Paul J. Park, Fthimnir M. Hassan, Xavier E. Ferrer, Cole Morrissette, Nathan J. Lee, Meghan Cerpa, Zeeshan M. Sardar, Michael P. Kelly, Stephane Bourret, Kazuhiro Hasegawa, Hee-Kit Wong, Gabriel Liu, Hwee Weng Dennis Hey, Hend Riahi, Jean-Charles Le Huec, Lawrence G. Lenke
Neurospine 2023;20(3):790-797. Published online September 30, 2023
Objective To define a novel radiographic measurement, the posterior cranial vertical line (PCVL), in an asymptomatic adult population to better understand global sagittal alignment.
Methods We performed a multicenter retrospective review of prospectively collected radiographic data on asymptomatic volunteers aged 20–79. The PCVL is a vertical plumb line drawn from the posterior-most aspect of the occiput. The horizontal distances of the PCVL to the thoracic apex (TA), posterior sagittal vertical line (PSVL, posterosuperior endplate of S1), femoral head center, and tibial plafond were measured. Classification was either grade 1 (PCVL posterior to TA and PSVL), grade 2 (PCVL anterior to TA and posterior to PSVL), or grade 3 (PCVL anterior to TA and PSVL).
Results Three hundred thirty-four asymptomatic patients were evaluated with a mean age of 41 years. Eighty-three percent of subjects were PCVL grade 1, 15% were grade 2, and 3% were grade 3. Increasing PCVL grade was associated with increased age (p < 0.001), C7–S1 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) (p < 0.001), C2–7 SVA (p < 0.001). Additionally, it was associated with decreased SS (p = 0.045), increased PT (p < 0.001), and increased knee flexion (p < 0.001).
Conclusion The PCVL is a radiographic marker of global sagittal alignment that is simple to implement and interpret. Increasing PCVL grade was significantly associated with expected changes and compensatory mechanisms in the aging population. Most importantly, it incorporates cervical alignment parameters such as C2–7 SVA. The PCVL defines global sagittal alignment in adult volunteers and naturally distributes into 3 grades, with only 3% being grade 3 where the PCVL lies anterior to the TA and PSVL.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Clinical Application of the EOS Imaging System—The Broader Horizon Karen Brage, Bo Mussmann, Malene Roland Pedersen, Marcus Nissen, Oliver Brage, Svea Deppe Mørup, Mats Geijer, Palle Larsen, Janni Jensen Journal of the Oman Medical Association.2025; 2(1): 7. CrossRef
Objective The purpose of this study is to highlight our technique for freehand placement of juxtapedicular screws along with intraoperative computed tomography (CT) and radiographic results.
Methods Consecutive patients with adult idiopathic scoliosis undergoing primary surgery by the senior author were identified. All type D (absent/slit like channel) pedicles were identified on preoperative CT. Three-dimensional visualization software was used to measure screw angulation and purchase. Radiographs were measured by a fellowship trained spine surgeon. The freehand technique was used to place all screws in a juxtapedicular fashion without any fluoroscopic, radiographic, navigational or robotic assistance.
Results Seventy-three juxtapedicular screws were analyzed. The most common level was T7 (9 screws) on the left and T5 (12 screws) on the right. The average medial angulation was 20.7° (range, 7.1°–36.3°), lateral vertebral body purchase was 13.4 mm (range, 0–28.9 mm), and medial vertebral body purchase was 21.1 mm (range, 8.9–31.8 mm). More than half (53.4%) of the screws had bicortical purchase. Two screws were lateral on CT scan, defined by the screw axis lateral to the lateral vertebral body cortex. No screws were medial. There was a difference in medial angulation between screws with (n = 58) and without (n = 15) lateral body purchase (22.0 ± 4.9 vs. 15.5 ± 4.5, p < 0.001). Three of 73 screws were repositioned after intraoperative CT. There were no neurovascular complications. The mean coronal cobb corrections for main thoracic and lumbar curves were 83.0% and 80.5%, respectively, at an average of 17.5 months postoperative.
