THE KINEMATICS OF ANTERIOR CERVICAL DISCECTOMY AND FUSION VERSUS ARTIFICIAL CERVICAL DISC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the management of cervical spondylosis may contribute to further degenerative changes at adjacent levels secondary to abnormal spinal motion. Insertion of a Bryan Cervical Disc (AD) (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN) may prevent this accelerated degeneration. This retrospective study compares the in vivo x-ray cervical spine kinematics in patients with ACDF and AD. METHODS: Ten patients with single-level AD were matched to 10 patients with single-level ACDF based on age and sex. Lateral neutral, flexion and extension cervical x-rays were obtained preoperatively and at regular intervals up to 24 months postoperatively. Kinematic parameters, including range of motion, anteroposterior translation, and disc height, were assessed for all cervical functional spinal units using quantitative motion analysis software. Changes in these parameters were compared between matched patients from both groups using paired Student's t tests. RESULTS: The range of motion at the operated level was greater in the AD group compared with the ACDF group at early (6.9 versus 0.89 degrees, P < 0.01) and late (8.4 versus 0.53 degrees, P < 0.01) follow-up evaluations. Translation was greater at the operated level in patients with AD at late follow-up (6.8 versus 0.8%, P < 0.03) evaluation. No significant between-group kinematic differences were seen at adjacent levels. CONCLUSION: Patients with AD and those with ACDF demonstrated similar in vivo adjacent level kinematics within the first 24 months after anterior cervical decompression.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".