ArticleGlobal spine journal2026
Relationship of Adult Cervical Spinous Processes to Vertebral Midline for Cervical Disc Replacement.
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.
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
Study DesignRetrospective Cohort.ObjectivesAccurate, midline artificial disc placement is crucial when performing cervical disc replacement (CDR). Although cervical spinous processes (SPs) are considered midline structures, clinical experience has often shown noticeable deviation at times. This study aims to quantitatively characterize this known observation to better understand the utility of SPs as midline indicators during CDR.MethodsPatients who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with preoperative cervical spine computerized tomography (CT) scans were retrospectively identified, excluding those with previously surgically altered spines. Angular and lateral SP deviations from C3-C7 were collected from these CTs. Statistical analysis was conducted using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc testing using Tukey's test.ResultsThe average angular SP deviations at C3-C7 were 2.94 ± 2.06 degrees, 3.52 ± 2.19 degrees, 3.50 ± 2.13 degrees, 4.31 ± 2.15 degrees, and 3.53 ± 2.86 degrees, respectively. The average lateral SP deviations at C3-C7 relative to vertebral body widths were 5.43%, 6.10%, 6.14%, 8.17%, and 7.52%, respectively. Angular deviation at C6 was greater than C3 (p = 0.009). Relative lateral deviation at C6 was greater than at C3 (p = 0.027). Neither angular nor lateral deviation differed by sex at any level (p > 0.05 for all).ConclusionsGiven significant variation in cervical SP deviation between patients and by level, surgeons should hesitate to solely rely on them for determining vertebral midline during CDR. The C6 and C7 SPs especially should be used cautiously as they show relatively higher magnitudes and variations of deviation. However, the C3-C5 SPs may be of use if viewed in conjunction with other radiographic landmarks, such as the uncinate processes or medial borders of the pedicles.
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.