ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2026
Minimally Invasive Decompression and Fusion With Percutaneous Facet Cages vs Traditional Lateral Mass Screw Fixation for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 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
BACKGROUND Comparative clinical data evaluating percutaneous facet cage (PFC)-based minimally invasive decompression against traditional laminectomy and lateral mass screw (LMS) fixation in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) remain limited. We compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of these 2 surgical strategies. MATERIAL AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed 76 patients with CSM operated on between 2020 and 2024. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: the LMS group (n=46): laminectomy with LMS fusion; and the PFC group (n=30): speculum-assisted laminotomy with PFC fusion. Clinical outcomes were assessed using modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association, Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Radiological parameters included cervical lordosis, T1 slope, cervical sagittal vertical axis, foraminal height, and fusion rate. Complications and perioperative data were compared. RESULTS The PFC group had better perioperative outcomes and numerically fewer complications, and achieved superior NDI, VAS, and ODI scores at 1 year, while both groups improved significantly in all clinical outcomes. Radiologically, foraminal height increased significantly in the PFC group. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of fusion rates, cervical sagittal vertical axis, or cervical lordosis. CONCLUSIONS In this retrospective cohort, minimally invasive decompression combined with PFC was associated with shorter operative time, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital stay than conventional laminectomy with LMS fixation. Neurological recovery and radiological outcomes were comparable between groups, while pain and disability scores favored the PFC group. Minimally invasive decompression with PFC fusion is a viable alternative for elderly patients, those with multiple comorbidities, or those at high risk of perioperative bleeding.
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.