Predictors for cervical kyphotic deformity following laminoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Laminoplasty is a common treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). However, approximately 21% of patients undergoing laminoplasty develop cervical kyphotic deformity (KD). Because of the high prevalence rate of KD, several studies have sought to identify predictors for this complication, but the findings remain highly inconsistent. Therefore, the authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to establish reliable preoperative predictors of KD. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were used to systematically extract potential references. The first phase of screening required the studies to be written in the English language, involve patients treated for CSM and/or OPLL via laminoplasty, and report postoperative cervical KD. The second phase required the studies to provide more than 10 patients and include a control group. The mean difference (MD) and odds ratio (OR) were calculated for continuous and dichotomous parameters. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. CSM and OPLL patients were further assessed by performing subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Thirteen studies comprising patients who developed cervical KD (n = 296) and no KD (n = 1254) after receiving cervical laminoplasty for CSM or OPLL were included in the meta-analysis. All studies were retrospective cohorts and were rated as high quality. In the combined univariate analysis of CSM and OPLL patients undergoing laminoplasty, statistically significant predictors for postoperative KD included age (MD 2.22, 95% CI 0.16-4.27, p = 0.03), preoperative BMI (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.06-1.63, p = 0.04), preoperative C2-7 range of flexion (MD 10.42, 95% Cl 4.24-16.59, p = 0.0009), preoperative C2-7 range of extension (MD -4.59, 95% CI -6.34 to -2.83, p < 0.00001), and preoperative center of gravity of the head to the C7 sagittal vertical axis (MD 26.83, 95% CI 9.13-44.52, p = 0.003). Additionally, among CSM patients, males were identified as having a greater risk for postoperative KD (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.02-2.93, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study currently provide the largest and most reliable review on preoperative predictors for cervical KD after laminoplasty. Given that several of the included studies identified optimal cutoff points for the variables that are significantly associated with KD, further investigation into the development of a preoperative risk scoring system that can accurately predict KD in the clinical setting is encouraged. PROSPERO registration no.: CRD42022299795 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/).
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".