotome (CKH-UBO) and posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical foraminotomy (PPECF).
methodsData from patients treated with single-level CKH-UBO (n = 35) or PPECF (n = 40) were analyzed. Clinical outcomes, including visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for neck and arm pain, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and modified Macnab criteria, were assessed preoperatively, as well as at three days, three months, and one year postoperatively.
resultsThe percentages of patients with excellent and good outcomes were 97.14% and 92.5%, respectively. The average surgical time in the CKH-UBO group was significantly shorter than in the PPECF group (p < 0.001), while the average incision length in the PPECF group was significantly smaller than in the CKH-UBO group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of blood loss, hospital stay, and clinical outcomes at three days, three months, and 12 months postoperatively.
conclusionCKH-UBO can achieve the same surgical outcomes as PPECF for the treatment of CSR. However, CKH-UBO saves more time but requires patients to undergo larger incisions.
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.