| Title |
Comparison between anterior cervical discectomy with fusion and anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s94290 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Qi Fei, Jinjun Li, Nan Su, Bingqiang Wang, Dong Li, Hai Meng, Qi Wang, Jisheng Lin, Zhao Ma, Yong Yang |
| Abstract |
Whether anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) or anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion (ACCF) is superior in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to quantitatively compare the efficacy and safety of ACDF and ACCF in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SinoMed (Chinese BioMedical Literature Service System, People's Republic of China), and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, People's Republic of China) were systematically searched to identify all available studies comparing efficacy and safety between patients receiving ACDF and ACCF. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was pooled to compare the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores, visual analog scale scores, hospital stay, operation time, and blood loss. The risk ratio was pooled to compare the incidence of complications and fusion rate. Pooled estimates were calculated by using a fixed-effects model or a random-effects model according to the heterogeneity among studies. Eighteen studies (17 observational studies and one randomized controlled trial) were included in this meta-analysis. Our results suggest that hospital stay (WMD =-1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.29, -0.27; P=0.014), operation time (WMD =-26.9, 95% CI: -46.13, -7.67; P=0.006), blood loss (WMD =-119.36, 95% CI: -166.94, -71.77; P=0.000), and incidence of complications (risk ratio =0.51, 95% CI: 0.33, 0.80; P=0.003) in the ACDF group were significantly less than that in the ACCF group. However, other clinical outcomes, including post-Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (WMD =-0.27, 95% CI: -0.57, 0.03; P=0.075), visual analog scale score (WMD =0.03, 95% CI: -1.44, 1.50; P=0.970), and fusion rate (risk ratio =1.04, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.09; P=0.158), between the two groups were not significantly different. Evidence from the meta-analysis of 18 studies demonstrated that surgical options of cervical spondylotic myelopathy using ACDF or ACCF seemed to have similar clinical outcomes. However, ACDF was found to be superior to ACCF in terms of hospital stay, operation time, blood loss, and incidence of complications. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 15% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 46% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2015.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#1,020
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,829
of 294,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#51
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 294,812 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.