Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38939077›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in surgery2024

Analysis of surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic amyotrophy.

Zhong Yu, Haofuzi Zhang, Yanjun Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Zhong Yu *Department of Emergency, Honghui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong Uinversity, Xi'an, China.
Haofuzi Zhang *Department of Neurosurgery, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Yanjun WangDepartment of Emergency, Honghui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong Uinversity, Xi'an, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cervical spondylotic amyotrophy (CSA) is a special type of cervical spondylosis based on cervical degeneration, which is mainly manifested by weakness and atrophy of upper limb muscles without obvious sensory impairment. Various diagnostic and treatment strategies used; however, discrepancies exist. We tried to discuss diagnosing and treating CSA. Methods: 15 patients with CSA were diagnosed in the Orthopedics Department of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, aged 42-70 years old. The duration of preoperative symptoms of amyotrophy was 6 to 240 months. 12 patients received surgical treatment, and 3 patients received conservative treatment. The patients were divided into two groups according to the site of preoperative amyotrophy. The manual muscle test was used to evaluate the patients' muscle strength pre-and postoperatively. Results: During postoperative follow-up, the muscle strength of 12 patients improved to different degrees compared to before surgery. The improvement effect was excellent in 2 cases, good in 6, and moderate in 4. There was no decrease in postoperative muscle strength compared with that before surgery. The satisfaction rate of the effect was 66.7%. The two groups had no statistically significant difference in preoperative muscle strength. The postoperative muscle strength of the proximal group was significantly better than that of the distal group. Conclusion: The surgical effect of CSA of the proximal type is significantly better than that of the distal type. The recovery effect of amyotrophy after surgery for distal type CSA is poor; thus, surgical treatment should be carefully considered.

Indexed as

amyotrophycervical spondyloticcervical vertebraspinal diseasesurgery

Identifiers

PMID38939077
PMCPMC11208474

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.