ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2023
Perioperative outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: no difference between orthopaedic and neurologic surgeons.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Given differences in residency training background, there has been increasing interest in characterizing differential outcomes between orthopaedic surgeons (OS) and neurosurgeons (NS) with regards to outcomes after cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA). This study aimed to assess if there were differences in perioperative outcomes of CDA between OS and NS. Methods: Patients who underwent a single-level CDA between 2012 and 2019 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database using current procedural terminology codes. The patients were subsequently stratified into those who underwent CDA with OS versus NS, and propensity score-matched to adjust for differences in patient characteristics. Differences were assessed in medical and surgical complications, as well as operative time and healthcare utilization parameters [reoperations, readmissions, and lengths-of-stay (LOS)]. Results: A total of 2,148 patients were identified (NS: n=1,395; OS: n=753). After 1:1 propensity score matching (n=741 each), there were no differences in characteristics between patients who underwent CDA by OS versus NS (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in any of the medical or surgical complications between the two groups (P>0.05 for each). There was a significant difference in the operative time between NS and OS (103.7±36.18 Conclusions: There were no differences in medical or surgical complications, as well as in reoperations, readmissions, and LOS in patients who underwent a single-level CDA between OS and NS. There was a statistically significant shorter operative time of four minutes for OS as compared to NS, which is unlikely to have clinical relevance.
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.