The Clinical Relevance of the Cervical Disc Prosthesis: Combining Clinical Results of Two RCTs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis was performed on data from 251 patients that were included in two randomized, double-blinded clinical trials comparing clinical results of anterior cervical discectomy and arthroplasty (ACDA) to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), and anterior cervical discectomy (ACD), for single-level disc herniation. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether the ACDA procedure offers superior clinical results 2 years after surgery, to either ACDF or ACD without instrumentation, in the entire group of patients or in a particular subgroup of patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The cervical disc prosthesis was introduced to provide superior clinical outcomes after ACD. METHODS: Neck Disability Index (NDI), and subscales of the 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) and McGill pain score were collected at baseline, 1 year and 2 years after surgery. Reoperations and complications were also evaluated. A preliminary subgroup analysis was performed for age, disc height, body mass index (BMI), smoking, and sex. RESULTS: The NDI decreased comparably in all treatment arms to circa 50% of the baseline value and marginal mean NDI differences varied from 0.4 to 1.1 on a 100 point NDI scale, with confidence intervals never exceeding the 20-point minimal clinical important difference (MCID). Secondary outcome parameters showed comparable results. Preliminary subgroup analysis could not demonstrate clinically relevant differences in NDI between treatments after 2 years. CONCLUSION: After combining data from two Randomized Controlled Trials it can be concluded that there is no clinical benefit for ACDA, when compared with ACDF or ACD 2 years after surgery. Preliminary subgroup analysis indicated outcomes were similar between treatment groups, and that no subgroup could be appointed that benefited more from either ACD, ACDF, or ACDA.Level of Evidence: 1.
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 | 0.074 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".