Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38566203›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024

Proposal for a classification system of radiographic bone changes after cervical disc replacement.

Armen Khachatryan, Frank M Phillips, Todd H Lanman, Gunnar B Andersson, Joshua J Jacobs, Steven M Kurtz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Armen KhachatryanThe Disc Replacement Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Frank M PhillipsRush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Todd H LanmanLanman Spinal Neurosurgery, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Gunnar B AnderssonRush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Joshua J JacobsRush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Steven M KurtzImplant Research Core, School of Biomedical Science, Engineering, and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. skurtz@drexel.edu.
Rush University Medical Center · USDesert Institute For Spine Care · USDrexel University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe goal of this study is to propose a classification system with a common nomenclature for radiographic observations of periprosthetic bone changes following cTDR.

methodsAided by serial plain radiographs from recent cTDR cases (34 patients; 44 devices), a panel of experts assembled for the purpose of creating a classification system to aid in reproducibly and accurately identifying bony changes and assessing cTDR radiographic appearance. Subdividing the superior and inferior vertebral bodies into 3 equal sections, observed bone loss such as endplate rounding, cystic erosion adjacent to the endplate, and cystic erosion not adjacent to the endplate, is recorded. Determining if bone loss is progressive, based on serial radiographs, and estimating severity of bone loss (measured by the percentage of end plate involved) is recorded. Additional relevant bony changes and device observations include radiolucent lines, heterotopic ossification, vertebral body olisthesis, loss of core implant height, and presence of device migration, and subsidence.

resultsSerial radiographs from 19 patients (25 devices) implanted with a variety of cTDR designs were assessed by 6 investigators including clinicians and scientists experienced in cTDR or appendicular skeleton joint replacement. The overall agreement of assessments ranged from 49.9% (95% bootstrap confidence interval 45.1-73.1%) to 94.7% (95% CI 86.9-100.0%). There was reasonable agreement on the presence or absence of bone loss or radiolucencies (range: 58.4% (95% CI 51.5-82.7%) to 94.7% (95% CI 86.9-100.0%), as well as in the progression of radiolucent lines (82.9% (95% CI 74.4-96.5%)).

conclusionsThe novel classification system proposed demonstrated good concordance among experienced investigators in this field and represents a useful advancement for improving reporting in cTDR studies.

Indexed as

Intervertebral Disc DegenerationTotal Disc ReplacementCervical VertebraeDiskectomyHumansNeckTreatment OutcomeBone lossCervical total disc replacementClassificationOsteolysis

Identifiers

PMID38566203
PMCPMC10988897
OpenAlexW4393899964

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.