ArticleBMC surgery2025
Comparative clinical outcomes of ACDF with self-locking cage, cage combined with plate, and posterior laminoplasty in long-level cervical spondylosis: a two-year follow-up study.
Article in BMC 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
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with self-lock cage through mini-incision, ACDF with cage and plate, and posterior laminoplasty (LAMP) for long-level cervical spondylosis without severe ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament.
methodFrom January 2018 to January 2021, patients diagnosed with 3-4 segments (C3-7) cervical spondylotic radiculopathy, cervical spondylotic myelopathy, or mixed cervical spondylosis underwent surgical treatment. The procedures included ACDF with self-lock cage through mini-incision (48 cases) (group A), ACDF with cage and plate (37 cases) (group B), and LAMP (40 cases) (group C). Surgical parameters such as operative time, blood loss, incision length, and hospital stay were documented. Additionally, measurements were taken for intervertebral height, functional segment height, cervical lordosis, cervical hyperextension and hyperflexion range-of-motion (ROM), and ROM in all directions of the cervical spine before and after surgery. The therapeutic outcomes of both groups were evaluated, and any postoperative complications were meticulously recorded.
resultsThere was no significant difference in gender, age, JOA, VAS score of upper limb, NDI score, preoperative cervical intervertebral height, functional segment height, lordosis angle, cervical ROM, hyperextension and hyperflexion ROM was observed among three groups. The patients in group A and group B had less bleeding, shorter incision, and fewer hospitalization days than group C (P < 0.05). The patients in group A had a shorter incision than those in group B (P < 0.05). Group A showed shortest operation time(A < B < C)(P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in JOA, VAS score of upper limb, NDI score after surgery among three groups. The restoration of postoperative intervertebral height, functional segment height, and cervical lordosis angle of group A and group B were significantly more than those of group C (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between preoperative and postoperative ROM in all directions of cervical spine in three groups.
conclusionsAll three surgical techniques-self-locking cage ACDF, cage-and-plate ACDF, and LAMP-are effective options for treating long-level cervical spondylosis without severe OPLL. Among them, the self-locking cage technique offers distinct advantages, including smaller incisions, less surgical trauma, a lower risk of postoperative dysphagia, and a high fusion rate even in multilevel procedures.
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.