ReviewNorth American Spine Society journal2025
Comparison of anterior and posterior approaches for functional improvement in cervical myelopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 33,025 patients.
Review in North American Spine Society 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.
- Rehabilitation strategies following posterior cervical decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a narrative review and framework for clinical practice.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 · 2026Review
- Beyond Decompression: Successes and Failures in the Modern Care of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy.Neurology international · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cervical myelopathy is caused by pressure on the spinal cord in the neck, leading to pain, numbness, and balance issues. Surgery aims to decompress the spinal cord, with different approaches; anterior, posterior, or both depending on specifies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the risks and benefits of anterior and posterior surgical techniques. Methods: Adhering to the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic search across the databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies comparing anterior and posterior surgical approaches for cervical myelopathy. Studies that met our predefined inclusion criteria were selected by 2 independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed using NOS and Rob-2 tools and analysis was done using the Review Manager tool. One RCT and 22 cohort studies including 33,025 patients were included in the analysis. Results: The anterior approach was associated with better neurological recovery and a greater improvement in Cobb's angle with MD of 4.18 (95%CI: 0.38, 7.91, p=.03), and 6.91 (95%CI: 1.85, 11.97, p=.007), respectively. The anterior approach showed a statistically significant decrease in VAS, and NDI scales with MD of -0.44 (95%CI: -0.75, -0.12, p=.007), and -1.91 (95%CI: -3.74, -0.09, p=.04), respectively as compared to posterior approach. Conclusions: Studies suggest that an anterior approach for cervical myelopathy may improve nerve function, correct spinal curvature more effectively, and lead to fewer complications, less pain, reduced blood loss, and a shorter hospital stay compared to a posterior approach.
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.