Controversies in Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Practice Patterns Among Canadian Surgeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Optimal fusion technique and peri-operative management of patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy (ACD) is unclear. We document current practice patterns among Canadian spinal surgeons regarding the surgical management of single level degenerative cervical spondylosis. METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey of neurosurgeons and spinal orthopedic surgeons in Canada. We asked questions pertaining to the management of single level cervical degenerative disc disease causing radiculopathy and/or myelopathy, including frequency of fusion following single-level discectomy, preferred fusion technique, indications and frequency of use of anterior plating, and use of an external cervical orthosis following surgery. Demographic factors assessed included training background, type and length of practice. RESULTS: Sixty respondents indicated that their practice involved at least 5% spine surgery and were included in further analysis. Neurosurgeons comprised 59% of respondents, and orthopedic surgeons 41%. Fusion was employed 93% of the time following ACD; autologous bone was the preferred fusion material, used in 76% of cases. Neurosurgeons employed anterior cervical plates in 42% of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion cases, whereas orthopedic surgeons used them 70% of the time. External cervical orthoses were recommended for 92% of patients without plates and 61% of patients with plates. Surgeons who had been in practice for less than five years were most likely to be performing spinal surgery, using anterior cervical plates, and recommending the postoperative use of cervical orthoses. CONCLUSION: Practice patterns vary among Canadian surgeons, although nearly all employ fusion and many use instrumentation for single-level ACD. Training background, and type and length of practice influence practice habits.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".