Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42670602›Full record

ArticleGlobal spine journal2026

Long-Term Comparative Outcomes of ACDF, Cervical Disc Arthroplasty, and Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy for Single-Level Cervical Radiculopathy: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

Mark Miller, Ruchir Nanavati, Matthew Meade, Omar Sbaih, Nithin Gupta, William DiCiurcio, Blake Delgadillo, Hunter Smith, Gregory Schroeder, Christopher Kepler and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Mark MillerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Jefferson Health, Stratford, NJ, USA.ORCID 0009-0005-4936-2832
Ruchir NanavatiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Jefferson Health, Stratford, NJ, USA.
Matthew MeadeDepartment of Spine Surgery, New England Baptist Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Omar SbaihDepartment of spine surgery, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0009-0008-0768-9097
Nithin GuptaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Jefferson Health, Stratford, NJ, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6696-8984
William DiCiurcioDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Jefferson Health, Stratford, NJ, USA.
Blake DelgadilloDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Jefferson Health, Stratford, NJ, USA.
Hunter SmithDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Jefferson Health, Stratford, NJ, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-8217-9051
Gregory SchroederDepartment of spine surgery, Rothman Orthopedic Institute, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Christopher KeplerDepartment of spine surgery, Rothman Orthopedic Institute, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Barrett WoodsDepartment of spine surgery, Rothman Orthopedic Institute, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Study DesignRetrospective cohort study.ObjectiveThe incidence of cervical radiculopathy is expected to increase by over 30% by 2050. ACDF, CDA, and PCF are established surgical options, each with distinct risk-benefit profiles. The objective of the present investigation is to compare long-term outcomes and complications among anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA), and posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF).MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted using TriNetX. Adult patients undergoing single-level ACDF, CDA, or PCF for cervical radiculopathy were identified. 1:1 propensity matching was performed. Outcomes included perioperative complications, reoperation rates, and new cervical pathology at 30 days, 90 days, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.ResultsMatched cohorts included ACDF vs. PCF (N=2,659), ACDF vs. CDA (N=3,749), and CDA vs. PCF (N=2,143). PCF demonstrated significantly higher reoperation rates at all timepoints compared to both ACDF and CDA in pairwise comparisons, (5-year: PCF 9.5 vs. ACDF 4.4%; PCF 10.0% vs. CDA 2.8%, p<0.001). ACDF patients demonstrated increased reoperation rates at 5 years (CDA 3.2% vs. ACDF 4.5%, p=0.01). ACDF was associated with higher early emergency department visits and ICU admissions compared to CDA.ConclusionsPCF was associated with higher rates of subsequent cervical reoperation compared with ACDF and CDA in the matched cohorts. Differences in early postoperative complications and healthcare utilization were also observed between procedures. These findings should be interpreted in the context of differences in surgical indications and unmeasured clinical and radiographic factors that may influence procedure selection.

Indexed as

ACDFCDAcervical radiculopathydegenerative disc diseaseposterior cervical foraminotomyspine surgery

Identifiers

PMID42670602
PMCPMC13530037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.