ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024
Comparison of anterior cervical diskectomy with fusion (ACDF) and laminoplasty treating multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy with developmental canal stenosis: a retrospective study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- New precise lamina slotting technique for cervical laminoplasty: the sliding positioning method using bone rongeur.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate clinical effectiveness and radiologic results of anterior cervical diskectomy with fusion (ACDF) comparing with laminoplasty (LP) in treating multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MCSM) with developmental canal stenosis (DCS).
methodsThis was a retrospective analysis of 41 patients who had MCSM with DCS treated with ACDF or LP from December 2018 to April 2023. Patients were split into ACDF and LP groups for comparison, and patients were further separated into subgroups based on whether or not a reserving canal space was present. The operation time, hemoglobin, hospital stay, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score, and visual analog scale (VAS) score were used to assess clinical efficacy. The C2-C7 Cobb angle, C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis, T1 slope, and cervical range of motion were applied to evaluate imaging changes.
resultsOf the 41 patients, 19 received ACDF, and 22 received LP. At the final follow-up, both groups' mJOA scores significantly improved, and the intercomparison showed no differences; the VAS score was much lower in the ACDF group but remained unchanged in the LP group. At the final follow-up, the C2-C7 Cobb angle and T1 slope had significantly increased in the ACDF group, while the LP group showed no change; the cervical range of motion had significantly decreased in both groups, with the ACDF group exhibiting a more marked reduction. Within the ACDF subgroup, there was no postoperative symptom improvement for those with reserving space, whereas there was postoperative symptom resolution for those with non-reserving space; however, postoperative symptom in the LP subgroup was resolved.
conclusionsBoth ACDF and LP were efficacious for MCSM patients with DCS. While ACDF could improve cervical lordosis and alleviate neck pain more effectively, it can also result in cervical sagittal imbalance and decreased mobility. Furthermore, the recovery from LP was superior to that from ACDF for patients with reserving space. In contrast, the recovery from both decompression techniques was comparable for individuals in non-reserving space.
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.