ArticleGlobal spine journal2026
Nationwide Comparison of 2 year Revision Surgery Risk After Hybrid Cervical Surgery with 2-Level ACDF and 2-Level CDR Surgical Technique.
Article in Global spine journal, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study designRetrospective cohort study.ObjectiveTo perform a retrospective study comparing 2 level hybrid surgery (1 level ACDF and 1 level CDR) with 2 level ACDF and 2 level CDR.MethodsPatients undergoing first-instance two-level cervical spine surgery were identified using CPT codes and grouped into ACDF, CDR, or hybrid (single-level ACDF + single-level CDR) cohorts, with exclusions for posterior fusion, trauma, infection, malignancy, prior revision, and overlapping procedures. Revision surgery was defined as any cervical operation within two years of the index procedure, and baseline variables included demographics, comorbidities (Elixhauser Comorbidity Index), cervical pathology, insurance type, tobacco history and osteoporosis. Comparisons were performed using t-tests and chi-square tests, and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models and Kaplan-Meier analysis were used to evaluate two-year revision risk and revision-free survival among cohorts.ResultAmong 122,164 patients, ACDF patients were older and had greater comorbidity burden and higher rates of myelopathy and osteoporosis, with overall secondary cervical procedures most frequent after two-level ACDF. On multivariable analysis, myelopathy, tobacco history and osteoporosis were independently associated with increased revision risk, while insurance status was not. Surgical approach (ACDF, CDR, or hybrid) was not independently associated with two-year revision risk, and Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant differences in revision-free survival among cohorts.ConclusionSurgical approach (ACDF, CDR, or hybrid) was not independently associated with differences in two-year revision risk.
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.