U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Selph SS, Skelly AC, Jungbauer RM, et al. Cervical Degenerative Disease Treatment: A Systematic Review [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2023 Nov. (Comparative Effectiveness Review, No. 266.)

Cover of Cervical Degenerative Disease Treatment: A Systematic Review

Cervical Degenerative Disease Treatment: A Systematic Review [Internet].

Show details

Appendix HAppendix References

1.
Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Guideline for the Surgical Management of Cervical Degenerative Disease. Congress of Neurological Surgeons; 2009. https://www​.cns.org/guidelines​/browse-guidelines-detail​/surgical-management-of-cervical-degenerative-disea2022.
2.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Rockville, MD: 2020. https:​//effectivehealthcare​.ahrq.gov/products​/collections/cer-methods-guide. [PubMed: 21433403]
3.
Furlan AD, Malmivaara A, Chou R, et al. 2015 Updated Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Nov;40(21):1660–73. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001061. PMID: 26208232. [PubMed: 26208232] [CrossRef]
4.
US Preventive Services Task Force. Methods and Processes. Rockville, MD: 2019. https://www​.uspreventiveservicestaskforce​.org/uspstf/about-uspstf​/methods-and-processes Accessed December 10, 2021.
5.
Hardy RJ, Thompson SG. A likelihood approach to meta-analysis with random effects. Stat Med. 1996 Mar 30;15(6):619–29. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19960330)15:6<619::Aid-sim188>3.0.Co;2-a. PMID: 8731004. [PubMed: 8731004] [CrossRef]
6.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557–60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557. PMID: 12958120. [PMC free article: PMC192859] [PubMed: 12958120] [CrossRef]
7.
Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Bmj. 2011 Jul 22;343:d4002. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4002. PMID: 21784880. [PubMed: 21784880] [CrossRef]
8.
Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednarík J, et al. Predictive factors for mild forms of spondylotic cervical myelopathy treated conservatively or surgically. Eur J Neurol. 2005 Jan;12(1):16–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2004.00947.x. PMID: 15613142. [PubMed: 15613142] [CrossRef]
9.
Kadanka Z, Bednařík J, Novotný O, et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: conservative versus surgical treatment after 10 years. Eur Spine J. 2011 Sep;20(9):1533–8. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1811-9. PMID: 21519928. [PMC free article: PMC3175900] [PubMed: 21519928] [CrossRef]
10.
Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednaník J, et al. Approaches to spondylotic cervical myelopathy: conservative versus surgical results in a 3-year follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Oct 15;27(20):2205–10; discussion 10-1. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000029255.77224.BB. PMID: 12394893. [PubMed: 12394893] [CrossRef]
11.
Colamaria A, Ciappetta P, Fochi NP, et al. Anterior cervical corpectomy for treatment of spondylotic myelopathy. Results of a prospective double-armed study with a three-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Sci. 2022 Apr 13;13:13. doi: 10.23736/S0390-5616.22.05608-9. PMID: 35416453. [PubMed: 35416453] [CrossRef]
12.
Persson LC, Moritz U, Brandt L, et al. Cervical radiculopathy: pain, muscle weakness and sensory loss in patients with cervical radiculopathy treated with surgery, physiotherapy or cervical collar. A prospective, controlled study. Eur Spine J. 1997;6(4):256–66. doi: 10.1007/bf01322448. PMID: 9294750. [PMC free article: PMC3454639] [PubMed: 9294750] [CrossRef]
13.
Persson LC, Lilja A. Pain, coping, emotional state and physical function in patients with chronic radicular neck pain. A comparison between patients treated with surgery, physiotherapy or neck collar--a blinded, prospective randomized study. Disabil Rehabil. 2001 May 20;23(8):325–35. doi: 10.1080/09638280010005567. PMID: 11374522. [PubMed: 11374522] [CrossRef]
14.
Cheung JPY, Cheung PWH, Law K, et al. Postoperative rigid cervical collar leads to less axial neck pain in the early stage after open-door laminoplasty-a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery. 2019;85(3):325–34p. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyy359. [PubMed: 30113664] [CrossRef]
15.
Hida T, Sakai Y, Ito K, et al. Collar fixation is not mandatory after cervical laminoplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2017 Mar;42(5):E253–E9. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001994. PMID: 27879567. [PubMed: 27879567] [CrossRef]
16.
Uehara T, Tsushima E, Yamada S, et al. A randomized controlled trial for the intervention effect of early exercise therapy on axial pain after cervical laminoplasty. Spine surgery and related research. 2022;6(2):123–32. doi: 10.22603/SSRR.2021-0110. [PMC free article: PMC8995120] [PubMed: 35478978] [CrossRef]
17.
Foley KT, Mroz TE, Arnold PM, et al. Randomized, prospective, and controlled clinical trial of pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation for cervical fusion. Spine J. 2008 May–Jun;8(3):436–42. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.06.006. PMID: 17983841. [PubMed: 17983841] [CrossRef]
18.
Abbott A, Halvorsen M, Dedering A. Is there a need for cervical collar usage post anterior cervical decompression and fusion using interbody cages? A randomized controlled pilot trial. Physiother. 2013 May;29(4):290–300. doi: 10.3109/09593985.2012.731627. PMID: 23074995. [PubMed: 23074995] [CrossRef]
19.
