ArticleInternational orthopaedics2024
Impact of congenital spinal stenosis on the outcome of three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a retrospective study.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. 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.
- Machine learning prediction of surgical approach and clinical heterogeneity in cervical spondylotic myelopathy.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2025-03-26Lack of Approval from Third Party ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate whether congenital cervical spinal stenosis (CCSS) affects the outcome of three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).
methodsOne hundred seventeen patients with CSM who underwent three-level ACDF between January 2019 and January 2023 were retrospectively examined. Patients were grouped according to presence of CCSS, which was defined as Pavlov ratio ≤ 0.75. The CCSS and no CCSS groups comprised 68 (58.1%) and 49 (41.9%) patients, respectively.
resultsThe Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score did not significantly differ between the two groups at any postoperative time point (p > 0.05). The JOA improvement rate was lower in the CCSS group 1 month after surgery (41.7% vs. 45.5%, p < 0.05), but showed no difference at any follow-up time point after one month. Multivariate logistic regression identified preoperative age (OR = 10.639), JOA score (OR = 0.370), increased signal intensity (ISI) in the spinal cord on T2-weighted MRI (T2-WI) (Grade 1: OR = 6.135; Grade 2: OR = 29.892), and degree of spinal cord compression (30-60%: OR = 17.919; ≥60%: OR = 46.624) as independent predictors of a poor one year outcome (JOA recovery rate < 50%).
conclusionAlthough early JOA improvement is slower in the CCSS group, it does not affect the final neurological improvement at 1 year. Therefore, CCSS should not be considered a contraindication for three-level ACDF in patients with CSM. The main factors influencing one year outcome were preoperative age, JOA score, ISI grade, and degree of spinal cord compression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39269485What 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.