ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2025
Short-term and long-term effects of anterior and posterior surgical approaches on plantar pressure distribution in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
Article in European journal of medical research, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the short-term and long-term effects of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) versus posterior open-door laminoplasty on plantar pressure distribution in patients with Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy (CSM).
methodsA total of 156 CSM patients admitted between January 2020 and December 2022 were enrolled and divided into an ACDF group (n = 82) and a posterior open-door group (n = 74) based on surgical approach. Plantar pressure data (medial foot pressure, lateral foot pressure, forefoot pressure, rearfoot pressure) were collected preoperatively, at 6 months postoperatively, and at 2 years postoperatively. Concurrent assessments included the mJOA score, Nurick grade, and radiographic parameters (Maximum Spinal Cord Compression ratio, Compression Ratio, Spinal Cord Occupation Ratio).
resultsNo significant differences existed in preoperative plantar pressure or clinical indicators between the two groups (P > 0.05). At 6 months postoperatively, medial foot pressure in the ACDF group decreased significantly from (45.21 ± 6.32) % to (38.76 ± 5.14)%, outperforming the posterior group (42.35 ± 5.87)% (P < 0.01). Lateral foot pressure increased to (57.23 ± 4.98)% in the ACDF group versus (55.12 ± 5.36)% in the posterior group (P < 0.05). At 2 years postoperatively, lateral foot pressure in the posterior group further increased to (59.47 ± 5.02)%, partially surpassing the ACDF group (58.15 ± 4.79)% (P = 0.036). However, medial foot pressure improvement remained significantly greater in the ACDF group (36.54 ± 4.82 vs. 39.21 ± 5.16, P < 0.01). Forefoot pressure increased significantly in both groups at 2 years (P < 0.05), while rearfoot pressure showed no significant difference. The ACDF group demonstrated superior improvement in mJOA score (5.21 ± 1.34 vs. 3.89 ± 1.27, P < 0.01) and Nurick grade.
conclusionACDF surgery provides faster and more sustained improvement in medial plantar pressure for CSM patients, correlating with its direct relief of ventral spinal cord compression and restoration of proprioceptive conduction. Posterior surgery may optimize lateral foot pressure through long-term biomechanical compensation of spinal stability, but overall functional recovery is less pronounced compared to the anterior approach.
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.