ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2024
Paired and matched analysis of neurological outcomes in revision surgery for cervical myelopathy following delayed neurological decline.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Delayed neurological decline may be experienced following successful decompression surgery for cervical myelopathy. Our objective was to analyze neurological recovery upon revision surgery with relation to the index procedure and a matched control. Methods: Fourteen patients underwent both primary and revision decompression at a single academic center. Peri-operative clinical, radiological, and surgical details were retrieved. Neurological outcomes [change in modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA), recovery ratio] following the second surgery were compared to (I) the primary operation and (II) a control subject receiving primary decompression matched for gender, age, mJOA score, and surgical approach. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in mJOA score was set at 2.5. Results: Revision decompressions were performed 6.8±4.2 years following the index surgery, when patients were 61.4±11.0 years of age. An increase in mJOA score of 2.7±2.0 following revision surgery was similar to that achieved after the primary operation (2.2±2.1, P=0.616). A recovery ratio of 38.1%±25.4% upon revision compared favorably to that following the primary operation (35.0%±37.4%, P=0.867). Non-inferiority testing between revision surgery and the first operation (P=0.02) demonstrated a similar capacity to achieve the MCID as did comparison with matched subjects (P<0.01). Conclusions: Patients were able to make up for lost neurological gains following revision surgery. Careful selection of cases for revision likely facilitated recovery. Recovery trajectories should be consolidated upon larger sample sizes allowing for identification of prognostic factors.
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.