ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2025
All-Level Versus Alternative-Level in Unilateral Laminoplasty: A Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in Orthopaedic 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTitanium mini-plates are applied in unilateral open-door laminoplasty to secure the elevated laminae and prevent re-closure. Whereas the conventional technique fixates every level, some surgeons plate only alternate levels to curb implant costs. Whether they could achieve similar long-term clinical and radiographic efficacy is still questionable. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of alternative-level fixation versus all-level fixation in cervical laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).
methodsA retrospective analysis is conducted on 65 patients who underwent C3-C7 unilateral laminoplasty at Peking University People's Hospital from July 2012 to December 2020. Patients are divided into two groups: alternative-level fixation and all-level fixation. Clinical outcomes, including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospitalization days, and complications, are assessed. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score is used for neurological function evaluation, while pain is assessed with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Radiographic outcomes include changes in anterior-posterior diameter, Pavlov ratio, cervical lordosis (CL), thoracic slope (T1S), and sagittal vertical axis (SVA).
resultsBoth groups showed significant improvements in JOA (15.94 ± 0.85 vs. 8.74 ± 1.76 in alternative-level and 16.1 ± 0.79 vs. 8.42 ± 1.84 in all-level) and VAS (1.03 ± 0.87 vs. 5.79 ± 1.18 in alternative-level, 1.06 ± 0.77 vs. 5.35 ± 1.17 in all-level) postoperatively, with no statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes between the groups (JOA: 15.94 ± 0.85 vs. 16.1 ± 0.79, p = 0.394; VAS: 1.03 ± 0.87 vs. 1.06 ± 0.77, p = 0.432). Although total hospital costs are significantly lower in the alternative-level fixation group (124,937 ± 5104.01 RMB vs. 88007.53 ± 7014.53, p < 0.001), the all-level fixation group demonstrated better long-term preservation of APD (17.87 ± 0.60 vs. 17.50 ± 0.52) at the final follow-up. Radiographic outcomes, including CL, T1s, and cSVA, show no significant differences between the two groups, indicating comparable spinal alignment outcomes.
conclusionBoth all-level and alternative-level fixation methods effectively support the lamina and prevent reclosure, with significant improvement in clinical symptoms in both groups at the final follow-up, showing no significant difference in postoperative clinical outcomes between the two. There are no differences in sagittal parameters. All-level fixation method showed better preservation of the spinal canal diameter.
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.