MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1740649321 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000000009

Alternative procedures for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: arthroplasty, oblique corpectomy, skip laminectomy: evaluation of comparative effectiveness and safety.

2013· article· en· W1740649321 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent C. Traynelis, Paul M. Arnold, Daryl R. Fourney, Richard J. Bransford, Dena J. Fischer, Andrea C. Skelly

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorpectomyMedicineLaminectomyLaminoplastySurgeryDecompressionArthroplastyMyelopathySpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To perform an evidence synthesis of the literature assessing the efficacy of arthroplasty, oblique corpectomy without fusion, and skip laminectomy to treat symptomatic cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Traditionally, patients with symptomatic cervical spinal cord compression due to degenerative disease have been treated with anterior or posterior approaches or both. Recent reports suggest that there are several nontraditional management strategies that merit attention. The anterior procedures include decompression and anterior reconstruction with an artificial disc and oblique corpectomy without fusion. A posterior option is decompression, using the skip laminectomy technique. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library for literature published through October 15, 2012, on human studies published in the English language containing abstracts to answer the following key questions: (1) Is there evidence that artificial disc replacement after neural decompression results in equal or improved outcomes compared with anterior cervical decompression and fusion for CSM? (2) Describe the outcomes of oblique corpectomy without fusion for CSM? (3) Is there evidence that skip laminectomy results in equal or improved outcomes compared with laminoplasty for CSM? RESULTS: The initial literature search yielded 141 unique, potentially relevant citations, which were evaluated against the inclusion/exclusion criteria set a priori. A total of 10 studies were selected for inclusion. For question 1, 2 studies suggested that neurological outcomes favored artificial disc replacement compared with anterior cervical decompression and fusion, whereas functional and pain outcomes were inconsistently reported. For question 2, 5 reported case series suggested favorable neurological, functional, and pain outcomes associated with oblique corpectomy in subjects with CSM, compared with the pretreatment condition. For question 3, 3 studies comparing laminoplasty with skip laminectomy suggested similar neurological outcomes between treatment groups, although functional and pain outcomes were inconsistently reported. CONCLUSION: A paucity of high-quality literature exists regarding treatment outcomes associated with arthroplasty, oblique corpectomy without fusion, and skip laminectomy for symptomatic CSM. Comparative prospective studies with long-term follow-up and standardized outcome measures are needed to assess treatment outcomes associated with these alternative techniques appropriately. EVIDENCE-BASED CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: RECOMMENDATION 1: No recommendation can be made from comparative literature regarding treatment outcomes comparing ADR with ACDF for CSM. OVERALL STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE: Insufficient. STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION: Strong. RECOMMENDATION 2: No recommendation can be made from comparative literature regarding treatment outcomes comparing laminoplasty with skip laminectomy for CSM. OVERALL STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE: Low. STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION: Strong. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: Oblique corpectomy is an option in selected cases of CSM. It should not be considered a first-line treatment strategy because of the relatively high morbidity associated with this procedure.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207