Correlation of Clinical and Radiological Outcome After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion With a Polyetheretherketone Cage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: data on the impact of ACDF on the cervical kinematics and its association with patient-reported clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of altered cervical sagittal alignment (cervical lordosis) and sagittal range of motion (ROM) on patients' self-reported pain and functional disability, after ACDF with a PEEK cage. METHODS: We prospectively studied 74 patients, who underwent single-, or consecutive two-level ACDF with a PEEK interbody cage. The clinical outcomes were assessed by using the pain numeric rating scale (NRS) and the neck disability index (NDI). Radiological outcomes included cervical lordosis and C2-C7 sagittal ROM. The outcome measures were collected preoperatively, at the day of patients' hospital discharge, and also at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant reduction of the NRS and NDI scores postoperatively at each time point (P < 0.005). Cervical lordosis and also ROM significantly reduced until the last follow-up (P < 0.005). There was significant positive correlation between NRS and NDI preoperatively, as well as at 6 and 12 months postoperatively (P < 0.005). In regard to the ROM and the NDI scores, there was no correlation preoperatively (P = 0.199) or postoperatively (6 months, P = 0.322; 12 months, P = 0.476). Additionally, there was no preoperative (P = 0.134) or postoperative (6 months, P = 0.772; 12 months, P = 0.335) correlation between the NDI scores and cervical lordosis. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, reduction of cervical lordosis and sagittal ROM did not appear to significantly influence on patients' self-reported disability. Such findings further highlight the greater role of pain level over the mechanical limitations of ACDF with a PEEK cage on patients' own perceived recovery.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".