ReviewBrain & spine2024
Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical fusion and arthroplasty: Systematic review and updated meta-analysis.
Review in Brain & spine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cervical disc arthroplasty versus minimally invasive posterior cervical procedures as motion preserving surgeries for cervical radiculopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Full-Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Decompression Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2026Review
- High rates of spin bias in systematic reviews regarding anterior cervical discectomy and fusionJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Review
- Comparative efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for single-level cervical radiculopathy: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis that investigates the efficacy of different surgical methods for treating cervical disc herniation or cervical foraminal stenosis. Research question: The research aimed to compare the efficacy of Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy (MI-PCF) with anterior approaches, namely Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) and Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (CDA). Material and methods: The study included a comprehensive review of eight articles that compared ACDF and MI-PCF, and four articles that compared CDA to MI-PCF. Results: The results indicated no significant difference in surgical duration, hospital stay, complication rates, and reoperation rates between MI-PCF and ACDF. However, when comparing CDA with MI-PCF, it was found that CDA had a higher complication rate, while MI-PCF had a higher reoperation rate. Discussion and conclusion: Despite these findings, the study recommends MI-PCF as the preferred surgical method for cervical radiculopathy, owing to the advancements in minimally invasive techniques. However, these findings are preliminary, and further research with longer follow-up periods and larger sample sizes is necessary to confirm these findings and to further explore the potential advantages and disadvantages of these surgical methods.
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.