Conclusion Freehand juxtapedicular screw placement is a safe technique for type D pedicles in adult idiopathic scoliosis patients.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
L-Point Entry, Juxtapedicular, and Endplate-Parallel Trajectory (L-JET) Screw Fixation: A Novel Technique in Thoracic Spinal Tumor Surgery Seunghoon Lee, Young Rak Kim, Chang-Hyun Lee, Jungbo Sim, Woojin Kim, Ho Sung Myeong, Hangeul Park, Jun-Hoe Kim, Chi Heon Kim Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2026; 11(1): 6. CrossRef
Minimally Invasive Controlled Growing Rods for the Surgical Treatment of Early-Onset Scoliosis—A Surgical Technique Video Pawel Grabala Journal of Personalized Medicine.2024; 14(6): 548. CrossRef
Long-term Outcomes of Posterior Multilevel Crack Osteotomy: Revisional Surgery for Scoliosis With a Fusion Mass Mi Hyun Song, Jae Hyuk Yang, Dong-Gune Chang, Yunjin Nam, Seung Woo Suh Neurospine.2023; 20(3): 989. CrossRef
Scott L. Zuckerman, Christopher S. Lai, Yong Shen, Mena G. Kerolus, Alex S. Ha, Ian A. Buchanan, Nathan J. Lee, Eric Leung, Meghan Cerpa, Ronald A. Lehman, Lawrence G. Lenke
Neurospine 2021;18(3):570-579. Published online September 30, 2021
Objective To evaluate the effect of coronal alignment on: (1) surgical invasiveness and operative complexity and (2) postoperative complications.
Methods A retrospective, cohort study of adult spinal deformity patients was conducted. Alignment groups were: (1) neutral alignment (NA): coronal vertical axis (CVA) ≤ 3 cm and sagittal vertical axis (SVA) ≤ 5 cm; (2) coronal malalignment (CM) only: CVA > 3 cm; (3) Sagittal malalignment (SM) only: SVA > 5 cm; and (4) coronal and sagittal malalignment (CCSM): CVA > 3 cm and SVA > 5 cm.
Results Of 243 patients, alignment groups were: NA 115 (47.3%), CM 48 (19.8%), SM 38 (15.6%), and CCSM 42 (17.3%). Total instrumented levels (TILs) were highest in CM (14.5 ± 3.7) and CCSM groups (14 ± 4.0) (p < 0.001). More 3-column osteotomies (3COs) were performed in SM (21.1%) and CCSM (28.9%) groups than CM (10.4%) (p = 0.003). CM patients had more levels instrumented (p = 0.029), posterior column osteotomies (PCOs) (p < 0.001), and TLIFs (p = 0.002) than SM patients. CCSM patients had more TLIFs (p = 0.012) and higher estimated blood loss (EBL) (p = 0.003) than SM patients. CVA displayed a stronger relationship with TIL (p = 0.002), EBL (p < 0.001), and operative time (p < 0.001) than SVA, which had only one significant association with EBL (p = 0.010). Both SM/CCSM patients had higher readmissions (p = 0.003) and reoperations (p < 0.001) than CM patients.
