ArticleAsian spine journal2024
Surgery for subaxial cervical spine injuries: which is better: anterior, posterior, or anterior-posterior combined approach?: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Asian spine journal, 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.
- Predicting intraoperative blood loss using cervical vertebral bone quality scores in cervical corpectomy and fusion procedure.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
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
Both anterior and posterior approaches have shown insignificant differences in good clinical outcomes with one over another advantages and disadvantages. This review aimed to provide evidence for the best management of subaxial cervical spine injuries and discuss the clinical outcomes and complications. Clinical studies of anterior versus posterior and anterior versus anterior-posterior (combined) approaches to subaxial cervical spine injury were searched electronically from PubMed, Medline, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and other Internet databases. Clinical improvement, complication rates, and mortality rates showed no significant differences with an odds ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.49; p=0.61) for the anterior versus posterior approach and an odds ratio of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.35-3.18; p=0.93) for the anterior versus the combined approach. Surgical duration and blood loss were significantly different between the anterior and posterior groups with a mean difference of -42.84 (95% CI, -64.39 to 21.29; p<0.0001); -212.91 (95% CI, -417.60 to 8.22; p=0.04), respectively, whereas the length of hospitalization did not (p=0.16). No difference was found between the groups when compared by clinical improvement and complication rate. Meanwhile, the anterior approach was superior to the posterior approach in terms of surgical duration, blood loss, and hospitalization length.
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.