ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2024
Anterior cervical X-shape-corpectomy and fusion vs. anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion for two-level cervical spondylosis.
Article in 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, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Clinical efficacy of anterior cervical mortise-tenon corpectomy and fusion for the treatment of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament].Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2026Article
- Artificial vertebral body versus titanium mesh cage for single-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF): a propensity score matching analysis of fusion, implant subsidence and clinical outcomes.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Lower C2 slope and milder uncovertebral joint degeneration are risk factors for pseudarthrosis after single-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF): retrospective study of 102 patients with minimum 2-year follow-up.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Anterior cervical trapezoid corpectomy and fusion (ACTCF): a novel technique for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Biomechanical comparison of anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion, anterior controllable antedisplacement and fusion, and anterior cervical X-shape-corpectomy and fusion in the surgical treatment of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a finite element analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAnterior cervical X-shape-corpectomy and fusion (ACXF) is a novel cervical surgery, designed as partial alternative to the classic technique, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF). The aim of this study was to evaluate the early-stage outcomes of ACXF in treating two-level cervical spondylosis (CS) through comparisons with ACCF.
methodsA retrospectively comparative study was conducted in two cohorts of patients who underwent single-vertebral ACXF or ACCF to treat two-level CS during September 2019 and October 2021. Clinical and radiological data of all the patients were collected from pre-operation to 1 year after the surgery, following by intra- and intergroup analyses and comparisons.
resultsFifty-seven patients were included, with 24 undergoing ACXF and 33 undergoing ACCF. ACXF group had significantly shorter drainage duration (2.13 ± 0.61 days vs. 3.48 ± 1.30 days, P < 0.001) and less drainage volume (30.21 ± 26.88 ml vs. 69.30 ± 37.65 ml, P < 0.001) than ACCF group. Both techniques significantly improved all the clinical parameters (P < 0.01) with comparable effects (P > 0.05). Each complication rate in ACXF group was lower than that in ACCF group without significant difference (P > 0.05). ACXF showed a significantly smaller transverse decompression range than ACCF (11.93 ± 1.27 mm vs. 16.29 ± 1.88 mm, P < 0.001). Postoperatively, ACXF yielded a comparable fusion rate (P > 0.05) and a significantly lower subsidence rate (P < 0.01) than ACCF technique at all time points.
conclusionsACXF is a potential surgical alternative for certain patients with two-level CS, as it provides both adequate decompression range and fewer adverse events than ACCF. The further modifications on ACXF worth exploration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37902849What 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.