ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Anterior versus posterior decompression and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 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
purposeOptimal surgical strategy for multilevel cervical myelopathy remains debated. We compared anterior decompression and fusion (ADF) versus posterior decompression with fusion (PDF) across functional, health-related quality of life, radiographic, perioperative, and safety outcomes.
methodsWe updated a prior review with searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (January 2023-24 August 2025). Comparative adult studies of multilevel disease treated with ADF or PDF were pooled using random-effects models to estimate mean differences (MD) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity (I²), leave-one-out analyses, and Egger's tests assessed robustness and small-study effects.
resultsThirty-one studies (2 RCTs, 29 cohorts; 5,613 patients: 2,427 ADF; 3,186 PDF) met criteria. ADF was associated with higher postoperative JOA (MD 0.76; 95% CI 0.36-1.16; I²=81.7%) and greater JOA recovery (MD 9.12%; 1.34-16.89; I²=93.4%), although the recovery benefit was not robust after removing one study or under Hartung-Knapp adjustment. NDI favored ADF (MD - 1.24; -2.30 to - 0.17; I²=72.2%) but attenuated in sensitivity and was sensitive to small-study effects. EQ-5D favored ADF (MD 0.07; 0.03-0.11; I²=0%); SF-36 did not differ overall (MD 3.48; -0.43 to 7.38) but favored ADF on sensitivity. Cervical lordosis improved more with ADF (C2-C7 Cobb MD 4.15°; 1.29-7.00; I²=89.7%). LOS was shorter with ADF (MD - 1.92 days; -2.32 to - 1.52; I²=49.9%), while operative time and blood loss were overall similar. Overall complications did not differ significantly between approaches (OR 1.48; 1.00-2.20; I²=65.9%); dysphagia was higher with ADF (OR 7.28; 4.19-12.64; I²=0%) and C5 palsy lower (OR 0.35; 0.15-0.82; I²=0%) versus PDF. Revision and axial pain were comparable. Egger's tests suggested small-study effects for NDI and LOS only; in meta-regression, OPLL status and study quality explained much of the between-study heterogeneity, and GRADE certainty was low to very low for most outcomes.
conclusionFor multilevel cervical myelopathy, ADF was associated with modest improvements in neurological function, health-related quality of life, cervical alignment, and shorter hospitalization compared with PDF, although several between-group differences were below minimal clinically important difference thresholds and some were sensitive to influential studies. Trade-offs were approach-specific: dysphagia was higher after ADF, whereas C5 palsy was more frequent after PDF; overall complications did not differ significantly. Given the predominance of observational data and low-to-very-low GRADE certainty, approach selection should remain patient-tailored.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42671557What 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.