Complication Profiles of Corpectomy-Containing Versus Non-Corpectomy Anterior Cervical Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy
Spine · 20 Jul 2026
† Impact is the editorial-priority score. All scores are out of 100. Clinical is a stored clinical-importance score from the earlier method; it has not been recalculated.
Why it matters
Helps spine surgeons understand that the higher complication burden they see with corpectomy is mostly driven by disease severity (OPLL, multilevel disease) rather than the corpectomy technique itself, which matters for counselling and risk stratification.
The evidence
This retrospective multicentre study from Japan compared complication rates in 1,024 patients who had anterior cervical surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy, dividing them into non-corpectomy procedures (like ACDF, n=617) and corpectomy-containing procedures (ACCF or hybrid, n=407). Corpectomy patients had longer surgeries, more blood loss, and much higher unadjusted complication rates (perioperative local complications 38.1% vs 16.5%, dural injury 17.4% vs 1.5%), but after adjusting for OPLL and surgical extent, the independent association between corpectomy itself and complications largely disappeared (OR dropped from 1.82 to 1.12, no longer significant).
Perioperative local complications: Odds ratio 1.82 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.72; units not reported). The interval favours the comparator; the size of the disadvantage needs clinical interpretation.
Why this rigour score?
Retrospective cohort
Methods at a glance
Recorded assessment- Confounding adjustmentMultivariable regression
- Covariate balance confirmedNot reported
- Outcome assessors blindedNot reported
- Comparable start of follow-upNot reported
- Adequate statistical powerNot reported
- Prospective registrationNot met
Not reported does not mean not done. Checks have different weights; this is not a count of boxes ticked.
How to read this assessment
The recorded methods are shown alongside the published score. A verified point-by-point calculation is not available for this version of the appraisal.
Checklist from the stored appraisal. “Not met” describes the recorded criterion; it does not always produce a deduction. This overview supports reading the full study.
For journal club
1.Given the retrospective design and unmeasured confounders like canal-occupying ratio, K-line status, and dural ossification, how much residual confounding could still be driving the observed complication differences even after multivariable adjustment?
2.If corpectomy itself is not independently associated with complications once surgical extent is accounted for, should surgeons feel more comfortable choosing corpectomy when it offers a decompression advantage, or does the crude complication rate still matter for informed consent?
Original publication title
Complication Profiles of Corpectomy-Containing Versus Non-Corpectomy Anterior Cervical Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy