Table 2 Comparisons for DCM
Reference | Type of study | No. of patients | Parameters measured | Key findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Audat et al. 2018 (ref # [7]) | Retrospective clinical study | 287 | Pre-operative and post-operative mean ± standard deviation for NDI | Anterior approach appeared to be superior based on the clinical outcomes |
Zaveri et al. 2019 (ref # [8]) | Non-randomised clinical study | 75 | Recovery rates of mild, moderate and severe CSM based on mJOA scores | Patient outcome mainly determined by clinical severity on presentation Recovery rates were comparable regardless of the approach within the same category of severity at presentation |
Fehlings et al. 2013 (ref # [37]) | Prospective observational study | 278 | NDI pre and post-operatively at 12 months | No significant differences between anterior vs posterior approach for NDI improvement |
Luo et al. 2015 (ref # [38]) | Meta-analysis and systematic review | 467 | Pre-operative and post-operative JOA scores recovery rate | No statistical difference in recovery rate between anterior and posterior approaches |
Liu et al. 2011 (ref # [4]0) | Non-randomized controlled trial | 52 | JOA scores, recovery rate, range of motion | No differences between ACDF vs laminoplasty for JOA score and recovery rate Range of motion reduced in ACDF vs laminoplasty |
Xu et al. (ref # [39]) | Meta-analysis | 379 | JOA score, recovery rate | No differences between ACDF and laminoplasty |