Conclusion Amount of preoperative CM was a better predictor of surgical invasiveness than the amount of SM, despite 3COs more commonly performed in SM patients. CM patients had more instrumented levels, PCOs, and TLIFs than SM patients.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Does Preoperative Spinal Alignment Influence Surgical Outcomes When Postoperative Alignment and Fixation Strategies Are Matched in ASD Correction? Donghua Huang, Zhan Wang, Michael Jian-Wen Chen, Annika Bay, Robert N. Uzzo, Gabrielle Dykhouse, Atahan Durbas, Andrea Pezzi, Stephane Owusu-Sarpong, Luis Felipe Colon, Kasra Araghi, Quante Singleton, Farah Musharbash, Sereen Halayqeh, Matthew E. Cunningh Spine.2026; 51(11): 761. CrossRef
Use of the kickstand rod improves coronal alignment and maintains correction compared to control at 2 year follow-up Fthimnir M. Hassan, Anson Bautista, Justin L. Reyes, Varun Puvanesarajah, Josephine R. Coury, Sarthak Mohanty, Joseph M. Lombardi, Zeeshan M. Sardar, Ronald A. Lehman, Lawrence G. Lenke Spine Deformity.2025; 13(1): 273. CrossRef
Failure to correct the fractional curve in adult spinal deformity surgery is associated with rod fractures Harsh Jain, Omar Zakieh, Hani Chanbour, Julian G. Lugo-Pico, Amir M. Abtahi, Byron F. Stephens, Scott L. Zuckerman Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery.2025; 258: 109152. CrossRef
ASYMMETRIC PEDICLE SUBTRACTION OSTEOTOMY FOR ADULT FIXED CORONAL DEFORMITY: SURGICAL STRATEGY AND OUTCOMES BASED ON MALALIGNMENT SUBTYPE Buse Sarıgül, Levent Aydın, Mesut Yılmaz, Gonca Gül Öndüç, Ali Fatih Ramazanoğlu, Sedat Dalbayrak Journal of Turkish Spinal Surgery.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Placement of a Kickstand Rod in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Simple 8-Step Process With Intraoperative Images and Video Iyan Younus, Hani Chanbour, Mir Amaan Ali, Scott L. Zuckerman Operative Neurosurgery.2024; 26(4): 381. CrossRef
Practical Methods of Assessing Coronal Alignment and Outcomes in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery Yong Shen, Zeeshan M. Sardar, Gabriella Greisberg, Prerana Katiyar, Matan Malka, Fthimnir Hassan, Justin Reyes, Scott L. Zuckerman, Gerard Marciano, Joseph M. Lombardi, Ronald A. Lehman, Lawrence G. Lenke Spine.2024; 49(7): 443. CrossRef
Comparison of the Odontoid and Orbital–Coronal Vertical Axis Lines in Evaluating Coronal Alignment and Outcomes in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery Yong Shen, Zeeshan M. Sardar, Prerana Katiyar, Matan Malka, Gabriella Greisberg, Fthimnir Hassan, Justin L. Reyes, Scott L. Zuckerman, Joseph M. Lombardi, Ronald A. Lehman, Lawrence G. Lenke Spine.2024; 49(15): 1069. CrossRef
Rod fractures after multi-rod constructs in adult spinal deformity patients fused to the sacrum/pelvis: where do they occur and why? Hani Chanbour, Fthimnir M. Hassan, Scott L. Zuckerman, Paul J. Park, Cole Morrissette, Meghan Cerpa, Nathan J. Lee, Alex S. Ha, Ronald A. Lehman, Lawrence G. Lenke Spine Deformity.2023; 11(2): 471. CrossRef
Level selection for optimal adult spinal deformity correction: A narrative review Jonathan Dalton, Mitchell S. Fourman, Keith Lyons, J. Manuel Sarmiento, Francis Lovecchio, Izzet Akosman, Jeremy Shaw, James Dowdell Seminars in Spine Surgery.2022; 34(4): 100987. CrossRef
Surgical outcome of minimal invasive oblique lateral interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis Jun Seok Lee, Dong Wuk Son, Su Hun Lee, Soon Ki Sung, Sang Weon Lee, Geun Sung Song, Young Ha Kim, Chang Hwa Choi Medicine.2022; 101(48): e31879. CrossRef
