References
- Kalb S, Martirosyan NL, Perez-Orribo L, Kalani MY, Theodore N. Analysis of demographics, risk factors, clinical presentation, and surgical treatment modalities for the ossified posterior longitudinal ligament. Neurosurg Focus. 2011;30(3):E11. doi:https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.12.FOCUS10265. PMID: 21361749.
- Stapleton CJ, Pham MH, Attenello FJ, Hsieh PC. Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: genetics and pathophysiology. Neurosurg Focus. 2011;30(3):E6. doi:https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.12.FOCUS10271.
- Boody BS, Lendner M, Vaccaro AR. Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine: a review. Int Orthop. 2019;43(4):797–805. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4106-5.
- Qin R, Sun W, Qian B, et al. Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion versus posterior laminoplasty for cervical oppressive myelopathy secondary to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a meta-analysis. Orthopedics. 2019;42(3):e309–e316. doi:https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20190403-04.
- Qin R, Chen X, Zhou P, Li M, Hao J, Zhang F. Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion versus posterior laminoplasty for the treatment of oppressive myelopathy owing to cervical ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(6):1375–1387. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5451-6.
- Ma L, Liu FY, Huo LS, et al. Comparison of laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion in the treatment of multilevel cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(29):e11542. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000011542.
- Jansen JP, Crawford B, Bergman G, Stam W. Bayesian meta-analysis of multiple treatment comparisons: an introduction to mixed treatment comparisons. Value Health. 2008;11(5):956–964. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00347.x.
- Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–784. doi:https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-2385.
- Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–2012. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.15.2008.
- Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, GRADE Working Group, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–926. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD.
- Jonas DE, Wilkins TM, Bangdiwala S, et al. AHRQ methods for effective health care. In: Findings of Bayesian mixed treatment comparison meta-analyses: comparison and exploration using real-world trial data and simulation. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013: Report No.: 13-EHC039-EF. PMID: 23469378.
- Brooks PS, Gelman A. General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J Comput Graph Stats. 1998; 7(4):434–455. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10618600.1998.10474787.
- Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D, Spyridonos P, Salanti G. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e76654. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076654.
- Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Ades AE. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2010;29(7–8):932–944. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3767.
- Dias S, Sutton AJ, Welton NJ, Ades AE. Evidence synthesis for decision making 3: heterogeneity-subgroups, meta-regression, bias, and bias-adjustment. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(5):618–640. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13485157.
- Liu X, Chen Y, Yang H, Li T, Xu B, Chen D. Expansive open-door laminoplasty versus laminectomy and instrumented fusion for cases with cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament and straight lordosis. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(4):1173–1180. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4912-7.
- Yuan W, Zhu Y, Liu X, et al. Postoperative three-dimensional cervical range of motion and neurological outcomes in patients with cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: cervical laminoplasty versus laminectomy with fusion. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015;134:17–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.04.004.
- Ha Y, Shin JJ. Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes in cervical laminoplasty versus laminectomy with fusion in patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Neurosurg Rev. 2020;43(5):1409–1421. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-019-01174-5.
- Tani T, Ushida T, Ishida K, Iai H, Noguchi T, Yamamoto H. Relative safety of anterior microsurgical decompression versus laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy with a massive ossified posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27:2491–2498. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200211150-00013.
- Iwasaki M, Okuda S, Miyauchi A, et al. Surgical strategy for cervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: part 2: advantages of anterior decompression and fusion over laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(6):654–660. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000257566.91177.cb.
- Iwasaki M, Okuda S, Miyauchi A, et al. Surgical strategy for cervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: part 1: clinical results and limitations of laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(6):647–653. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000257560.91147.86.
- Masaki Y, Yamazaki M, Okawa A, et al. An analysis of factors causing poor surgical outcome in patients with cervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: anterior decompression with spinal fusion versus laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007;20(1):7–13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bsd.0000211260.28497.35.
- Lee SH, Ahn Y, Lee JH. Laser-assisted anterior cervical corpectomy versus posterior laminoplasty for cervical myelopathic patients with multilevel ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Photomed Laser Surg. 2008;26(2):119–127. doi:https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2007.2110.
- Sakai K, Okawa A, Takahashi M, et al. Five-year follow-up evaluation of surgical treatment for cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a prospective comparative study of anterior decompression and fusion with floating method versus laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(5):367–376. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31821f4a51.
- Fujimori T, Iwasaki M, Okuda S, et al. Long-term results of cervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament with an occupying ratio of 60% or more. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(1):58–67. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000054.
- Lin D, Ding Z, Lian K, Hong J, Zhai W. Cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: anterior versus posterior approach. Indian J Orthop. 2012;46(1):92–98. doi:https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.91642.
- Xu P, Zhuang JS, Huang YS, Tu C, Chen JT, Zhong ZM. Surgical outcomes of cervical myelopathy due to ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament: anterior decompression and fusion versus posterior laminoplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2019;27(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499019837907.
- Liu H, Li Y, Chen Y, Wu W, Zou D. Cervical curvature, spinal cord MRIT2 signal, and occupying ratio impact surgical approach selection in patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(7):1480–1488. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2707-7.
- Yang S, Lu J, Fu D, et al. Effect of microscopically assisted decompression with micro-hook scalpel in the surgical treatment of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Int Med Res. 2019;47(10):5120–5129. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060519862464.
- Chen Y, Guo Y, Lu X, et al. Surgical strategy for multilevel severe ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24(1):24–30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181c7e91e.
- Shimokawa N, Sato H, Matsumoto H, Takami T. Review of radiological parameters, imaging characteristics, and their effect on optimal treatment approaches and surgical outcomes for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Neurospine. 2019;16(3):506–516. doi:https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.1938268.134.
- Yoon ST, Hashimoto RE, Raich A, Shaffrey CI, Rhee JM, Riew KD. Outcomes after laminoplasty compared with laminectomy and fusion in patients with cervical myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(22 Suppl 1):S183–S194. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7eb7c.
- Yoshii T, Egawa S, Hirai T, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing anterior decompression with fusion and posterior laminoplasty for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Orthop Sci. 2020;25(1):58–65. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2019.03.004.
- Kim DH, Lee CH, Ko YS, et al. The clinical implications and complications of anterior versus posterior surgery for multilevel cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurospine. 2019;16(3):530–541. doi:https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.1938326.163.