ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2025
Clinical Efficacy of Endoscopy-Assisted Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Single-Segment Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Retrospective, Propensity Score-Matched Study.
Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2025. 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.
- Technical evolution and short-term outcomes of minimally invasive versus conventional open anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Pooled 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Endoscopy-assisted anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (EA-ACDF), which integrates the advantages of conventional ACDF and spinal endoscopy, is an innovative technique for treating cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). We compared the clinical efficacy of EA-ACDF and ACDF for treating patients with single-segment CSM. Methods: One-hundred and thirty-six CSM patients were retrospectively included from January 2021 to September 2023, of whom 61 underwent EA-ACDF and 75 underwent ACDF. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to adjust for imbalances in covariates between groups. Then, clinical and imaging outcomes, perioperative data, and complications were compared. Results: After matching, 108 patients were included and followed for 15-38 months. Compared to the ACDF group, the EA-ACDF group had less intraoperative bleeding volume, less drainage volume, and shorter postoperative hospital stays ( Conclusion: Both EA-ACDF and conventional ACDF for single-segment CSM provide satisfactory clinical efficacy. The EA-ACDF procedure provides a clearer surgical field, causes less trauma, allows faster recovery, and has the potential to reduce the risk of complications.
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.