Efficacy and safety of alternative-level laminoplasty vs. all-level laminoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This study systematically reviews the literature and performs a meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the intra-operative outcomes, clinical efficacy, safety, and cost of alternative-level and all-level laminoplasty. Methods A systematic review is conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Searches are performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, OVID, and Embase databases from inception to August 2024, using search terms “laminoplasty” AND “all OR skip OR alternative.” Data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment are conducted independently by two researchers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Statistical analysis is performed with RevMan 5.4. Results Four retrospective Chinese studies (337 patients: 176 alternative-level, 161 all-level) meet the criteria. Meta-analysis shows no significant difference in intra-operative outcomes: operative time ( P = 0.23) and blood loss ( P = 0.11). Clinical efficacy, measured by Japanese Orthopaedic Association(JOA) Score ( P = 0.08), JOA recovery( P = 0.08), and Visual Analog Scale ( P = 0.26), also shows no significant difference. Similarly, safety outcomes, including complications( P = 0.64), C5 palsy( P = 1.00), and axial symptoms( P = 0.57), are comparable between the two fixation methods. Cervical sagittal parameters are also equivalent: Cervical Curvature Index ( P = 0.18) and overall range of motion ( P = 0.29). However, alternative-level laminoplasty demonstrates lower cost ( P < 0.00001) and is inferior in cervical canal outcomes, including anterior–posterior diameter ( P = 0.01), Pavlov ratio( P = 0.007) and open angle ( P < 0.00001). Conclusion Alternative-level laminoplasty matches all-level fixation in operative efficiency, neurological recovery, and complication rates while substantially reducing implant costs. Its slightly lesser canal expansion does not translate into inferior clinical outcomes. Evidence strength is limited by the small number of single-center retrospective studies from one country. Multi-center randomized trials in other countries are needed to confirm generalizability.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".