ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2024
Treatment strategies for cervical spondylotic myelopathy-is laminectomy alone a safe and effective option?
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biportal endoscopic laminectomy vs. open-door laminoplasty for 2-3 levels of cervical myelopathy: a prospective observational cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Cervical Laminectomy for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Is There A Role in the Modern Day? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- CT-based morphometry and Mimics-guided virtual implantation of a facet-fusion-integrated posterior cervical semi-open-door system: an anatomical feasibility study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
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
Background: Cervical laminectomy may be underutilized in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) due to concerns regarding potential for post-operative instability and/or kyphosis. The purpose of this retrospective, observational study is to assess the short-term clinical and radiological outcomes as well as complications associated with a group of carefully selected patients who underwent laminectomy alone for CSM and compared them to a cohort of patients who underwent laminectomy with fusion. Methods: Patients with CSM were identified via review of a single surgeon's cases. All patients underwent preoperative clinical evaluation, lateral flexion-extension cervical radiographs, and documentation of neck and/or extremity pain via Nurick Scale and modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores. Postoperative follow-up occurred at 1, 3 and 6 months for all patients. Statistical analysis was performed via Student's Results: Forty-one patients who underwent laminectomy alone and 13 patients who underwent laminectomy with fusion were identified who met inclusion criteria. Both groups demonstrated significant improvement on Nurick and JOA scores postoperatively. Two patients in the laminectomy alone group required a subsequent one-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for onset of postoperative neck pain, without neurological symptoms or new deficits in the follow up period. There was no difference in rates of post-operative kyphosis between the groups. Conclusions: In appropriately selected patients without pre-operative kyphosis or abnormal motion on flexion-extension films, cervical laminectomy remains a safe and effective treatment option.
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.