MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2684809036 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.16.00882

Comparison of Anterior and Posterior Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy

2017· article· en· W2684809036 on OpenAlexaff
So Kato, Aria Nouri, Dongjin Wu, Satoshi Nori, Lindsay Tetreault, Michael G. Fehlings

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePropensity score matchingMyelopathySurgeryPosterior longitudinal ligamentMagnetic resonance imagingLaminoplastyKyphosisSpinal cord compressionSpondylolisthesisPerioperativeOrthopedic surgeryDegenerative disc diseaseRadiologySpinal cordRadiographyOssificationLumbar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Surgeons often choose between 2 different approaches (anterior and posterior) for surgical treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy on the basis of imaging features of spinal cord compression, the number of levels affected, and the spinal alignment. However, there is a lack of consensus on which approach is preferable. The objective of the present study was to use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based propensity-score-matched analysis to compare postoperative outcomes between the anterior and posterior surgical approaches for degenerative cervical myelopathy. METHODS: A total of 757 patients were enrolled in 2 prospective multicenter AOSpine studies, which involved 26 international sites. Preoperative MRIs were reviewed to characterize the causes of the cord compression, including single-level disc disease, multilevel disc disease, ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, enlargement of the ligamentum flavum, vertebral subluxation/spondylolisthesis, congenital fusion, number of compressed levels, or kyphosis. The propensity to choose anterior decompression was calculated using demographic data, preoperative MRI findings, and the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scores in a logistic regression model. We then performed 1-to-1 matching of patients who had received anterior decompression with those who had the same propensity score but had received posterior decompression to compare 2-year postoperative outcomes and 30-day perioperative complication rates between the 2 groups after adjustment for background characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 435 cases were included in the propensity score calculation, and 1-to-1 matching resulted in 80 pairs of anterior and posterior surgical cases; 99% of these matched patients had multilevel compression. The anterior and posterior groups did not differ significantly in terms of the postoperative mJOA score (15.1 versus 15.3, p = 0.53), Neck Disability Index (20.5 versus 24.1, p = 0.44), or Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) score (41.9 versus 40.9, p = 0.30). The overall rates of perioperative complications were similar between the 2 groups (16% versus 11%, p = 0.48); however, dysphagia/dysphonia was reported only in the anterior group whereas surgical site infection and C5 radiculopathy were reported only in the posterior group. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior and posterior decompression for degenerative cervical myelopathy resulted in similar postoperative outcomes and rates of complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations91
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207