Ebrahim KS, El-Shehaby A, Darwish A, et al. Anterior or posterior foraminotomy for unilateral cervical radiculopathy. Pan arab journal of neurosurgery. 2011;15(2):34–46p.
20.
Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, et al. Full-endoscopic cervical posterior foraminotomy for the operation of lateral disc herniations using 5.9-mm endoscopes: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Apr 20;33(9):940–8. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816c8b67. PMID: 18427313. [PubMed: 18427313] [CrossRef]
21.
Alvin MD, Lubelski D, Abdullah KG, et al. Cost-utility analysis of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plating (ACDFP) versus posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) for patients with single-level cervical radiculopathy at 1-year follow-up. Clin Spine Surg. 2016 Mar;29(2):E67–72. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000099. PMID: 26889994. [PubMed: 26889994] [CrossRef]
22.
Broekema AEH, Simoes de Souza NF, Soer R, et al. Noninferiority of posterior cervical foraminotomy vs anterior cervical discectomy with fusion for procedural success and reduction in arm pain among patients with cervical radiculopathy at 1 year: the FACET randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol. 2023 Jan 1;80(1):40–8. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.4208. PMID: 36409485. [PMC free article: PMC9679957] [PubMed: 36409485] [CrossRef]
23.
Foster MT, Carleton-Bland NP, Lee MK, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes in anterior cervical discectomy versus foraminotomy for brachialgia. Br J Neurosurg. 2019 Feb;33(1):3–7. doi: 10.1080/02688697.2018.1527013. PMID: 30450995. [PubMed: 30450995] [CrossRef]
24.
Wirth FP, Dowd GC, Sanders HF, et al. Cervical discectomy. A prospective analysis of three operative techniques. Surg Neurol. 2000 Apr;53(4):340–6; discussion 6-8. doi: 10.1016/s0090-3019(00)00201-9. PMID: 10825519. [PubMed: 10825519] [CrossRef]
25.
Lubelski D, Healy AT, Silverstein MP, et al. Reoperation rates after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus posterior cervical foraminotomy: a propensity-matched analysis. Spine J. 2015 Jun 01;15(6):1277–83. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.02.026. PMID: 25720729. [PubMed: 25720729] [CrossRef]
26.
Witiw CD, Smieliauskas F, O’Toole JE, et al. Comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion to posterior cervical foraminotomy for cervical radiculopathy: utilization, costs, and adverse events 2003 to 2014. Neurosurgery. 2019 02 01;84(2):413–20. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyy051. PMID: 29548034. [PubMed: 29548034] [CrossRef]
27.
Nunna RS, Khalid S, Chiu RG, et al. Anterior vs posterior approach in multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a nationwide propensity-matched analysis of complications, outcomes, and narcotic use. Int J Spine Surg. 2022 Feb;16(1):88–94. doi: 10.14444/8198. PMID: 35314510. [PMC free article: PMC9519084] [PubMed: 35314510] [CrossRef]
28.
Jiang YQ, Li XL, Zhou XG, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus plate-only open-door laminoplasty for the treatment of spinal stenosis in degenerative diseases. Eur Spine J. 2017 04;26(4):1162–72. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4878-5. PMID: 27885472. [PubMed: 27885472] [CrossRef]
29.
Asher AL, Devin CJ, Kerezoudis P, et al. Comparison of outcomes following anterior vs posterior fusion surgery for patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy: an analysis from quality outcomes database. Neurosurgery. 2019 04 01;84(4):919–26. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyy144. PMID: 29741718. [PubMed: 29741718] [CrossRef]
30.
Fehlings MG, Barry S, Kopjar B, et al. Anterior versus posterior surgical approaches to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy: outcomes of the prospective multicenter aospine north america csm study in 264 patients. Spine. 2013;38(26):2247–52. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000047. PMID: 24108289. [PubMed: 24108289] [CrossRef]
31.
Wadhwa H, Sharma J, Varshneya K, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a national administrative database analysis. World Neurosurg. 2021 08;152:e738–e44. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.06.064. PMID: 34153482. [PubMed: 34153482] [CrossRef]
32.
Cole T, Veeravagu A, Zhang M, et al. Anterior versus posterior approach for multilevel degenerative cervical disease: a retrospective propensity score-matched study of the marketscan database. Spine. 2015 Jul 01;40(13):1033–8. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000872. PMID: 25768690. [PubMed: 25768690] [CrossRef]
33.
Joo PY, Jayaram RH, McLaughlin WM, et al. Four-level anterior versus posterior cervical fusions: perioperative outcomes and five-year reoperation rates: outcomes after four-level anterior versus posterior cervical procedures. N Am Spine Soc J. 2022 Jun;10:100115. doi: 10.1016/j.xnsj.2022.100115. PMID: 35392022. [PMC free article: PMC8980614] [PubMed: 35392022] [CrossRef]
34.