Generally, a combined anterior and posterior cervical approach is associated with significant morbidity since it requires an extended operative time, greater intraoperative blood loss, and both anterior- and posterior-related surgical complications. However, there are some instances where a circumferential cervical fusion can be advantageous. Our objective is to discuss the indications for circumferential cervical spine procedures. A narrative review of the literature was performed. We include the indications for circumferential cervical approaches of the senior author (KDR). Indications for circumferential approaches include: (1) high-risk patients for pseudoarthrosis, (2) cervical deformity (e.g. , degenerative, posttraumatic, cervicothoracic kyphosis), (3) cervical spine metastases (especially those with multilevel involvement), (4) cervical spine infection, (5) unstable cervical trauma, (6) movement disorders and cerebral palsy, (7) Multiply operated patient (especially postlaminectomy kyphosis and patients with massive ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament), and when (8) early fusion is desirable. Circumferential procedures may be useful in many different cervical spine conditions requiring surgery. Despite its advantages, particularly with reducing the risk for pseudarthrosis, the benefits of a combined approach must be weighed against the risks associated with a dual approach. With appropriate preoperative planning, intraoperative decision-making, and surgical techniques, excellent clinical outcomes can be achieved.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Three- and Four-Level ACDF without Posterior Fusion: A Viable Treatment for Multilevel Cervical Disease David Cowan, Aubrie M. Sowa, Stephen R. Barchick, Charan Koltur, Darlene Lai, Charles Hower, John M. Rhee, S. Tim Yoon, John G. Heller, Brian C. Goh The Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Bone resorption phenomenon following anterior-posterior combined cervical fusion surgery: is it a pathologic finding? Jaenam Lee, Junhan Kwon, Kyung-Soo Suk, Ji-Won Kwon, Byung Ho Lee, Namhoo Kim, Si-Young Park, Hak-Sun Kim, Seong-Hwan Moon European Spine Journal.2025; 34(6): 2283. CrossRef
Three-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion With or Without an Investigational Posterior Stabilization System Assessed Through 24 Months K. Brandon Strenge, Joshua E. Heller, Daniel M. Williams, Alexander C. Lemons, Rahul V. Shah, Pierce D. Nunley, Gabriel C. Tender, Marcus B. Stone, Bruce M. McCormack, Jon E. Block, Matthew B. Jenkins, April E. Slee, Erik M. Summerside Spine.2025; 50(17): 1161. CrossRef
Circumferential Surgical Management of a Cervical Chordoma: A Case Report and Review of the Literature Kevin S Toache, Flavio Hernandez-Gonzalez, Edgar F Higuera-González , Carlos J Mávita Corral, Oswaldo Sánchez-Lezama, Isauro Lozano Guzmán, Tomas Moncada-Habib, Victor Correa-Correa Cureus.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
CT-based morphometry and Mimics-guided virtual implantation of a facet-fusion-integrated posterior cervical semi-open-door system: an anatomical feasibility study Wei-xin Dong, Weihu Ma, Yong Hu, Nanjian Xu BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Adult cervical spine deformity: a state-of-the-art review Brendan Jackson-Fowl, Aaron Hockley, Sara Naessig, Waleed Ahmad, Katherine Pierce, Justin S. Smith, Christopher Ames, Christopher Shaffrey, Claudia Bennett-Caso, Tyler K. Williamson, Kimberly McFarland, Peter G. Passias Spine Deformity.2024; 12(1): 3. CrossRef
Morphometric analysis of cervical disc space height and interpedicular distance using computed tomography David Shin, Brandon Shin, Zachary Brandt, Kai Nguyen, Adel Battikha, Davis Carter, Mei Carter, Jacob Razzouk, Nathaniel Wycliffe, Wayne Cheng, Olumide Danisa Surgical Neurology International.2024; 15: 196. CrossRef
Clinical and radiological outcomes of posterior cervical decompression and fusion for severe cervical compressive-extension injury: A case series Takeru Tsujimoto, Kota Suda, Miki Komatsu, Satoko Matsumoto Harmon, Mitsuru Asukai, Masahiko Takahata, Norimasa Iwasaki, Akio Minami Journal of Orthopaedic Science.2023; 28(4): 733. CrossRef
Clinical significance of the C2 slope after multilevel cervical spine fusion Namhoo Kim, Kyung-Soo Suk, Ji-Won Kwon, Joonoh Seo, Hunjin Ju, Byung Ho Lee, Seong-Hwan Moon, Hak-Sun Kim, Hwan-Mo Lee Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine.2023; 38(1): 24. CrossRef
