Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy with tubes to prevent undesired fusion: a long-term follow-up study

Comparing outcomes between anterior cervical disc replacement (ACDR) and minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Anterior cervical disc replacement (ACDR) and minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) have emerged as two increasingly popular alternatives to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the management of cervical radiculopathy. Both techniques provide advantages of segmental motion preservation and lower rates of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) compared to ACDF.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical and functional outcomes of patients undergoing ACDR or MI-PCF for the treatment of unilateral cervical radiculopathy.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective Cohort Review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 152 patients were included (86 ACDR and 66 MI-PCF).

OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Patient demographics; (2) perioperative data; (3) rates of complications and revisions; (5) visual analogue scale (VAS) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort review was performed to identify all patients at a single institution between 2012-2020 who underwent 1- or 2- level ACDR or MI-PCF from C3-C7 with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Patient demographics, perioperative data, postoperative complications, and revisions were analyzed. Patient reported outcome measures including VAS and NDI scores were compared.

RESULTS

The ACDR group had a significantly greater mean operative time (99.8 minutes vs 79.2 minutes, p<.001), but comparable estimated blood loss and length of stay following surgical intervention (p=.899). The overall complication rate was significantly greater in the ACDR group than the MI-PCF group (24.4% vs 6.2%; p=.003) but was largely driven by approach-related dysphagia in 20.9% of ACDR patients. The MI-PCF group had significantly greater revision rates (13.6% vs 1.2%; p=.002) with an average time to revision of 20.7 months in the MI-PCF group compared to 40.3 months in the ACDR group. The ACDR cohort had significantly greater improvements in NDI scores at the final follow-up (25.0 vs 21.3, p<.001).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that ACDR offer clinically relevant advantages over MI-PCF in terms of long-term revision rates despite an increased approach-related risk of transient postoperative dysphagia. Additionally, patients in the ACDR cohort achieved greater mean improvements in NDI scores but these results may have limited clinical significance due to inability to reach minimally clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds.

Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy: An Outcome Comparison With the Full-endoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective control study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the curative effects of unilateral biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy (UBE-PCF) with full-endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy (FPCF).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There are few studies directly comparing outcomes between UBE-PCF and FPCF. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes between UBE-PCF and FPCF.

METHODS

A retrospective control study was conducted for 69 patients of cervical radiculopathy from July 2019 to December 2021. Clinical outcomes scores, including neck disability index, visual analog scale (VAS)-arm, and VAS-neck were evaluated. Serum creatine kinase levels and the size of the operating hole were measured.

RESULTS

Postoperative neck disability index, VAS-neck, and VAS-arm scores showed statistically significant improvement over preoperative scores ( P <0.01). The operating time was significantly shorter in the UBE-PCF group ( P <0.001). No significant differences were found in serum creatine kinase levels between the 2 groups ( P >0.05). The mean area of the operating hole was 1.47+0.05 cm 2 in the FPCF group and 1.79+0.11 cm 2 in the UBE-PCF group. The difference was statistically significant ( P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both UBE-PCF and FPCF are safe and effective procedures for cervical radiculopathy. Predictable and sufficient decompression could be achieved by UBE-PCF in a shorter operation time.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Treatment Benefits Level III.

Impact of Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy Before or After Cervical Disk Replacement: Current Evidence

STUDY DESIGN

Narrative review.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to provide a review of the current evidence on the impact of posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) performed before or after cervical disk replacement (CDR).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The impact of PCF on outcomes in the setting of CDR is an evolving field, given the recent widespread adoption of CDR and the relative rarity of patients who have undergone both procedures.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using PubMed to determine current evidence regarding the indications, outcomes, and biomechanical effects of CDR and PCF when performed alone or in combination.

RESULTS

When radicular symptoms persist following PCF, a CDR can be safely performed to provide further decompression. Conversely, a PCF can be safely performed following CDR for these same indications. The biomechanical effects of these procedures in combination demonstrate maintained stability when the facetectomy is less than 50% of the facet joint. Studies demonstrate that stability is not significantly decreased by the presence, amount, or level of posterior foraminotomies in the setting of CDR.

CONCLUSIONS

A PCF can be safely performed before or after cervical disk arthroplasty for recurrent radicular symptoms.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V.

Posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy for Cervical Brachialgia: the FORVAD RCT

Background

Posterior cervical foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy are routinely used operations to treat cervical brachialgia, although definitive evidence supporting superiority of either is lacking.

Objective

The primary objective was to investigate whether or not posterior cervical foraminotomy is superior to anterior cervical discectomy in improving clinical outcome.

Design

This was a Phase III, unblinded, prospective, United Kingdom multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled superiority trial comparing posterior cervical foraminotomy with anterior cervical discectomy. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during the close-down phase, involving remote semistructured interviews with trial participants and health-care professionals.

Setting

National Health Service trusts.

Participants

Patients with symptomatic unilateral cervical brachialgia for at least 6 weeks.

Interventions

Participants were randomised to receive posterior cervical foraminotomy or anterior cervical discectomy. Allocation was not blinded to participants, medical staff or trial staff. Health-care use from providing the initial surgical intervention to hospital discharge was measured and valued using national cost data.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was clinical outcome, as measured by patient-reported Neck Disability Index score 52 weeks post operation. Secondary outcome measures included complications, reoperations and restricted American Spinal Injury Association score over 6 weeks post operation, and patient-reported Eating Assessment Tool-10 items, Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale, Voice Handicap Index-10 items, PainDETECT and Numerical Rating Scales for neck and upper-limb pain over 52 weeks post operation.

