MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083404909 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000003677

Surgical Outcomes Following Laminectomy With Fusion Versus Laminectomy Alone in Patients With Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy

2020· article· en· W3083404909 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Kotter, Lindsay Tetreault, Jetan H. Badhiwala, Jefferson R. Wilson, Paul M. Arnold, Ronald Bartels, Giuseppe Barbagallo, Branko Kopiar, Michael G. Fehlings

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of TorontoToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsLaminectomyMedicineLaminoplastyMyelopathySurgeryOrthopedic surgerySpinal fusionContext (archaeology)Spinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: .: Post-hoc analysis of a prospective observational cohort study. OBJECTIVE: .: To compare clinical outcomes following laminectomy and fusion versus laminectomy alone in an international series of individuals suffering from degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: .: Significant controversy exists regarding the role of instrumented fusion in the context of posterior surgical decompression for DCM. A previous study comparing laminectomy and fusion with laminoplasty showed no differences in outcomes between groups after adjusting for preoperative characteristics. METHODS: .: Based on the operation they received, 208 of the 757 patients prospectively enrolled in the AO Spine North America or International studies at 26 global sites were included in the present study. Twenty-two patients were treated with laminectomy alone and 186 received a laminectomy with fusion. Patients were evaluated using the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scale (mJOA), Nurick score, Neck Disability Index, and SF36 quality of life measure. Baseline and surgical characteristics were compared using a t test for continuous variables and a chi-square test for categorical variables. A mixed model analytic approach was used to evaluate differences in outcomes at 24 months between patients undergoing laminectomy and fusion versus laminectomy alone. RESULTS: .: Surgical cohorts were comparable in terms of preoperative patient characteristics. Patients undergoing laminectomy with instrumented fusion had a significantly longer operative duration (P < 0.0001, 231.44 vs. 107.10 min) but a comparable length of hospital stay. In terms of outcomes, patients treated with laminectomy with fusion exhibited clinically meaningful improvements (in functional impairmentΔmJOA = 2.48, ΔNurick = 1.19), whereas those who underwent a laminectomy without fusion did not (ΔmJOA = 0.78; ΔNurick = 0.29). There were significant differences between surgical cohorts in the change in mJOA and Nurick scores from preoperative to 24-months postoperative (mJOA: -1.70, P = 0.0266; Nurick: -0.90, P = 0.0241). The rate of perioperative complications was comparable (P = 0.879). CONCLUSION: .: Our findings suggest that cervical laminectomy with instrumented fusion is more effective than laminectomy alone at improving functional impairment in patients with DCM. These results warrant confirmation in larger prospective comparative studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207