The Outcomes of Patients With Neck Pain Following ACDF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the present study was to determine whether neck pain responds differently to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) between patients with cervical radiculopathy and/or cervical myelopathy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many patients who undergo ACDF because of radiculopathy/myelopathy also complain of neck pain. However, no studies have compared the response of significant neck pain to ACDF. METHODS: Patients undergoing one to three-level primary ACDF for radiculopathy and/or myelopathy with significant (Visual Analogue Scale [VAS] ≥ 3) neck pain and a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. Based on preoperative symptoms patients were split into groups for analysis: radiculopathy (R group), myelopathy (M group), or both (MR group). Groups were compared for differences in Health Related Quality of Life outcomes: Physical Component Score-12, Mental Component Score (MCS)-12, Neck Disability Index, VAS neck, and VAS arm pain. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-five patients met inclusion criteria. There were 117 patients in the R group, 53 in the M group, and 65 in the MR group. Preoperative VAS neck pain was found to be significantly higher in the R group versus M group (6.5 vs. 5.5; P = 0.046). Postoperatively, all cohorts experienced significant (P < 0.001) reduction in VAS neck pain, (ΔVAS neck; R group: -2.9, M: -2.5, MR: -2.5) with no significant differences between groups. However, myelopathic patients showed greater improvement in absolute MCS-12 scores (P = 0.011), RR (P = 0.006), and % minimum clinically important difference (P = 0.013) when compared with radiculopathy patients. This greater improvement remained following regression analysis (P = 0.025). CONCLUSION: Patients with substantial preoperative neck pain experienced significant reduction in their neck pain, disability, and physical function following ACDF, whether treated for radiculopathy or myelopathy. However, in this study, only myelopathy patients had significant improvements in their mental function as represented by MCS improvements. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
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 | 0.000 | 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".