Lee NJ, Boddapati V, Mathew J, et al. What is the impact of surgical approach in the treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy in patients with OPLL? a propensity-score matched, multi-center analysis on inpatient and post-discharge 90-day outcomes. Global spine j. 2021 Feb 19:2192568221994797. doi: 10.1177/2192568221994797. PMID: 33601898. [PMC free article: PMC9972269] [PubMed: 33601898] [CrossRef]
35.
Lee NJ, Kim JS, Park P, et al. A comparison of various surgical treatments for degenerative cervical myelopathy: a propensity score matched analysis. Global spine j. 2022 Jul;12(6):1109–18. doi: 10.1177/2192568220976092. PMID: 33375849. [PMC free article: PMC9210244] [PubMed: 33375849] [CrossRef]
36.
Badhiwala JH, Ellenbogen Y, Khan O, et al. Comparison of the inpatient complications and health care costs of anterior versus posterior cervical decompression and fusion in patients with multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy: a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis. World Neurosurg. 2020 Feb;134:e112–e9. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.09.132. PMID: 31574327. [PubMed: 31574327] [CrossRef]
37.
Elmallawany M, Kandel H, Soliman MAR, et al. The safety and efficacy of cervical laminectomy and fusion versus cervical laminoplasty surgery in degenerative cervical myelopathy: a prospective randomized trial. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2020;8:807–14. doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2020.4841. [CrossRef]
38.
Manzano GR, Casella G, Wang MY, et al. A prospective, randomized trial comparing expansile cervical laminoplasty and cervical laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy. Neurosurgery. 2012 Feb;70(2):264–77. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182305669. PMID: 22251974. [PubMed: 22251974] [CrossRef]
39.
Blizzard DJ, Caputo AM, Sheets CZ, et al. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with fusion for the treatment of spondylotic cervical myelopathy: short-term follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2017 01;26(1):85–93. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4746-3. PMID: 27554354. [PubMed: 27554354] [CrossRef]
40.
Fehlings MG, Santaguida C, Tetreault L, et al. Laminectomy and fusion versus laminoplasty for the treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy: results from the AOSpine North America and International prospective multicenter studies. Spine J. 2017 01;17(1):102–8. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.08.019. PMID: 27597512. [PubMed: 27597512] [CrossRef]
41.
He X, Zhang JN, Liu TJ, et al. Is laminectomy and fusion the better choice than laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy with signal changes on magnetic resonance imaging? A comparison of two posterior surgeries. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Jul 02;21(1):423. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03435-7. PMID: 32615953. [PMC free article: PMC7331273] [PubMed: 32615953] [CrossRef]
42.
Woods BI, Hohl J, Lee J, et al. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Orthop. 2011 Mar;469(3):688–95. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1653-5. PMID: 21089002. [PMC free article: PMC3032861] [PubMed: 21089002] [CrossRef]
43.
McDonald CL, Hershman SH, Hogan W, et al. Cervical laminoplasty versus posterior laminectomy and fusion: trends in utilization and evaluation of complication and revision surgery rates. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2022 May 30;30(17):30. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-22-00106. PMID: 35640093. [PubMed: 35640093] [CrossRef]
44.
Mesregah MK, Formanek B, Liu JC, et al. Perioperative complications of surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy: a comparison between 3 procedures. Global spine j. 2021 Mar 12:2192568221998306. doi: 10.1177/2192568221998306. PMID: 33709809. [PMC free article: PMC9972283] [PubMed: 33709809] [CrossRef]
45.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED). Mobi-C® Cervical Disc Prosthesis (One-level Indication). PMA No.: P110002. August 7, 2013 https://www​.accessdata​.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh​/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P110002.
46.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED). ProDisc™-C Total Disc Replacement. PMA No.: P070001. December 17, 2007. https://www​.accessdata​.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh​/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P070001.
47.
Chen X, Shi L, Yu X, et al. Comparative study of artificial cervical disc replacement and anterior cervical discectomy/fusion in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2019;12(8):10597–604p.
48.
Donk RD, Verbeek ALM, Verhagen WIM, et al. What’s the best surgical treatment for patients with cervical radiculopathy due to single-level degenerative disease? A randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(8):e0183603. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183603. PMID: 28850600. [PMC free article: PMC5574537] [PubMed: 28850600] [CrossRef]
49.
Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, et al. Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine. 2009 Jan 15;34(2):101–7. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818ee263. PMID: 19112337. [PubMed: 19112337] [CrossRef]
50.
Hisey MS, Zigler JE, Jackson R, et al. Prospective, randomized comparison of one-level mobi-c cervical total disc replacement vs. anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: Results at 5-year follow-up. Int J Spine Surg. 2016;10:10. doi: 10.14444/3010. PMID: 27162712. [PMC free article: PMC4852596] [PubMed: 27162712] [CrossRef]
51.
Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, et al. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007 Mar;6(3):198–209. doi: 10.3171/spi.2007.6.3.198. PMID: 17355018. [PubMed: 17355018] [CrossRef]
52.
Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Shariat K, et al. The ProDisc-C prosthesis: clinical and radiological experience 1 year after surgery. Spine. 2007 Aug 15;32(18):1935–41. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31813162d8. PMID: 17700437. [PubMed: 17700437] [CrossRef]
53.
