ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
Centerpiece plate vs. Arch plate fixation in cervical unilateral open-door laminoplasty: a retrospective comparative study.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of Centerpiece plate and Arch plate fixation in cervical unilateral open-door laminoplasty. Methods: This study included 102 patients who underwent cervical unilateral open-door laminoplasty with Centerpiece plate fixation (62 patients) or Arch plate fixation (40 patients) between September 2017 and September 2022. Clinical and radiological outcomes were evaluated. Results: There were no significant differences in operation time, blood loss, and lamina open angle between the two groups. Before surgery, the two groups had comparable Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores and Pavlov's ratios. After surgery, the spinal drift distance and Pavlov ratio of the Centerpiece group were smaller than those of the Arch group. Both groups showed significant improvements in JOA scores after surgery and at the last follow-up compared to pre-surgery. At the final follow-up, the Centerpiece group's JOA scores and JOA score improvement rate were lower than those of the Arch group. Conclusions: Both Centerpiece plate and Arch plate fixation can improve the patient's symptoms. Centerpiece plate fixation has a worse prognosis than Arch plate fixation in cervical unilateral open-door laminoplasty because the ventral prong in the Centerpiece plate may obstruct the spinal cord's backward movement.
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.