ArticleNeurospine2024
Are There Advantages in Cervical Intrafacetal Fusion With Minimal Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) Compared to Conventional PLF in Posterior Cervical Fusion?
Article in Neurospine, 2024. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF).
methodsPatients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2-7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan.
resultsAmong enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001).
conclusionPostoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.
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.