Vaccaro A, Beutler W, Peppelman W, et al. Clinical outcomes with selectively constrained SECURE-C cervical disc arthroplasty: two-year results from a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption study. Spine. 2013 Dec 15;38(26):2227–39. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000031. PMID: 24335629. [PubMed: 24335629] [CrossRef]
54.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED). NuVasive PCM® Cervical Disc System. PMA No.: P100012. October 26, 2012. https://www​.accessdata​.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh​/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P100012.
55.
Phillips FM, Geisler FH, Gilder KM, et al. Long-term outcomes of the US FDA IDE prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine. 2015 May 15;40(10):674–83. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000869. PMID: 25955086. [PubMed: 25955086] [CrossRef]
56.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED). SECURE®-C Artificial Cervical Disc. PMA No.: P100003. September 29, 2012. https://www​.accessdata​.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh​/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P100003.
57.
Burkus JK, Traynelis VC, Haid RW, Jr., et al. Clinical and radiographic analysis of an artificial cervical disc: 7-year follow-up from the Prestige prospective randomized controlled clinical trial: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Oct;21(4):516–28. doi: 10.3171/2014.6.SPINE13996. PMID: 25036218. [PubMed: 25036218] [CrossRef]
58.
Delamarter RB, Murrey D, Janssen ME, et al. Results at 24 months from the prospective, randomized, multicenter Investigational Device Exemption trial of ProDisc-C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with 4-year follow-up and continued access patients. Sas J. 2010;4(4):122–8. doi: 10.1016/j.esas.2010.09.001. PMID: 25802660. [PMC free article: PMC4365641] [PubMed: 25802660] [CrossRef]
59.
Hou Y, Nie L, Pan X, et al. Effectiveness and safety of Mobi-C for treatment of single-level cervical disc spondylosis: a randomised control trial with a minimum of five years of follow-up. Bone Joint J. 2016 Jun;98-B(6):829–33. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B6.36381. PMID: 27235528. [PubMed: 27235528] [CrossRef]
60.
Nabhan A, Steudel WI, Nabhan A, et al. Segmental kinematics and adjacent level degeneration following disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with three years of follow-up. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2007;17(3):229–36. doi: 10.1615/jlongtermeffmedimplants.v17.i3.60. PMID: 19023947. [PubMed: 19023947] [CrossRef]
61.
Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew KD, et al. Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Sep 21;93(18):1684–92. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00476. PMID: 21938372. [PubMed: 21938372] [CrossRef]
62.
Zhang X, Zhang X, Chen C, et al. Randomized, controlled, multicenter, clinical trial comparing BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion in China. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Mar 15;37(6):433–8. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822699fa. PMID: 21673620. [PubMed: 21673620] [CrossRef]
63.
Vaccaro A, Beutler W, Peppelman W, et al. Long-term clinical experience with selectively constrained SECURE-C cervical artificial disc for 1-level cervical disc disease: results from seven-year follow-up of a prospective, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption clinical trial. Int J Spine Surg. 2018 Jun;12(3):377–87. doi: 10.14444/5044. PMID: 30276095. [PMC free article: PMC6159663] [PubMed: 30276095] [CrossRef]
64.
Janssen ME, Zigler JE, Spivak JM, et al. ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease: seven-year follow-up of the prospective randomized u.S. Food and drug administration investigational device exemption study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Nov 04;97(21):1738–47. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.01186. PMID: 26537161. [PubMed: 26537161] [CrossRef]
65.
Lavelle WF, Riew KD, Levi AD, et al. Ten-year outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the bryan cervical disc: results from a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Spine. 2019 May 01;44(9):601–8. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002907. PMID: 30325888. [PubMed: 30325888] [CrossRef]
66.
Radcliff K, Davis RJ, Hisey MS, et al. Long-term evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with the Mobi-C cervical disc: a randomized, prospective, multicenter clinical trial with seven-year follow-up. Int J Spine Surg. 2017 Netherlands ISASS (E-mail: info@ISASS;11(4):244–62. doi: 10.14444/4031. [PMC free article: PMC5779239] [PubMed: 29372135] [CrossRef]
67.
Nabhan A, Ishak B, Steudel WI, et al. Assessment of adjacent-segment mobility after cervical disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with 1 year’s results. Eur Spine J. 2011 Jun;20(6):934–41. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1588-2. PMID: 21221666. [PMC free article: PMC3099167] [PubMed: 21221666] [CrossRef]
68.
Cheng L, Nie L, Zhang L, et al. Fusion versus Bryan Cervical Disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study. Int Orthop. 2009 Oct;33(5):1347–51. doi: 10.1007/s00264-008-0655-3. PMID: 18956190. [PMC free article: PMC2899108] [PubMed: 18956190] [CrossRef]
69.
Zigler JE, Delamarter R, Murrey D, et al. ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disc disease: five-year results of a Food and Drug Administration study. Spine. 2013 Feb 01;38(3):203–9. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318278eb38. PMID: 23080427. [PubMed: 23080427] [CrossRef]
70.
Peng-Fei S, Yu-Hua J. Cervical disc prosthesis replacement and interbody fusion: a comparative study. Int Orthop. 2008 Feb;32(1):103–6. doi: 10.1007/s00264-006-0287-4. PMID: 17180356. [PMC free article: PMC2219939] [PubMed: 17180356] [CrossRef]
71.
