MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220751985 · doi:10.14444/8199

Impact of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty vs Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion on Driving Disability: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial With 10-Year Follow-Up

2022· article· en· W4220751985 on OpenAlex
Deeptee Jain, Michael P. Kelly, Matthew F. Gornet, J. Kenneth Burkus, Scott D. Hodges, Randall F. Dryer, Jeffrey R. McConnell, Todd H. Lanman, K. Daniel Riew

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Spine Surgery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Parks and Wilderness Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnterior cervical discectomy and fusionMedicineArthroplastyMyelopathySurgeryRandomized controlled trialCervical radiculopathyNeck painCervical spine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Driving an automobile requires the ability to turn the neck laterally. Anecdotally, patients with multilevel fusions often complain about restricted turning motion. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) on driving disability improvement at 10-year follow-up after a 2-level procedure. <h3>Methods</h3> In the original randomized controlled trial, patients with cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy at 2 levels underwent CDA or ACDF. The driving disability question from the Neck Disability Index was rated from 0 to 5 years preoperatively and up to 10 years postoperatively. Severity of driving disability was categorized into “none” (score 0), “mild” (1 or 2), and “severe” (3, 4, or 5). Score and severity were compared between groups. <h3>Results</h3> Out of 397 patients, 148 CDA and 118 ACDF patients had 10-year follow-up. Driving disability scores were not different between the groups preoperatively (CDA: 2.65; ACDF: 2.71, <i>P</i> = 0.699). Postoperatively, the scores in the CDA group were significantly lower than those in the ACDF group at 5 (0.60 vs 1.08, <i>P</i> ≤ 0.001) and 10 years (0.66 vs 1.07, <i>P</i> = 0.001). Mean score improvement in the CDA group was significantly greater than the ACDF group at 10-year follow-up (−1.94 vs −1.63, <i>P</i> = 0.003). The majority of patients reported severe driving disability (CDA: 56.9%, ACDF: 58.0%, <i>P</i> = 0.968) before surgery. After surgery, a greater proportion of patients in the CDA group had neck pain-free driving compared with the ACDF group at 5 (63.3% vs 41.8%, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001) and 10 years (61.8% vs 41.2%, <i>P</i> = 0.003). <h3>Conclusion</h3> In patients with cervical radiculopathy/myelopathy and 2-level disease, CDA provided greater improvements in driving disability as compared with ACDF at 10-year follow-up. This is the first report of its kind. This finding may be attributable to preservation of motion associated with CDA. <h3>Clinical Relevence</h3> This study provides valuable information regarding the improvement of driving disability after both CDA and ACDF. It demonstrates that both procedures result in significant improvements, with CDA resulting in even better improvements than ACDF, up to 10 year follow-up. <h3>Level of Evidence</h3> 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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.330 · 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