ReviewGlobal spine journal2026
Anterior Cervical Osteotomy: A Narrative Review and Proposal of a Mechanism-Based Decision Framework (The ACO Triad).
Review 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study DesignNarrative review and conceptual framework proposal.ObjectiveTo reframe anterior cervical osteotomy (ACO) as a biomechanical continuum and propose a mechanism-based decision framework "the ACO Triad" integrating alignment, stability, and safety.MethodsA comprehensive literature review was performed across PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify studies representative of distinct ACO biomechanical mechanisms. Unlike traditional hierarchical classifications based on resection volume, techniques were analyzed and synthesized into a four-tier continuum based on their dominant correction mechanism: from disc-level release to vertebral-body translation.Key Content and FindingsThe literature review suggests that sagittal alignment outcomes are governed by the mechanism of apical control (hinging vs. translation) rather than the volume of bone removed. We organized strategies into four tiers: Tier I leverages disc-level release for segmental hinging; Tier II utilizes targeted retro-corporeal decompression; Tier III encompasses traditional corpectomy, which exhibits a "correction ceiling" and stability trade-offs with longer spans; and Tier IV (e.g., VBSO, ACAF) utilizes vertebral body translation for indirect decompression. The "ACO Triad" framework explains the trade-offs: while corpectomy (Tier III) increases resection, it may compromise stability (load-sharing) and safety in adhesive disease. Conversely, translation techniques (Tier IV) decouple decompression from resection, altering the safety profile.ConclusionsAnterior cervical osteotomy is best understood as a mechanism-driven continuum. By integrating alignment, stability, and safety, the ACO Triad provides a rational foundation for surgical decision-making, shifting planning from a resection hierarchy toward biomechanical intent.
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.