Evidence · Interpretation · Limits

Read the source behind the discussion

A focused reading list for the clinical questions raised by the Casebank. Each source is labeled by evidence type and accompanied by its limits of applicability.

Bibliographic check: 2026-09-11. This is a curated educational reading list, not a systematic review or a complete statement of current guidance. The source's year is shown separately from the website update.

Coauthored publication · technical report

Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniations

Choi DJ, Jung JT, Lee SJ, Kim YS, Jang HJ, Yoo B. Clin Orthop Surg. 2016;8(3):325–329.

A published technical discussion of biportal revision discectomy, scar dissection, and preservation of remaining stabilizing structures.

Applicability and limits: This report concerns recurrent disc herniation. It does not establish the benefit of revision fusion or validate outcomes in the cases on this website.

DOI: 10.4055/cios.2016.8.3.325

Coauthored publication · retrospective study

Impact of Early Tracheostomy on Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia and Infection of Anterior Cervical Fusion Site in Patients with Acute Cervical Cord Injury

Jang HJ, Jwa CS. Korean J Neurotrauma. 2012;8(2):59–63.

A retrospective study examining tracheostomy timing in patients with acute cervical cord injury.

Applicability and limits: An acute spinal cord injury study; it is not evidence for elective endoscopic decompression or the Casebank's operative outcomes.

DOI: 10.13004/kjnt.2012.8.2.59

External evidence · randomized trial

Decompression alone or with fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (Nordsten-DS): five year follow-up

Kgomotso EL et al. BMJ. 2024;386:e079771.

At five years, decompression alone was non-inferior to decompression with instrumented fusion in the trial population.

Applicability and limits: Patient selection and exclusions matter. These findings do not establish that every slip needs fusion, nor compare UBE-TLIF with all alternative techniques.

DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2024-079771

External evidence · clinical guideline

A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Patients With Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy

Fehlings MG et al. Global Spine J. 2017;7(3 Suppl):70S–83S.

Recommendations organize management by myelopathy severity, progression, and the presence of cord compression.

Applicability and limits: A management guideline does not endorse a single endoscopic corridor. Alignment, instability, compression pattern, and the individual examination remain relevant.

DOI: 10.1177/2192568217701914

External evidence · clinical practice recommendations

AO Spine Clinical Practice Recommendations for Diagnosis and Management of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy

Fehlings MG et al. Global Spine J. 2025;15(5):2585–2593.

A 2025 evidence review of decision-making in degenerative cervical myelopathy.

Applicability and limits: Use alongside the cited source and individual clinical assessment. It is not a study of the cases presented on this site.

DOI: 10.1177/21925682251331050

How evidence connects to a case

A selected case explains a decision in context. Comparative studies address groups under defined eligibility criteria. Guidelines synthesize evidence into recommendations. These roles are different; none substitutes for a documented individual assessment.

Explore the cases →