ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2024
Comparison of the Effects of Posterior Cervical Fixation or Posterior Cervical Fixation Extending to the Upper Thoracic Region on Cervical Sagittal Alignment.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Does stopping at C2 matter? A comparative analysis of alignment and craniocervical compensation in C2-T1 versus C3-T1 posterior cervical fusion.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFor degenerative diseases accompanied by cervical malalignment, the starting and ending points of fixation for better cervical sagittal alignment and clinical results are not as clear as the thoracolumbar region. In this study we aimed to compare the effects of posterior subaxial cervical fixation (PSCF), posterior cervical fixation extending to the upper thoracic region and posterior upper cervical fixation extending to the upper thoracic region on cervical sagittal alignment.
methodsSixty-three patients who underwent posterior cervical and cervical-up thoracic fixation were retrospectively analyzed in a comparative study. The procedures that we performed from May 2019 to March 2022 on these 63 patients were: (1) C3-C6 group-posterior subaxial cervical fixation; (2) Subaxial-T2 group-posterior subaxial cervicothoracic fixation (PSCTF); (3) C2-T2 upper thoracic posterior fixation group. The C3-C6 group had 27 patients, Subaxial-T2 group had 24, and C2-T2 group had 12. We determined the minimum follow-up period as 12 months. C0-2, C2-7 lordosis angle, sagittal vertical axis (SVA), C2 slope, C7 slope, T1 slope, cervical slope, neck slope, and thoracic inlet angle (TIA) measurements were made in three patient groups. Comparatively, cervical sagittal alignment was evaluated.
resultIn the C2-T2 group, a significant increase in C2-C7 lordosis, decrease in C2 slope, and increase in TS-CL were observed. Significant C2-C7 lordosis decrease, C2 slope increase, and TS-CL decrease were observed in the C3-C6 group. A significant increase in C2-C7 lordosis and a decrease in C2 slope were observed in the subaxial-T2 group. No significant change was observed in the TS-CL angle.
conclusionIn cervical degenerative disorders accompanied by cervical malalignment, we recommend the C2-T2 fixation method, which provides the desired C2-C7 lordosis, SVA within the normal range, and the best Neck Disability Index results.
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.