ArticleAsian spine journal2025
Does residual foraminal stenosis at levels not covered by anterior cervical discectomy and fusion aggravate postoperative outcomes in cervical radiculopathy?
Article in Asian spine journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Is a central cavity necessary for bioactive glass-ceramic spacers in plated ACDF? A retrospective comparison of solid versus cavity designs.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: To evaluate whether untreated foraminal stenosis (FS) at levels not included in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) impacts postoperative outcomes in patients with cervical radiculopathy and assess if residual FS increases the risk of adjacent segment disease (ASD). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Level selection for ACDF for cervical radiculopathy is complex, considering variable patient anatomy and symptoms. It is unclear whether treating only potentially symptomatic levels could provide equivalent results to managing all pathologic levels.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of 188 patients undergoing ACDF for degenerative cervical radiculopathy between 2014 and 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: those with all symptomatic levels decompressed (No-FS group, n=162) and those with untreated FS at levels not targeted in surgery (FS group, n=26). Postoperative outcomes, including neck pain, arm pain, and Neck Disability Index (NDI), were evaluated at 3 months and 2 years. Radiographic parameters and ASD incidence were also compared between groups.
resultsBoth groups showed significant improvement in neck pain, arm pain, and NDI postoperatively, with no significant intergroup differences at 3 months and 2 years. C2-C7 lordosis and sagittal vertical axis showed similar improvement in both groups postoperatively. Rates of ASD and revision surgery did not differ significantly between No-FS and FS groups (5.6% vs. 7.7%, respectively; p=0.652). Logistic regression revealed no significant predictors of NDI improvement >50% among preoperative demographic or radiographic factors.
conclusionsUntreated FS at levels outside the surgical target area did not adversely affect ACDF outcomes or increase ASD risk over a 2-year follow-up. These findings suggest that ACDF can be safely limited to levels directly associated with patient symptoms without compromising clinical outcomes, potentially reducing the surgical extent and associated risks.
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.