Zhang HX, Shao YD, Chen Y, et al. A prospective, randomised, controlled multicentre study comparing cervical disc replacement with anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Int Orthop. 2014 Dec;38(12):2533–41. doi: 10.1007/s00264-014-2497-5. PMID: 25209344. [PubMed: 25209344] [CrossRef]
72.
Phillips FM, Lee JY, Geisler FH, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical investigation comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. 2-year results from the US FDA IDE clinical trial. Spine. 2013 Jul 01;38(15):E907–18. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318296232f. PMID: 23591659. [PubMed: 23591659] [CrossRef]
73.
Hisey MS, Bae HW, Davis RJ, et al. Prospective, randomized comparison of cervical total disk replacement versus anterior cervical fusion: results at 48 months follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015 May;28(4):E237–43. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000185. PMID: 25310394. [PubMed: 25310394] [CrossRef]
74.
Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J. 2009 Apr;9(4):275–86. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.05.006. PMID: 18774751. [PubMed: 18774751] [CrossRef]
75.
Karabag H, Cakmak E, Celik B, et al. Arthroplasty versus fusion for single-level cervical disc disease. JPMA J Pak Med Assoc. 2014 Dec;64(12):1348–51. PMID: 25842575. [PubMed: 25842575]
76.
Hisey MS, Bae HW, Davis R, et al. Multi-center, prospective, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption clinical trial comparing Mobi-C Cervical Artificial Disc to anterior discectomy and fusion in the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease in the cervical spine. Int J Spine Surg. 2014;8:7. doi: 10.14444/1007. PMID: 25694918. [PMC free article: PMC4325486] [PubMed: 25694918] [CrossRef]
77.
Delamarter RB, Zigler J. Five-year reoperation rates, cervical total disc replacement versus fusion, results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine. 2013 Apr 20;38(9):711–7. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182797592. PMID: 23124255. [PubMed: 23124255] [CrossRef]
78.
Jackson RJ, Davis RJ, Hoffman GA, et al. Subsequent surgery rates after cervical total disc replacement using a Mobi-C Cervical Disc Prosthesis versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective randomized clinical trial with 5-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 May;24(5):734–45. doi: 10.3171/2015.8.SPINE15219. PMID: 26799118. [PubMed: 26799118] [CrossRef]
79.
Loidolt T, Kurra S, Riew KD, et al. Comparison of adverse events between cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a 10-year follow-up. Spine J. 2021 02;21(2):253–64. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2020.10.013. PMID: 33080376. [PubMed: 33080376] [CrossRef]
80.
Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Riew KD. Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine. 2008 May 20;33(12):1305–12. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817329a1. PMID: 18496341. [PubMed: 18496341] [CrossRef]
81.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED). Mobi-C® Cervical Disc Prosthesis (Two-level Indication). PMA No.: P110009. August,23, 2013 https://www​.accessdata​.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh​/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P110009.
82.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED). PRESTIGE LP™ Cervical Disc. PMA No.: P090029. July 7, 2016. https://www​.accessdata​.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh​/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P090029.
83.
Radcliff K, Coric D, Albert T. Five-year clinical results of cervical total disc replacement compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 Aug;25(2):213–24. doi: 10.3171/2015.12.SPINE15824. PMID: 27015130. [PubMed: 27015130] [CrossRef]
84.
Gornet MF, Lanman TH, Burkus JK, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty with the Prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, at 2 levels: results of a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial at 24 months. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017 Jun;26(6):653–67. doi: 10.3171/2016.10.SPINE16264. PMID: 28304237. [PubMed: 28304237] [CrossRef]
85.
Yang W, Si M, Hou Y, et al. Superiority of 2-level total disk replacement using a cervical disk prosthesis versus anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion. Orthopedics. 2018 Nov 01;41(6):344–50. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20180815-01. PMID: 30125034. [PubMed: 30125034] [CrossRef]
86.
Gornet MF, Lanman TH, Burkus JK, et al. Two-level cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: 10-year outcomes of a prospective, randomized investigational device exemption clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019 Jun 21;31(4):1–11. doi: 10.3171/2019.4.SPINE19157. PMID: 31226684. [PubMed: 31226684] [CrossRef]
87.
Davis RJ, Nunley PD, Kim KD, et al. Two-level total disc replacement with Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial with 4-year follow-up results. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015 Jan;22(1):15–25. doi: 10.3171/2014.7.SPINE13953. PMID: 25380538. [PubMed: 25380538] [CrossRef]
88.
Davis RJ, Kim KD, Hisey MS, et al. Cervical total disc replacement with the Mobi-C cervical artificial disc compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013 Nov;19(5):532–45. doi: 10.3171/2013.6.SPINE12527. PMID: 24010901. [PubMed: 24010901] [CrossRef]
89.
Lanman TH, Burkus JK, Dryer RG, et al. Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Prestige LP artificial cervical disc replacement at 2 levels: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017 Jul;27(1):7–19. doi: 10.3171/2016.11.SPINE16746. PMID: 28387616. [PubMed: 28387616] [CrossRef]
90.
