Comparison of clinical outcomes of modified laminoplasty with preservation of muscle group inserted into C2 and C7 spinous processes versus conventional C3–C7 laminoplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The efficacy and noninferior of performing modified double-door laminoplasty (MDDL) (C4-C6 laminoplasty plus C3 laminectomy, alongside a dome-like resection of the inferior part of the C2 lamina and the superior part of the C7 lamina) in patients with multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MCSM) is equivocal. A randomized, controlled trial is warranted. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and noninferior of MDDL compared with traditional C3-C7 double-door laminoplasty. STUDY DESIGN: A single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: A single-blind, randomized, controlled trial was conducted in which patients who with MCSM with greater than or equal to 3 levels of spinal cord compression from the C3 to the C7 vertebral levels were enrolled and assigned to undergo either MDDL group or conventional double-door laminoplasty (CDDL) group in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was the change in the Japanese Orthopedic Association score from baseline to 2-year follow-up. The secondary outcomes included changes in the Neck Disability Index (NDI) score, the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for neck pain, and imaging parameters. Operative complications were also collected and reported. The outcome measures were compared between the groups at 3 months, 1 year, or 2 years after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 96 patients (mean age 67 years, 39.8% women) underwent randomization. Of these patients, 93 completed 3-month follow-up, 79 completed 1-year follow-up, and 66 completed 2-year follow-up. The changes in the Japanese Orthopedic Association score did not differ significantly between the study groups at the three time points after surgery. With respect to amelioration of neck pain and disability related to neck pain, patients in the MDDL group had a significantly greater decrease in the VAS and NDI component summary score than did those in the CDDL group at 1-year (VAS: -2.5 vs. -3.2, difference -0.7, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.2, P =0.0035; NDI: -13.6 vs. -19.3, difference -5.7, 95% CI -10.3 to -1.1, P =0.0159) and 2-years (VAS: -2.1 vs. -2.9, difference -0.8, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.2, P =0.0109; NDI: -9.3 vs. -16.0, difference -6.7, 95% CI -11.9 to -1.5, P =0.0127). The changes in the range of motion (ROM), the C2-C7 Cobb angle, and the cervical sagittal vertical axis in the MDDL group were significantly less than those in the CDDL group (ROM: -9.2±6.4 vs. -5.0±6.0, P =0.0079; C2-C7 Cobb angle: -7.9±7.8 vs. -4.1±6.2, P =0.0345; cervical sagittal vertical axis: 0.6±0.9 vs. 0.2±0.6, P =0.0233). The MDDL group had less blood loss (428.1 vs. 349.1, P =0.0175) and a lower rate of axial symptoms (27.3 vs. 6.1%, P =0.0475) than the CDDL group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with MCSM, the MDDL produced similar cervical cord decompression compared with the conventional C3-C7 double-door laminoplasty. The modified laminoplasty was associated with meaningful improvement in amelioration of neck discomfort, maintaining a better cervical ROM and sagittal alignment, decreasing blood loss, and reducing the incidence of axial symptoms.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».