Laminoplasty versus Laminectomy and Fusion to Treat Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Outcomes of the Prospective Multicenter AOSpine International CSM Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Recent studies conducted in North America have demonstrated the benefits of surgical treatment for symptomatic CSM. However, differences in pathology, comorbidities, treatment approaches, and cultural response to treatment may affect the generalizability of these findings at the global level. Patients and Methods Patients receiving surgery for clinically symptomatic CSM were enrolled in a prospective multicenter, cohort study which is continuing to accrue patients at 16 sites in Europe, Asia, and North and South America. Patients included were a part of a larger ongoing prospective observational study that has enrolled 492 patients with CSM involving 16 clinical sites in Europe, Asia, and North and South America. Of those, 108 received laminectomy and fusion, and 66 received laminoplasty. The choice of surgical approach was at the discretion of the surgeon. Outcome measures were mJOA, the Nurick scale, NDI, and the SF36 PCS and MCS component scores. Results Average age was 60.2 years (SD 10.8), 29.8% were female. Patients treated with laminectomy and fusion had more levels operated (5.0 vs. 4.4, p < 0.01), shorter length of stay (7.7 vs. 15.7 days, p < 0.01), and less severe neurologic impairment measured by mJOA (12.6 vs. 11.2, p < 0.01). There were no differences in age, baseline NDI, SF36v2 PCS, and SF36v2 MCS. At 12-month follow-up, there were no differences in neurologic and functional outcomes for laminoplasty compared with laminectomy and fusion; mJOA (3.0 and 2.3, respectively, p = 0.15). Moreover, there were no differences in NDI (13.3 and 12.0, respectively, p = 0.71), SF-36v2 PCS (8.5 and 7.7, respectively, p = 0.66), and SF-36v2 MCS (7.9 and 6.9, respectively, p = 0.56). Conclusion Patients undergoing laminectomy and fusion and laminoplasty surgery for CSM show similar improvements in generic and disease-specific outcome measures allowing for baseline differences in clinical presentation between the two groups of patients. Longer-term follow-up will be required to determine whether any differences in outcome between the two forms of treatment emerge.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".