ArticleJournal of surgical case reports2024
Safety and efficacy of minimally invasive posterior cervical fusion: a single center, single surgeon retrospective review.
Article in Journal of surgical case reports, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Standard posterior cervical fusion is a common surgical technique that utilizes lateral mass screws and rods for fixation. A relatively new, minimally invasive technique involving interfacet decortication and placement of spacers has shown promise in terms of outcomes. We sought to determine fusion rates and complications of this new technique at our institution to bolster current literature. We retrospectively reviewed all patients that underwent a 3-level or less minimally invasive posterior cervical fusions by a single surgeon. Patients were evaluated to determine fusion rates and postoperative complications. Twenty-eight patients underwent minimally invasive posterior cervical fusion. Twenty-seven demonstrated fusion (96%). One patient that underwent the procedure for juxta-fusional disease required additional surgery for pseudoarthrosis. The minimally invasive posterior cervical technique results in favorable fusion rates and has low complication rates. Our study strengthens current literature that this minimally invasive technique is a safe and effective alternative.
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.