ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2024
Analysis of Failed Posterior Fossa Decompression and an Effective Revision Surgery in Patients with Basilar Invagination and Atlantoaxial Dislocation.
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.
- Risk Factors for Neurological Complications in Severe Spinal Deformity Surgery.Orthopaedic surgery · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to analyze failed posterior fossa decompression (PFD) in patients with basilar invagination and atlantoaxial dislocation (BI-AAD). Revision surgery in these patients is challenging and has been rarely reported. In addition, the anatomical variations of the vertebral artery increase the risk of revision surgery. Here, we introduce the implementation of a new type of one-stage posterior revision surgery, whose difficulties and effects are summarized.
methodsA total of 21 patients with BI-AAD who underwent PFD were retrospectively analyzed in our center from November 2017 to April 2021. The revision surgery in all patients was performed through the posterior approach. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and the Short Term 12 (SF-12) score were employed to evaluate the clinical symptoms and health status. The distance from the tip of the odontoid to Chamberlain's line (DCL), the atlantodental interval (ADI), the clivus-canal angle (CCA), the diameter of the subarachnoid space (DSS), and the craniovertebral junction triangular area (CTA) were assessed radiographically. The pre- and postoperative results were compared by paired t test.
resultsThe data of 21 consecutive patients were reviewed, with an average follow-up period of 28 ± 14 months. Postoperative imaging showed effectively reduced compression of BI-AAD. No implant failure or neurovascular injury occurred. Eleven patients had vertebral artery abnormalities, but none had vertebral artery injury. All patients had evidence of bone fusion on the CT scan images within a 12-month follow-up period. The JOA and SF-12 scores were significantly improved 1 year postoperatively (p < 0.001).
conclusionPosterior surgery using the technique of interarticular distraction, fusion with cage grafting, and fixation is a safe and effective revision surgery to treat patients with basilar invagination and atlantoaxial dislocation who failed PFD, which will result in good outcome.
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.