↓ Skip to main content

Treating multi-level cervical disc disease with hybrid surgery compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Treating multi-level cervical disc disease with hybrid surgery compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
European Spine Journal, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00586-016-4791-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victor M. Lu, Lucy Zhang, Daniel B. Scherman, Prashanth J. Rao, Ralph J. Mobbs, Kevin Phan

Abstract

The traditional surgical approach to treat multi-level cervical disc disease (mCDD) has been anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). There has been recent development of other surgical approaches to further improve clinical outcomes. Collectively, when elements of these different approaches are combined in surgery, it is known as hybrid surgery (HS) which remains a novel treatment option. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the outcomes of HS versus ACDF for the treatment of mCDD. Relevant articles were identified from six electronic databases from their inception to January 2016. From 8 relevant studies identified, 169 patients undergoing HS were compared with 193 ACDF procedures. Operative time was greater after HS by 42 min (p < 0.00001), with less intraoperative blood loss by 26 mL (p < 0.00001) and shorter return to work by 32 days (p < 0.00001). In terms of clinical outcomes, HS was associated with greater C2-C7 range of motion (ROM) preservation (p < 0.00001) and less functional impairment (p = 0.008) after surgery compared to ACDF. There was no significant difference between HS and ACDF with respect to postoperative pain (p = 0.12). The postoperative course following HS was not significantly different to ACDF in terms of length of stay (p = 0.24) and postoperative complication rates (p = 0.18). HS is a novel surgical approach to treat mCDD, associated with a greater operative time, less intraoperative blood loss and comparable if not superior clinical outcomes compared to ACDF. While it remains a viable consideration, there is a lack of robust clinical evidence in the literature. Future large prospective registries and randomised trials are warranted to validate the findings of this study.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Lebanon 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Other 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 14 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 26%
Neuroscience 4 9%
Engineering 2 4%
Linguistics 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 22 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 February 2019.
All research outputs
#6,706,910
of 23,666,309 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#801
of 4,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,958
of 324,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#8
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,666,309 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,841 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
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 324,927 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.