Anterior Versus Posterior Surgical Approaches to Treat Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective observational multicenter study. OBJECTIVE: To help solve the debate regarding whether the anterior or posterior surgical approach is optimal for patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The optimal surgical approach to treat CSM remains debated with varying opinions favoring anterior versus posterior surgical approaches. We present an analysis of a prospective observational multicenter study examining outcomes of surgical treatment for CSM. METHODS: A total of 278 subjects from 12 sites in North America received anterior/posterior or combined surgery at the discretion of the surgeon. This study focused on subjects who had either anterior or posterior surgery (n = 264, follow-up rate, 87%). Outcome measures included the modified Japanese Orthopedic Assessment scale, the Nurick scale, the Neck Disability Index, and the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey version 2 Physical and Mental Component Scores. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-nine patients were treated anteriorly and 95 underwent posterior surgery. Anterior surgical cases were younger and had less severe myelopathy as assessed by mJOA and Nurick scores. There were no baseline differences in Neck Disability Index or SF-36 between the anterior and posterior cases. Improvement in the mJOA was significantly lower in the anterior group than posterior group (2.47 vs. 3.62, respectively, P < 0.01), although the groups started at different levels of baseline impairment. The extent of improvement in the Nurick Scale, Neck Disability Index, SF-36 version 2 Physical Component Score, and SF-36 version 2 Mental Component Score did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: Patients with CSM show significant improvements in several health-related outcome measures with either anterior or posterior surgery. Importantly, patients treated with anterior techniques were younger, with less severe impairment and more focal pathology. We demonstrate for the first time that, when patient and disease factors are controlled for, anterior and posterior surgical techniques have equivalent efficacy in the treatment of CSM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".