Clinical and radiological outcomes of one-level cervical corpectomy with an expandable cage for three-column uncomplicated subaxial type «B» injures: a multicenter retrospective study Vadim A. Byvaltsev, Andrei A. Kalinin, Evgenii G. Belykh, Marat A. Aliyev, Bair B. Sanzhin, Alexander V. Kukharev, Yermek K. Dyussembekov, Valerii V. Shepelev, K. Daniel Riew European Spine Journal.2023; 32(5): 1644. CrossRef
Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Anterior and Posterior Surgical Approaches for Multilevel Cervical Myelopathy Mark J. Lambrechts, Parker L. Brush, Yunsoo Lee, Tariq Z. Issa, Charles L. Lawall, Amit Syal, Jasmine Wang, John J. Mangan, Ian David Kaye, Jose A. Canseco, Alan S. Hilibrand, Alexander R. Vaccaro, Christopher K. Kepler, Gregory D. Schroeder Spine.2023; 48(8): 526. CrossRef
Nationwide sample data analysis of additional surgery rate after anterior or posterior cervical spinal surgery Woon Tak Yuh, Minjung Kim, Yunhee Choi, Junghoon Han, Junhoe Kim, Taeshin Kim, Chun Kee Chung, Chang-Hyun Lee, Sung Bae Park, Kyoung-Tae Kim, John M. Rhee, Moon Soo Park, Chi Heon Kim Scientific Reports.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Preclinical Study of Human Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Using a 3-Dimensional Manufacturing Setting for Enhancing Spinal Fusion Sumin Cho, Hyemin Choi, Hyundoo Jeong, Su Yeon Kwon, Eun Ji Roh, Kwang-Hun Jeong, Inho Baek, Byoung Ju Kim, Soo-Hong Lee, Inbo Han, Jae Min Cha Stem Cells Translational Medicine.2022; 11(10): 1072. CrossRef
Biomechanical aspects of the initial stability of instrumental fixation in the treatment of subaxial cervical dislocations: an experimental study A. D. Lastevsky, A. I. Popelyukh, S. V. Veselov, V. A. Bataev, V. V. Rerikh Hirurgiâ pozvonočnika (Spine Surgery).2021; 18(3): 43. CrossRef
Objective To perform a systematic literature review on revision surgeries at the index level after cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) failure.
Methods A systematic literature review was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Prospective studies on patients who required a secondary surgery after CDA failure were included for analysis. The minimum follow-up for these studies was 5 years.
Results Out of 864 studies in the original search group, a total of 20 studies were included. From a total of 4,087 patients, 161 patients required a reoperation at the index level. A total of 170 surgeries were performed, as some patients required multiple surgeries. The most common secondary procedures were anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) (68%, N = 61) and posterior cervical fusion (15.5%, N = 14), followed by other reoperation (13.3%, N = 12). The associated outcomes for those who required a revision surgery were rarely mentioned in the included literature.
Conclusion The long-term revision rate at the index level of failed CDA surgery was 3.9%, with a minimum 5-year follow-up. ACDF was the most commonly performed procedure to salvage a failed CDA. Some patients who required a new surgery after CDA failure may require a more extensive salvage procedure and even subsequent surgeries.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Contemporary Concepts in Cervical Disk Arthroplasty: Implant Design, Constraint, Complications, and Technical Pearls Austin Q. Nguyen, Andrei Demkov, Don Le, Rohan Vemu, Mark L. Prasarn, Corey T. Walker, Hyun W. Bae, Todd Albert, Andrew A. Sama, Sheeraz A. Qureshi, Karim A. Shafi JBJS Reviews.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Risk Factors for Reoperation Following Single-Level Cervical Disc Arthroplasty as Utilized in a Representative Sample of United States Clinical Practice: A Retrospective PearlDiver Study Paal K. Nilssen, Nakul Narendran, Ida Chen, Linda E. Kanim, Corey T. Walker, Hyun W. Bae, David L. Skaggs, Alexander Tuchman Global Spine Journal.2025; 15(2): 1186. CrossRef
A Surgical Video Guide Demonstrating the Steps to Safely Revise an Extruded Cervical Disk Arthroplasty Implant Causing Severe Spinal Cord Compression: 2-Dimensional Operative Video Bryce A. Pugh, Allie L. Harbert, Michael A. Galgano Operative Neurosurgery.2025; 29(2): 313. CrossRef
