Clinical outcomes and revision rates following four-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies on outcomes after four-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) are limited in the literature. The purpose of this study was to report on clinical outcomes and revision rates following four-level ACDF. Patients operated with four-level ACDF were identified in a prospectively accrued single institution database. Outcome scores included the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain. Reoperation rates were determined. Any complications were identified from a review of the medical records. Twenty-eight patients with a minimum of 12 months follow up were included in the analysis. The mean age at surgery was 58.5 years. The median radiographic follow up time was 23 (IQR = 16-31.25) months. Cervical lordosis was significantly improved postoperatively (- 1 to - 13, p < 0.001). At the median 24 (IQR = 17.75-39.50) months clinical follow up time, there was a significant improvement in the NDI (38 to 28, p = 0.046) and VAS for neck pain scores (5.1 to 3, p = 0.012). The most common perioperative complication was transient dysphagia (32%) followed by hoarseness (14%). Four (14%) patients required revision surgery at a median 11.5 (IQR = 2-51) months postoperatively. The results of this study indicate that patients who undergo four-level ACDF have a significant improvement in clinical outcomes at median 24 months follow up. Stand-alone four-level ACDF is a valid option for the management of complex cervical degenerative conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".