Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38960897›Full record

ArticleActa neurochirurgica2024

Safety of anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) for the treatment of subaxial cervical spine injuries, a single center comparative matched analysis.

Victor Gabriel El-Hajj, Aman Singh, Alexander Fletcher-Sandersjöö, Simon Blixt, Vasilios Stenimahitis, Gunnar Nilsson, Paul Gerdhem, Erik Edström, Adrian Elmi-Terander

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

9 authors.

Victor Gabriel El-HajjDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Aman SinghDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Alexander Fletcher-SandersjööDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Simon BlixtClinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Vasilios StenimahitisDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Gunnar NilssonCapio Spine Center Stockholm, Löwenströmska Hospital, 194 02 Upplands-Väsby, Box 2074, Stockholm, Sweden.
Paul GerdhemClinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Erik EdströmDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Adrian Elmi-TeranderDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. adrian.elmi.terander@ki.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAnterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) and Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion (ACCF) are both common surgical procedures in the management of pathologies of the subaxial cervical spine. While recent reviews have demonstrated ACCF to provide better decompression results compared to ACDF, the procedure has been associated with increased surgical risks. Nonetheless, the use of ACCF in a traumatic context has been poorly described. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of ACCF as compared to the more commonly performed ACDF.

methodsAll patients undergoing ACCF or ACDF for subaxial cervical spine injuries spanning over 2 disc-spaces and 3 vertebral-levels, between 2006 and 2018, at the study center, were eligible for inclusion. Patients were matched based on age and preoperative ASIA score.

resultsAfter matching, 60 patients were included in the matched analysis, where 30 underwent ACDF and ACCF, respectively. Vertebral body injury was significantly more common in the ACCF group (p = 0.002), while traumatic disc rupture was more frequent in the ACDF group (p = 0.032). There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of surgical complications, including implant failure, wound infection, dysphagia, CSF leakage between the groups (p ≥ 0.05). The rates of revision surgeries (p > 0.999), mortality (p = 0.222), and long-term ASIA scores (p = 0.081) were also similar.

conclusionResults of both unmatched and matched analyses indicate that ACCF has comparable outcomes and no additional risks compared to ACDF. It is thus a safe approach and should be considered for patients with extensive anterior column injury.

Indexed as

Cervical VertebraeDiskectomyPostoperative ComplicationsSpinal FusionSpinal InjuriesAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeACCFACDFComplicationsCorpectomySafetySubaxial cervical spine injury

Identifiers

PMID38960897
PMCPMC11222236

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.