Reoperation Strategy for Failure of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty at Index and Adjacent Levels Chae-Gwan Kong, Jong-Beom Park Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(6): 2038. CrossRef
Patient outcomes and surgical strategies in revision cervical arthroplasty following M6-C™ disc-related osteolysis Matthew Scott-Young, David Nielsen, Sukhman Riar, Evelyne Rathbone European Spine Journal.2025; 34(8): 3365. CrossRef
Cervical Disk Arthroplasty Failure in a Patient with Klippel-Feil Syndrome Phillip Alexeev, Ryan Snowden JBJS Case Connector.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Cervical Disk Arthroplasty: Updated Considerations of an Evolving Technology Franziska C. S. Altorfer, Fedan Avrumova, Celeste Abjornson, Darren R. Lebl Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.2024; 32(23): e1205. CrossRef
Cervical Disc Replacement with a Keeled Implant Causing an Intraoperative Fracture: a Case Report Jonathon Garrett, Michael McDermott, Joseph Mixa, Michael Rogers, Rebecca Michna, Robert Prior, Ashish Patel Journal of the American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Observational, Multicenter Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Cervical Disk Arthroplasty With Mobi-C in the Treatment of Cervical Degenerative Disk Disease. Results at 10 years Follow-Up Jean-Paul Steib, Thierry Dufour, Jacques Beaurain, Pierre Bernard, Jean Huppert Spine.2023; 48(7): 452. CrossRef
Clinical Effectiveness of Artificial Disc Replacement in Comparison With Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Patients With Cervical Myelopathy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Jung Hwan Lee, Youn Joo Lee, Min Cheol Chang, Jun Ho Lee Neurospine.2023; 20(3): 1047. CrossRef
Impact of Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy Before or After Cervical Disk Replacement Mason W. Young, Amir M. Abtahi Clinical Spine Surgery.2023; 36(9): 391. CrossRef
Revision Strategies for Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Steven G. Roth, Marcos Joaquin Robles Ortiz, Meghana Vulapalli, K. Daniel Riew Clinical Spine Surgery.2023; 36(9): 411. CrossRef
Comparable long-term outcomes in patients undergoing total disc replacement or anterior cervical discectomy and noninstrumented fusion Tuomas Hirvonen, Mathias Hämäläinen, Juho Konsti, Jussi Antinheimo, Jussi Numminen, Jari Siironen, Anniina Koski-Palkén, Mika Niemelä The Spine Journal.2023; 23(12): 1817. CrossRef
Enhanced Intervertebral Disc Repair via Genetically Engineered Mesenchymal Stem Cells with Tetracycline Regulatory System Yeji Kim, Seong Bae An, Sang-Hyuk Lee, Jong Joo Lee, Sung Bum Kim, Jae-Cheul Ahn, Dong-Youn Hwang, Inbo Han International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2023; 24(22): 16024. CrossRef
Safety and Feasibility of Intradiscal Administration of Matrilin-3-Primed Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Spheroids for Chronic Discogenic Low Back Pain: Phase 1 Clinical Trial Dong Hyun Lee, Kwang-Sook Park, Hae Eun Shin, Sung Bum Kim, Hyejeong Choi, Seong Bae An, Hyemin Choi, Joo Pyung Kim, Inbo Han International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2023; 24(23): 16827. CrossRef
Combining Virtual Surgical Planning and Patient-Specific 3D-Printing as a Solution to Complex Spinal Revision Surgery David A. M. Tredan, Ralph J. Mobbs, Monish Maharaj, William C. H. Parr Journal of Personalized Medicine.2022; 13(1): 19. CrossRef
Cervical Radiculopathy: Focus on Factors for Better Surgical Outcomes and Operative Techniques Kyung-Chung Kang, Tae Su Jang, Cheol Hyun Jung Asian Spine Journal.2022; 16(6): 995. CrossRef
The Effect of Subsidence on Segmental and Global Lordosis at Long-term Follow-up After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Akiro H. Duey, Christopher Gonzalez, Eric A. Geng, Pierce J. Ferriter Jr, Ashley M. Rosenberg, Ula N. Isleem, Bashar Zaidat, Paul M. Al-Attar, Jonathan S. Markowitz, Jun S. Kim, Samuel K. Cho Neurospine.2022; 19(4): 927. CrossRef
First
Prev