Gupta VK, Basantani N, Carvalho AS, et al. Long-term clinicoradiological outcomes of cervical fusion with polyether ether ketone versus cervical disc arthroplasty in a double-blinded randomized control trial. Asian J Neurosurg. 2021 Oct–Dec;16(4):725–31. doi: 10.4103/ajns.AJNS_345_20. PMID: 35071069. [PMC free article: PMC8751538] [PubMed: 35071069] [CrossRef]
91.
Cheng L, Nie L, Li M, et al. Superiority of the Bryan( R) disc prosthesis for cervical myelopathy: a randomized study with 3-year followup. Clin Orthop. 2011 Dec;469(12):3408–14. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2039-z. PMID: 21997779. [PMC free article: PMC3210260] [PubMed: 21997779] [CrossRef]
92.
Cincu R, Lorente Fde A, Gomez J, et al. Long term preservation of motion with artificial cervical disc implants: a comparison between cervical disc replacement and rigid fusion with cage. Asian J Neurosurg. 2014 Oct–Dec;9(4):213–7. doi: 10.4103/1793-5482.146608. PMID: 25685218. [PMC free article: PMC4323965] [PubMed: 25685218] [CrossRef]
93.
Chen Y, Chen H, Wu X, et al. Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes between zero-profile implant and cages with plate fixation in treating multilevel cervical spondilotic myelopathy: A three-year follow-up. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016 May;144:72–6. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.03.010. PMID: 26999528. [PubMed: 26999528] [CrossRef]
94.
He S, Feng H, Lan Z, et al. A randomized trial comparing clinical outcomes between zero-profile and traditional multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery for cervical myelopathy. Spine. 2018 03 01;43(5):E259–E66. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002323. PMID: 29432408. [PubMed: 29432408] [CrossRef]
95.
Li Y, Hao D, He B, et al. The efficiency of zero-profile implant in anterior cervical discectomy fusion: a prospective controlled long-term follow-up study. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015 Dec;28(10):398–403. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000032. PMID: 24136051. [PubMed: 24136051] [CrossRef]
96.
Nemoto O, Kitada A, Naitou S, et al. Stand-alone anchored cage versus cage with plating for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled study with a 2-year follow-up. Eur. 2015 Jul;25 Suppl 1:S127–34. doi: 10.1007/s00590-014-1547-4. PMID: 25283362. [PubMed: 25283362] [CrossRef]
97.
Panchal RR, Kim KD, Eastlack R, et al. A clinical comparison of anterior cervical plates versus stand-alone intervertebral fusion devices for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion procedures. World Neurosurg. 2017 Mar;99:630–7. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.12.060. PMID: 28017756. [PubMed: 28017756] [CrossRef]
98.
Scholz M, Onal B, Schleicher P, et al. Two-level ACDF with a zero-profile stand-alone spacer compared to conventional plating: a prospective randomized single-center study. Eur Spine J. 2020 11;29(11):2814–22. doi: 10.1007/s00586-020-06454-z. PMID: 32430769. [PubMed: 32430769] [CrossRef]
99.
Zavras AG, Nolte MT, Sayari AJ, et al. Stand-alone cage versus anterior plating for 1-level and 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Spine Surg. 2022 05 01;35(4):155–65. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001332. PMID: 35394961. [PubMed: 35394961] [CrossRef]
100.
Zhou J, Li J, Lin H, et al. Could self-locking stand-alone cage reduce adjacent-level ossification development after aneterior cervical discectomy and fusion? J Clin Neurosci. 2020 Aug;78:60–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2020.06.014. PMID: 32624365. [PubMed: 32624365] [CrossRef]
101.
Zhang B, Jiang YZ, Song QP, et al. Outcomes of cervical degenerative disc disease treated by anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with self-locking fusion cage. World j. 2022;10(15):4776–84. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i15.4776. PMID: 35801046. [PMC free article: PMC9198880] [PubMed: 35801046] [CrossRef]
102.
Chen Y, Wang X, Lu X, et al. Comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in the surgical treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective, randomized, control study with over 7-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2013 Jul;22(7):1539–46. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2772-y. PMID: 23568254. [PMC free article: PMC3698331] [PubMed: 23568254] [CrossRef]
103.
Godlewski B, Bebenek A, Dominiak M, et al. PEEK versus titanium-coated PEEK cervical cages: fusion rate. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2022 06;164(6):1501–7. doi: 10.1007/s00701-022-05217-7. PMID: 35471708. [PubMed: 35471708] [CrossRef]
104.
Niu CC, Liao JC, Chen WJ, et al. Outcomes of interbody fusion cages used in 1 and 2-levels anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: titanium cages versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010 Jul;23(5):310–6. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181af3a84. PMID: 20124907. [PubMed: 20124907] [CrossRef]
105.
Arnold PM, Sasso RC, Janssen ME, et al. i-Factor TM bone graft vs autograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: 2-year follow-up of the randomized single-blinded food and drug administration investigational device exemption study. Neurosurgery; 2018. p. 377–84. [PubMed: 28945914]
106.
