Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Does Surgical Approach Influence Postoperative Sagittal Alignment and Outcomes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The effect of surgical approach on outcomes for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is controversial. Fehlings et al showed that patients treated with anterior techniques tend to be younger, less impaired, and had more focal pathology. In this study, we compared outcomes of an anterior approach group (AAG) versus a posterior approach group (PAG) with a focus on the effect of sagittal alignment. Patients and Methods Post hoc analysis of a prospective, multicenter database of patients with CSM. A total of 117 patients met inclusion criteria, were nonrandomized to an AAG ( n = 51) or PAG ( n = 62), with postoperative static lateral radiographs, Nurick assessment, and health-related quality of life outcomes at 6 months and/or 1 year. The AAG underwent anterior decompression and fusion, PAG either laminoplasty or laminectomy with fusion. Sagittal regional and focal parameters were compared by multivariate regression. Results At baseline, the groups showed significant age difference (AAG 51 years, PAG 62 years, p < 0.001), rheumatological comorbidity (AAG 3%, PAG 19%, p = 0.011), and modified Japanese orthopaedic association (mJOA). The PAG had significantly more regional malalignment at baseline, but there were no focal alignment differences between the two. Surgical features were significantly different for greater than three levels treated (AAG 27%, PAG 97%, p < 0.001) and blood loss (AAG 152 mL, PAG 380 mL, p < 0.001). After surgery, both AAG and PAG improved significantly in mJOA and Nurick grade, however, there was no statistically significant difference in mJOA postoperatively. AAG had a significant decrease in SVA whereas the PAG had a significant increase in SVA. There were no relevant postoperative focal alignment differences. Conclusion The PAG had older patients with more disability. Even when age, baseline mJOA, and regional parameters were controlled, the PAG cohort still correlated with worse CGH_C7 SVA and TS–CL. It is interesting to note that the PAG had a lower mJOA than the AAG at baseline, they both improved and were not significantly different postoperatively. This suggests that both techniques relieve symptomatic disease, but patients in the posterior group may continue to progress in sagittal misalignment.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".