Prediction of Outcome Following Surgical Treatment of Cervical Myelopathy Based on Features of Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) is defined as ectopic bone formation within the posterior longitudinal ligament. Although various OPLL features (including the extent, shape, and thickness of the OPLL as well as the presence of dural ossification) have been defined in the literature, we are not aware of any systematic reviews that have summarized the associations between these features and clinical outcomes following surgery. The objective of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine whether OPLL characteristics are predictive of outcome in patients undergoing surgery for the treatment of cervical myelopathy. METHODS: An extensive search was performed using 4 electronic databases: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Our search terms were OPLL and cervical. We identified studies in English or Japanese that evaluated the association between cervical OPLL features and surgical outcome. The overall body of evidence was assessed with use of a scoring system developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group with recommendations from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHQR). The present systematic literature review is formatted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. RESULTS: The search yielded a total of 2,318 citations. A total of 28 prognostic cohort studies were deemed relevant following a rigorous review process. Among them, only 7 retrospective studies involved a multivariate analysis that controlled for potential confounding variables. Sample sizes ranged from 47 to 133 patients. The main outcome was the postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and/or recovery rate in 6 studies and the Nurick grade in 1. Of these, 2 were rated as Level-II evidence and 5 were rated as Level-III evidence. On the basis of our results, there was low evidence that patients with a hill-shaped ossification have a worse postoperative JOA score following laminoplasty than those with a plateau-shaped lesion; low evidence that the space available for the spinal cord cannot predict postoperative JOA scores; moderate evidence that there is no association between the occupying ratio and improvement on the Nurick scale; and insufficient evidence to determine the association between JOA outcomes and the type of OPLL, the presence of dural ossification, and the occupying ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with hill-shaped OPLL have a worse postoperative JOA score than those with plateau-shaped ossification after laminoplasty. Because of limited evidence, it is unclear whether the occupying ratio, the type of OPLL, and the presence of dural ossification are predictive of surgical outcomes following either anterior or posterior decompression. A limited number of studies have used a multivariate analysis to evaluate the association between clinical outcomes and OPLL features. Additional studies representing high-quality evidence are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.008 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".