ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2024
Comparing ACDF Outcomes by Cervical Spine Level: A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of operative level on reoperation rates and short-term patient-reported outcomes in 3-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.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
- Clinical and radiographic outcomes of three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using allograft cellular bone matrix.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious research suggests a relationship between complications associated with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and level involvement; however, there is limited research comparing postoperative outcomes of upper cervical fusions (UCFs) with middle-to-lower cervical fusions (MLCFs). This study aims to compare the outcomes of UCF with MLCF.
methodsA retrospective medical record review was conducted on 835 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion patients from 2012 to 2022. Patients were classified as UCF, defined as inclusion of C3 to C4 disc space, or MLCF, defined as lacking C3 to C4 disc space. Demographics were compared using
resultsOf the 835 patients included, 562 underwent MLCF and 281 underwent UCF. Median follow-up time was 211 days for UCF and 200 days for MLCF. UCF led to a 1.5-day longer length of stay in both univariable (1.5 vs 3.1,
conclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the link between cervical fusion level and outcomes. UCF patients demonstrated greater rates of dysphagia, longer length of stay, and lower likelihood of improvement in neurological symptoms postoperatively both before and after controlling for differences in pre- and intraoperative characteristics. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study highlights that UCFs may be associated with worse postoperative outcomes when compared to MLCFs, which can inform surgical decision-making and patient counseling. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: The study represents Level 3 evidence due to its retrospective design and potential biases, indicating a need for future prospective randomized controlled trials to validate these findings.
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.