Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42150859›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2026

Spinous Process Osteotomy for Exposure of the Posterior Cervical Spine: An Innovative Technique to Preserve Midline Structures.

Harshad V Dabke, Oliver Townsend, Tanvi Dabke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Harshad V DabkeSalisbury District Hospital, Salisbury, UK spinedabke@gmail.com.
Oliver TownsendSalisbury District Hospital, Salisbury, UK.
Tanvi DabkeSalisbury District Hospital, Salisbury, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgery on the posterior cervical spine involves bilateral exposure and removal of midline structures, which may lead to chronic neck pain, dropped head syndrome, and an ugly scar. We present our experience of an innovative technique of posterior cervical approach using spinous process osteotomy with preservation of midline structures.

methodsA total of 25 consecutive myelopathic patients underwent 1- to 4-level posterior cervical decompression with or without fusion and were followed up prospectively for 6 to 24 months. Left-sided exposure was done through a midline skin incision, and bilateral exposure of the spine was achieved through spinous process osteotomy. Laminectomy with or without instrumented fusion was performed, and the wound was closed over a drain. All patients were mobilized without orthoses.

resultsThere were 15 men and 10 women with a mean age of 68 years; mean blood loss was 150 mL; mean operating time was 150 minutes; mean follow-up was 12 months. The mean improvement in Neck Disability Index at final follow-up was 26% with a 2-point improvement in visual analog scale. Japanese Orthopaedic Association score improved from a mean of 12 to 16, and using Odom's criteria, the final outcome was good in 19 patients and excellent in 6. Nurick grade improved from 3 to 1, and all patients reported significant relief of myelopathic symptoms without chronic neck pain. Two patients had postoperative superficial wound infections, and 1 patient underwent reoperation for hematoma.

conclusionIn this cohort study, the spinous process osteotomy technique was easy to perform, was safe with a low complication rate, and had positive outcomes. However, more studies are required to compare its efficacy with other techniques.

Indexed as

cervicalexposureosteotomyprocessspinespinous

Identifiers

PMID42150859
PMCPMC13670971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.