ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
Contiguous versus skip discectomy and fusion in cervical disc herniation: Do we need to fuse the normal intermediate segment?
Article in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims and Objectives: Noncontiguous degenerative cervical disc disease (NCDDD) is characterized by cervical disc prolapse involving nonadjacent segments. This study aims to determine if skip discectomy and fusion technique compared to contiguous discectomy and fusion while preserving adjacent segment disease in uninvolved intermediate segments leads to equivalent or better clinical and radiological outcomes. Methods: Fifty-two patients who underwent management of NCDDD and two-level contigious disc disease (CDD) over 6 years from 2014 to 2020 were included in the study. There were 44 male and 8 female patients with a mean age of 46.75 years. These patients were divided into two groups: Those who underwent contiguous discectomy and those who underwent skip discectomy with either anterior cervical discectomy (ACD) alone, ACD and fusion (ACDF), or ACDF with plating based on individual pathology and surgeon preference. Outcomes were assessed using clinical parameters such as modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score (mJOAS) and Nurick grade and radiological parameters such as disc height improvement, spinal alignment change, and fusion rates. Results: The overall mean duration of follow-up was 15.23 ± 23.69 months, with a clinical follow-up period of 23.87 ± 21.51 months and a radiological follow-up period of 7.57 ± 5.91 months, with follow-up in Group 1 being 24.67 ± 23.17 months and in Group 2 being 20.03 ± 10.53 months. The mean blood loss in Group 1 was 200.47 mL; in Group 2, it was 172 mL. The preoperative mJOAS was 10.19 ± 3.16, and the postoperative mJOAS was 12.73 ± 2.92 ( Conclusion: Skip discectomy has a similar benefit and risk profile and is noninferior compared to contiguous discectomy in addition to the preservation of intermediate disc integrity.
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.