ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2026
Retrospective cohort study of recovery trajectories following anterior versus posterior fusion surgery for cervical degenerative pathology.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior decompression and instrumented fusion (PDIF) are two common spinal procedures for treating cervical degenerative pathology. While previous studies have compared outcomes and complication profiles between ACDF and PDIF, there is limited outcomes data investigating the rates and patterns of clinical improvement of the two techniques. The purpose of this study was to (I) compare trends in patient reported neck disability index (NDI) scores perioperatively between ACDF and PDIF; (II) identify demographic and perioperative characteristics that may influence rate of improvement; and (III) compare surgical intraoperative complications and reoperation rates. Methods: A retrospective review from 2019-2023 was performed identifying 309 consecutive patients undergoing primary or revision ACDF (n=271) or PDIF (n=38) for degenerative disease. A minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 11 was assumed based on previous literature. Results: Average follow-up was 2.2 years. ACDF patients were younger (56.1 Conclusions: Both ACDF and PDIF achieve long-term improvement exceeding MCID with similar rates. ACDF patients demonstrated faster recovery and higher MCID achievement rates at 1-year. Clinical improvement was comparable across diagnoses and number of fusion levels. These findings provide guidance in preoperative counseling, establishing realistic recovery timelines, and managing postoperative expectations.
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.