ArticleInternational orthopaedics2025
Laminectomy and laminoplasty hybrid decompression versus laminectomy with lateral mass screw fixation for degenerative cervical myelopathy: a propensity score-matched study.
Article in International orthopaedics, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical and radiological outcomes between posterior laminectomy and laminoplasty hybrid decompression and laminectomy with lateral mass screw fixation in multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy.
methodsA total of 158 patients for multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) undergoing surgical treatment were enrolled in this study from May 2018 to December 2023, including 97 patients who underwent posterior laminectomy and laminoplasty hybrid decompression (PLLDH) and 61 patients treated with posterior lateral mass screw fixation (PLMSF). To minimize potential confounding factors, propensity score matching was employed for inter-group comparison. Neurological function scores and radiographic parameters were systematically compared between the two surgical groups.
resultsFollowing propensity score matching (PSM), baseline characteristics showed no statistically significant differences between the two surgical groups. The matched cohorts demonstrated that operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, VAS scores, Cobb angle, dural sac cross-sectional area at the narrowest level, and posterior dural displacement had no statistically significant differences(P > 0.05). However, significant inter-group differences were observed in JOA scores (P<0.05), NDI scores (P<0.05), and cervical range of motion (P<0.05) postoperatively.
conclusionBoth PLLDH and PLMSF are effective surgical approaches for treating multilevel DCM, demonstrating satisfactory clinical outcomes. However, PLMSF resulted in greater postoperative loss of cervical mobility compared to PLLDH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40815488What 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.