MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993360101 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3182a7eb55

Predictive Factors Affecting Outcome After Cervical Laminoplasty

2013· review· en· W1993360101 on OpenAlexaff
S. Tim Yoon, Annie Raich, Robin Hashimoto, K. Daniel Riew, Christopher I. Shaffrey, John M. Rhee, Lindsay Tetreault, Andrea C. Skelly, Michael G. Fehlings

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLaminoplastyRetrospective cohort studyProspective cohort studyLaminectomyEvidence-based medicineCohort studyMyelopathyConfoundingPosterior longitudinal ligamentPhysical therapySurgeryCervical spineInternal medicineSpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether various preoperative factors affect patient outcome after cervical laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and/or ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical laminoplasty is a procedure designed to decompress the spinal cord by enlarging the spinal canal while preserving the lamina. Prior research has identified a variety of potential predictive factors that might affect outcomes after this procedure. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple major medical reference databases was conducted to identify studies explicitly designed to evaluate the effect of preoperative factors on patient outcome after cervical laminoplasty for CSM or OPLL. Studies specifically designed to evaluate potential predictive factors and their associations with outcome were included. Only cohort studies that used multivariate analysis, enrolled at least 20 patients, and adjusted for age as a potential confounding variable were included. JOA (Japanese Orthopaedic Association), modified JOA, and JOACMEQ-L (JOA Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire lower extremity function section) scores were the main outcome measures. Clinical recommendations and consensus statements were made through a modified Delphi approach by applying the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation)/AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) criteria. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 433 citations, of which 1 prospective and 11 retrospective cohort studies met our inclusion criteria. Overall, the strength of evidence from the 12 studies is low or insufficient for most of the predictive factors. Increased age was not associated with poorer JOA outcomes for patients with CSM, but there is insufficient evidence to make a conclusion for patients with OPLL. Increased severity of disease and a longer duration of symptoms might be associated with JOA outcomes for patients with CSM. Hill-shaped lesions might be associated with poorer JOA outcomes for patients with OPLL. There is insufficient evidence to permit conclusions regarding other predictive factors. CONCLUSION: Overall, the strength of evidence for all of the predictive factors was insufficient or low. Given that cervical myelopathy due to CSM tends to be progressive and that increased severity of myelopathy and duration of symptoms might be associated with poorer outcomes after cervical laminoplasty for CSM, it is preferable to perform laminoplasty in patients with CSM earlier rather than waiting for symptoms to get worse. Further research is needed to more clearly identify predictive factors that affect outcomes after cervical laminoplasty because there were relatively few studies identified that used multivariate analyses to control for confounding factors and many of these studies did not provide a detailed description of the multivariate analyses or the magnitude of effect estimates. EVIDENCE-BASED CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: RECOMMENDATION 1: For patients with CSM, increased age is not a strong predictor of clinical neurological outcomes after laminoplasty; therefore, age by itself should not preclude cervical laminoplasty for CSM. OVERALL STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE: Low. STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION: Strong. RECOMMENDATION 2: For patients with CSM, increased severity of disease and a longer duration of symptoms might be associated with poorer clinical neurological outcomes after laminoplasty; therefore, we recommend that patients be informed about this. OVERALL STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE: Low. STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION: Strong. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: For patients with OPLL, hill-shaped lesions might be associated with poorer clinical neurological outcomes after laminoplasty; therefore, surgeons might consider potential benefits and risks of alternative or additional surgery.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.301 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations76
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207