ArticleAsian spine journal2025
More postoperative complications and revision surgery after occipitocervical fusion than after atlantoaxial fusion: a retrospective multicenter cohort study.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2025. 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.
- Instability in the distal-to-stabilization segments after occipito-cervical fixation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the challenge of spine surgery.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- The Risk of Dysphagia After Short-Segment Posterior Occipital-C2 Fusion versus C1-C2 Cervical Fusion: A Retrospective Cohort Study.World neurosurgery · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designA retrospective multicenter cohort study. PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether occipitocervical (OC) fusion is followed by more postoperative complications and revision surgery than is atlantoaxial (AA) fusion. We aim to compare postoperative complications and revision surgery associated with OC fusion and AA fusion. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: OC and AA fusion are established techniques for restoring upper cervical stability. However, the outcomes of the two methods have not been compared.
methodsThis study included 90 patients who underwent upper spinal fusion surgery for mechanical instability, performed by three surgeons in two hospitals from 2011 to 2023; OC fusion was indicated for irreducible AA subluxation, os odontoideum, and severe upper C1 fracture. Of the patients, 38 (mean age, 58.7 years) underwent OC fusion, and 52 (mean age, 62.8 years) underwent AA fusion. To evaluate surgical outcomes, we documented surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complications, and the rate of revision surgery. Radiographs were obtained to identify screw malposition, rod breakage, and nonunion. To compare the outcomes of the two techniques, we used the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and the chi-square or Fisher's exact test for dichotomous variables.
resultsOC fusion took significantly longer (175.4 minutes) than AA fusion (150.7 minutes, p=0.020) and had a higher complication rate (39.5% vs. 11.5%, p <0.0001). The reoperation rate was 23.7% (9/38) after OC fusion and 3.8% (2/52) after AA fusion; the difference was statistically significant (p=0.0073). Average amounts of blood loss were 224 mL during OC fusion and 224 mL during AA fusion; the difference was not significant (p=0.947).
conclusionsAlthough OC fusion is indispensable for certain conditions, particularly basilar invagination, it entails more risk than dose AA fusion; the choice of technique thus warrants careful consideration.
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.