Baskin DS, Ryan P, Sonntag V, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled cervical fusion study using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 with the CORNERSTONE-SR allograft ring and the ATLANTIS anterior cervical plate. Spine. 2003 Jun 15;28(12):1219–24; discussion 25. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000065486.22141.CA. PMID: 12811263. [PubMed: 12811263] [CrossRef]
107.
Cho DY, Lee WY, Sheu PC, et al. Cage containing a biphasic calcium phosphate ceramic (Triosite) for the treatment of cervical spondylosis. Surg Neurol. 2005 Jun;63(6):497–503; discussion -4. doi: 10.1016/j.surneu.2004.10.016. PMID: 15936361. [PubMed: 15936361] [CrossRef]
108.
Kanna RM, Perambuduri AS, Shetty AP, et al. A randomized control trial comparing local autografts and allografts in single level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using a stand-alone cage. Asian spine j. 2021 Dec;15(6):817–24. doi: 10.31616/asj.2020.0182. PMID: 33189111. [PMC free article: PMC8696067] [PubMed: 33189111] [CrossRef]
109.
Xie Y, Li H, Yuan J, et al. A prospective randomized comparison of PEEK cage containing calcium sulphate or demineralized bone matrix with autograft in anterior cervical interbody fusion. Int Orthop. 2015 Jun;39(6):1129–36. doi: 10.1007/s00264-014-2610-9. PMID: 25432324. [PubMed: 25432324] [CrossRef]
110.
Yi J, Lee GW, Nam WD, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing bone union rate following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using a polyetheretherketone cage: hydroxyapatite/b-tricalcium phosphate mixture versus hydroxyapatite/demineralized bone matrix mixture. Asian spine j. 2015 Feb;9(1):30–8. doi: 10.4184/asj.2015.9.1.30. PMID: 25705332. [PMC free article: PMC4330216] [PubMed: 25705332] [CrossRef]
111.
Arnold PM, Anderson KK, Selim A, et al. Heterotopic ossification following single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: results from the prospective, multicenter, historically controlled trial comparing allograft to an optimized dose of rhBMP-2. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 Sep;25(3):292–302. doi: 10.3171/2016.1.SPINE15798. PMID: 27129045. [PubMed: 27129045] [CrossRef]
112.
Smucker JD, Rhee JM, Singh K, et al. Increased swelling complications associated with off-label usage of rhBMP-2 in the anterior cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Nov 15;31(24):2813–9. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000245863.52371.c2. PMID: 17108835. [PubMed: 17108835] [CrossRef]
113.
Vedantam A, Rajshekhar V. Does the type of T2-weighted hyperintensity influence surgical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy? A review. Eur Spine J. 2013 Jan;22(1):96–106. doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2483-9. PMID: 22926434. [PMC free article: PMC3540309] [PubMed: 22926434] [CrossRef]
114.
Fukushima T, Ikata T, Taoka Y, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging study on spinal cord plasticity in patients with cervical compression myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991 Oct;16(10 Suppl):S534–8. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199110001-00016. PMID: 1801267. [PubMed: 1801267] [CrossRef]
115.
Sarkar S, Turel MK, Jacob KS, et al. The evolution of T2-weighted intramedullary signal changes following ventral decompressive surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Oct;21(4):538–46. doi: 10.3171/2014.6.SPINE13727. PMID: 25014501. [PubMed: 25014501] [CrossRef]
116.
Suri A, Chabbra RP, Mehta VS, et al. Effect of intramedullary signal changes on the surgical outcome of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J. 2003 Jan–Feb;3(1):33–45. doi: 10.1016/s1529-9430(02)00448-5. PMID: 14589243. [PubMed: 14589243] [CrossRef]
117.
Zhang P, Shen Y, Zhang YZ, et al. Significance of increased signal intensity on MRI in prognosis after surgical intervention for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Clin Neurosci. 2011 Aug;18(8):1080–3. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2010.12.023. PMID: 21696960. [PubMed: 21696960] [CrossRef]
118.
Aggarwal RA, Srivastava SK, Bhosale SK, et al. Prediction of surgical outcome in compressive cervical myelopathy: a novel clinicoradiological prognostic score. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2016 Apr–Jun;7(2):82–6. doi: 10.4103/0974-8237.181828. PMID: 27217653. [PMC free article: PMC4872567] [PubMed: 27217653] [CrossRef]
119.
Li XY, Lu SB, Sun XY, et al. Clinical and magnetic resonance imaging predictors of the surgical outcomes of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2018 11;174:137–43. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.09.003. PMID: 30241007. [PubMed: 30241007] [CrossRef]
120.
Morio Y, Teshima R, Nagashima H, et al. Correlation between operative outcomes of cervical compression myelopathy and MRI of the spinal cord. Spine. 2001 Jun 01;26(11):1238–45. PMID: 11389390. [PubMed: 11389390]
121.
Nouri A, Martin AR, Kato S, et al. The relationship between MRI signal intensity changes, clinical presentation, and surgical outcome in degenerative cervical myelopathy: Analysis of a global cohort. Spine. 2017 Dec 15;42(24):1851–8. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002234. PMID: 28498290. [PubMed: 28498290] [CrossRef]
122.
