ArticleCureus2026
Impact of Surgeon Procedural Volume on Outcomes Following Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this retrospective matched cohort study was to investigate the impact of surgeon procedural volume on postoperative outcomes and healthcare utilization following CDA. Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) is considered a motion-preserving alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for addressing cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. Increased surgeon procedural volume has been linked to improved patient outcomes and reduced costs in other orthopedic surgeries. However, limited large-scale data exist regarding the effects of surgeon experience on CDA outcomes. Methods Adult patients who underwent CDA between 2010 and 2022 and had database activity for at least 90 days postoperatively were identified from the PearlDiver database. Three cohorts were defined by providers' procedural volume: high-volume, >75 procedures; mid-volume, 26 to 75 procedures; and low-volume, 11 to 25 procedures performed during the study period. Differences in baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were assessed, and logistic regression was conducted to compare postoperative complications, 30-day and 90-day emergency department (ED) visits, and readmission rates. Survival probabilities for revision and cervical reoperation were determined using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results Of the 18,538 patients identified, 7,819 (42.2%) were treated by low-volume surgeons, 7,017 (37.9%) were treated by mid-volume surgeons, and 3,702 (20.0%) were treated by high-volume surgeons. There were no significant differences in 90-day complication rates or postoperative healthcare utilization in the multivariate analysis, with the exception of an increased rate of atelectasis in the high-volume cohort. Survival probabilities for revision CDA or cervical reoperation did not differ across groups (log-rank P > 0.05). Conclusions Surgeon procedural volume did not have a significant impact on postoperative complications, healthcare utilization, or revision rates after CDA. Nevertheless, careful attention to appropriate patient selection and surgical technique remains critical to achieving favorable outcomes. Level of evidence This retrospective cohort study provides Level III evidence.
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.