Comparison of 3 Reconstructive Techniques in the Surgical Management of Multilevel Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective comparative study was performed in patients with 3-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes, radiological parameters, and complication incidence of 3 reconstructive techniques after the anterior decompression of multilevel CSM. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There has been growing interest in combination of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) for the treatment of multilevel CSM in recent years. However, the clinical efficacy and radiological outcomes of the hybrid decompression and fusion (HDF) have rarely been investigated. METHODS: A total of 180 consecutive patients with 3-level CSM undergoing the anterior decompression and fusion procedures from January 2003 to July 2010 were retrospectively investigated. According to various reconstructive techniques, the patients were divided into 3 groups: HDF, ACDF, and ACCF groups. The clinical effects and improvements of cervical and segmental lordosis in each group were assessed. In addition, the fusion rate, postoperative complications, and radiographical adjacent-level changes regarding each group were also evaluated. RESULTS: No statistical differences in clinical effects, restoration of cervical lordosis, and incidences of postoperative complications were found between the HDF and ACDF groups (P > 0.05). The ACCF group has achieved clinical effects similar to the ACDF or HDF group (P > 0.05), but it had more bleeding, lower fusion rate, and higher incidences of postoperative complications compared with the ACDF or HDF group (P < 0.05). The improvements of the cervical and segmental lordosis in the ACCF group were significantly less than the ACDF or HDF group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in radiographical adjacent-level changes among the 3 groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The HDF can be considered an effective and safe alternative procedure compared with ACDF in the treatment of the multilevel CSM, and ACCF should be the last option.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".