ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Alternate levels versus all levels mini-plate fixation in C3-6 cervical laminoplasty: a retrospective comparative study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of alternative-level laminoplasty vs. all-level laminoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- All-Level Versus Alternative-Level in Unilateral Laminoplasty: A Retrospective Comparative Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Centerpiece plate vs. Arch plate fixation in cervical unilateral open-door laminoplasty: a retrospective comparative study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study is to compare radiological and clinical outcomes between alternate levels (C4 and C6) and all levels mini-plate fixation in C3-6 unilateral open-door laminoplasty.
methodsNinety-six patients who underwent C3-6 unilateral open-door laminoplasty with alternate levels mini-plate fixation (54 patients in group A) or all levels mini-plate fixation (42 patients in group B) between September 2014 and September 2019 were reviewed in this study. Radiologic and clinical outcomes were assessed. Clinical results included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of axial neck pain and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score. Radiographic results included cervical range of motion (ROM), cervical curvature index (CCI), and the spinal canal expansive parameters including open angle, anteroposterior diameter (APD), and Pavlov`s ratio.
resultsThere was no significant difference in VAS, JOA score, ROM, and CCI between two groups. There was no significant difference in canal expansion postoperatively between two groups. However, open angle, APD, and Pavlov`s ratio in group A decreased significantly during the follow-up. In group B, APD, Pavlov`s ratio, and open angle were maintained until the final follow-up. There was no hardware failure or lamina reclosure occurred in both groups during the follow-up. The mean cost of group B was higher than that of group A.
conclusionsDespite the differences in the maintenance of canal expansion, alternate levels mini-plate fixation can achieve similar clinical outcomes as all levels mini-plate fixation in C3-6 unilateral open-door laminoplasty. As evidenced in this study, we believe C3-6 laminoplasty with alternate levels (C4 and C6) mini-plate fixation is an economical, effective, and safe treatment method.
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.