Yin LQ, Zhang J, Wu YG, et al. Increased signal intensity of spinal cord on T2W magnetic resonance imaging for cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients: Risk factors and prognosis (a STROBE-compliant article). Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Dec 04;99(49):e23098. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000023098. PMID: 33285685. [PMC free article: PMC7717744] [PubMed: 33285685] [CrossRef]
123.
Kim TH, Ha Y, Shin JJ, et al. Signal intensity ratio on magnetic resonance imaging as a prognostic factor in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Sep;95(39):e4649. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004649. PMID: 27684796. [PMC free article: PMC5265889] [PubMed: 27684796] [CrossRef]
124.
Uchida K, Nakajima H, Takeura N, et al. Prognostic value of changes in spinal cord signal intensity on magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy. Spine J. 2014 Aug 01;14(8):1601–10. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.09.038. PMID: 24411833. [PubMed: 24411833] [CrossRef]
125.
Zhang JT, Meng FT, Wang S, et al. Predictors of surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: focusing on the quantitative signal intensity. Eur Spine J. 2015 Dec;24(12):2941–5. doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-4109-5. PMID: 26155898. [PubMed: 26155898] [CrossRef]
126.
Baker JD, Harada GK, Tao Y, et al. The impact of modic changes on preoperative symptoms and clinical outcomes in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion patients. Neurospine. 2020 Mar;17(1):190–203. doi: 10.14245/ns.2040062.031. PMID: 32252168. [PMC free article: PMC7136113] [PubMed: 32252168] [CrossRef]
127.
Harada GK, Alter K, Nguyen AQ, et al. Cervical spine endplate abnormalities and association with pain, disability, and adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine. 2020 Aug 01;45(15):E917–E26. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003460. PMID: 32675603. [PubMed: 32675603] [CrossRef]
128.
Sharma R, Borkar S, Katiyar V, et al. Interplay of dynamic extension reserve and T1 slope in determining the loss of cervical lordosis following laminoplasty: a novel classification system. World Neurosurg. 2020 Apr;136:e33–e40. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.08.212. PMID: 31493608. [PubMed: 31493608] [CrossRef]
129.
Wang K, Chen Z, Zhang F, et al. Evaluation of DTI parameter ratios and diffusion tensor tractography grading in the diagnosis and prognosis prediction of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017 Feb 15;42(4):E202–e10. doi: 10.1097/brs.0000000000001784. PMID: 28207659. [PubMed: 28207659] [CrossRef]
130.
Zhang JK, Sun P, Jayasekera D, et al. Utility of diffusion basis spectrum imaging in quantifying baseline disease severity and prognosis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022 Dec 15;47(24):1687–93. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004456. PMID: 35969006. [PMC free article: PMC9712150] [PubMed: 35969006] [CrossRef]
131.
Zhang JK, Jayasekera D, Javeed S, et al. Diffusion basis spectrum imaging predicts long-term clinical outcomes following surgery in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J. 2022 Apr;23(4):504–12. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2022.12.003. PMID: 36509379. [PMC free article: PMC10629376] [PubMed: 36509379] [CrossRef]
132.
Zhang MZ, Ou-Yang HQ, Liu JF, et al. Predicting postoperative recovery in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: construction and interpretation of T2*-weighted radiomic-based extra trees models. Eur Radiol. 2022 May;32(5):3565–75. doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08383-x. PMID: 35024949. [PubMed: 35024949] [CrossRef]
133.
Lambrechts MJ, D’Antonio ND, Karamian BA, et al. What is the role of dynamic cervical spine radiographs in predicting pseudarthrosis revision following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion? Spine J. 2022 May 12;12(10):12. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2022.04.020. PMID: 35568109. [PubMed: 35568109] [CrossRef]
134.
Song KS, Piyaskulkaew C, Chuntarapas T, et al. Dynamic radiographic criteria for detecting pseudarthrosis following anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Apr 02;96(7):557–63. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00167. PMID: 24695922. [PubMed: 24695922] [CrossRef]
135.
Balouch E, Burapachaisri A, Woo D, et al. Assessing postoperative pseudarthrosis in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) on dynamic radiographs using novel angular measurements. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022 Aug 15;47(16):1151–6. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004375. PMID: 35853174. [PubMed: 35853174] [CrossRef]
136.
Ajiboye RM, D’Oro A, Ashana AO, et al. Routine use of intraoperative neuromonitoring during ACDFs for the treatment of spondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy is questionable: a review of 15,395 cases. Spine. 2017 Jan 01;42(1):14–9. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001662. PMID: 27120059. [PMC free article: PMC5560988] [PubMed: 27120059] [CrossRef]
137.
Badhiwala JH, Nassiri F, Witiw CD, et al. Investigating the utility of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: analysis of over 140,000 cases from the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample data set. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019 03 29;31(1):76–86. doi: 10.3171/2019.1.SPINE181110. PMID: 30925481. [PubMed: 30925481] [CrossRef]
Copyright Notice
Bookshelf ID: NBK597686
Contents

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (12M)

Other titles in this collection

Related information

  • PMC
    PubMed Central citations
  • PubMed
    Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

ClearTurn OffTurn On

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...