ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2026
C2 vs C3 as the Upper Instrumented Vertebra in Posterior Cervical Fusion: Effects on Junctional Mechanics and Midterm Outcomes.
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.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelection of the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) in posterior cervical decompression and fusion remains variable, and its influence on junctional mechanics and clinical outcomes is not fully defined. Extending fixation to C2 may offer mechanical advantages but introduces additional operative complexity. This study compared radiographic alignment, proximal junctional complications, and patient-reported outcomes between constructs terminating at C2 vs C3.
methodsA retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on consecutive patients undergoing posterior cervical fusion from 2021 to 2023 with distal fixation at T1. Patients were stratified by UIV: C2 or C3. Demographic, operative, and radiographic data were collected. Cervical alignment parameters, proximal and distal junctional complications, and patient-reported outcomes (visual analog scale, Neck Disability Index, and 36-item Short Form physical component score and mental component score) were evaluated at baseline and at 6 and 24 months. Group comparisons used
resultsA total of 104 patients were included (C2:
conclusionsTermination at C2 reduces proximal junctional complications and results in a smaller transition angle without compromising midterm clinical outcomes; however, it involves greater operative burden. UIV selection should be individualized, favoring C2 when anatomical feasibility and junctional risk profiles support cranial fixation. Longer-term prospective studies are needed to determine whether mechanical advantages translate into durable clinical benefit. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These findings suggest that selecting C2 rather than C3 as the upper instrumented vertebra may reduce proximal junctional complications in posterior cervical fusion extending to T1, although the greater operative burden of C2 fixation should be considered when individualizing surgical planning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.