Results

The target recruitment was 252 participants. Owing to slow accrual, the trial closed after randomising 23 participants from 11 hospitals. The qualitative substudy found that there was support and enthusiasm for the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial and randomised clinical trials in this area. However, clinical equipoise appears to have been an issue for sites and individual surgeons. Randomisation on the day of surgery and processes for screening and approaching participants were also crucial factors in some centres. The median Neck Disability Index scores at baseline (pre surgery) and at 52 weeks was 44.0 (interquartile range 36.0-62.0 weeks) and 25.3 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-42.0 weeks), respectively, in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group (n = 14), and 35.6 weeks (interquartile range 34.0-44.0 weeks) and 45.0 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-57.0 weeks), respectively, in the anterior cervical discectomy group (n = 9). Scores appeared to reduce (i.e. improve) in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group, but not in the anterior cervical discectomy group. The median Eating Assessment Tool-10 items score for swallowing was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (13.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (0) on day 1, but not at other time points, whereas the median Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale score for globus was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (15, 7, 6, 6, 2, 2.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (3, 0, 0, 0.5, 0, 0) at all postoperative time points. Five postoperative complications occurred within 6 weeks of surgery, all after anterior cervical discectomy. Neck pain was more severe on day 1 following posterior cervical foraminotomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 8.5) than at the same time point after anterior cervical discectomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 7.0). The median health-care costs of providing initial surgical intervention were £2610 for posterior cervical foraminotomy and £4411 for anterior cervical discectomy.

Conclusions

The data suggest that posterior cervical foraminotomy is associated with better outcomes, fewer complications and lower costs, but the trial recruited slowly and closed early. Consequently, the trial is underpowered and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Recruitment was impaired by lack of individual equipoise and by concern about randomising on the day of surgery. A large prospective multicentre trial comparing anterior cervical discectomy and posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia is still required.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN10133661.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Foraminal Restenosis After Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy for the Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To elucidate incidence, risk factor, and clinical effect of bone regrowth after posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF).

METHODS

Ninety-eight patients who underwent PCF for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy and were followed up for >2 years were retrospectively reviewed. Foraminal dimension, sagittal gap at resected area, facet thickness, lamina length, and cervical range of motion (ROM) were measured. Neck pain visual analogue scale (VAS), arm pain VAS, and neck disability index (NDI) were recorded. Radiographic measures were compared between segments with foraminal narrowing of ≥20% at the 2-years follow-up (restenosis segments) and foraminal narrowing of <20% (patent segments).

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients with 109 segments were included. 73.4% (80/109) of foramens demonstrated foraminal narrowing and decrease of foraminal dimension of ≥20% occurred in 30.3% (30/109). Foraminal dimension at postoperative 2-days was significantly higher in the restenosis segments (P = .047). Furthermore, increase of foraminal dimension was significantly associated with foraminal restenosis of ≥20% (P = .018). Facet thickness was significantly higher in the restenosis segments compared to patent segments at postoperative 2-years follow-up (P = .038). Neck pain VAS was significantly aggravated only in the restenosis group at postoperative 2-years follow-up (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Foraminal narrowing commonly occurs after PCF due to bone healing. Bone growth occurs in all directions while medial facet growth contributes more to foraminal restenosis. Greater widening of foramen during PCF is a risk factor for postoperative foramen restenosis. Therefore, amount of bone resection should be kept optimal and excessive resection should be avoided to prevent foramen restenosis.

The Best Surgical Treatment for Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

A case with an inflamed or damaged nerve root in the cervical spine is defined as cervical radiculopathy.The purpose of the current study is to recognize the most effective surgical procedures in cervical radiculopathy subjects. All related studies were taken using PubMed searching international databases, Scopus, ISI Web of Science (WoS), and Science direct with no limit of until November 20th, 2021. Finally, based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, after reviewing all randomized controlled trial studies which had the related data the researchers were looking for, they conducted meta-analysis with the seven remaining studies including eight different treatments. Heterogeneity was evaluated by Cochran's Q and Higgins I2 using R software for the network. In the results presented in this study, the neck disability index (NDI) changes as a result of taking cervical anterior discectomy without (ACD) and with fusion (ACDF) and ACD arthroplasty were -0.003, -1.659, and -1.656, respectively. According to the final diagram of the network, 11 comparisons were made in pairs. When each treatment group is compared with ACDF, it is shown that there was a significant mean effect among the patients who receive Mobi-C, Kineflx|C, and ADR, with mean differences of - 8.60 [CI 95% (- 12.75, - 4.45)], - 1.10 [CI 95% (- 5.22, 3.02)], and - 1.00 [CI 95% (- 7.18, 5.18)], respectively. The most effective surgical treatments for cervical radiculopathy were Mobi-c, Kineflx|C, and artificial disc replacement compared to ACDF treatment, respectively.

Cervical Radiculopathy: Focus on Factors for Better Surgical Outcomes and Operative Techniques

For patients with cervical radiculopathy, most studies have recommended conservative treatment as the first-line treatment; however, when conventional treatment fails, surgery is considered. A better understanding of the prognosis of cervical radiculopathy is essential to provide accurate information to the patients. If the patients complain of persistent and recurrent arm pain/numbness not respond to conservative treatment, or exhibit neurologic deficits, surgery is performed using anterior or posterior approaches. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has historically been widely used and has proven to be safe and effective. To improve surgical outcomes of ACDF surgery, many studies have been conducted on types of spacers, size/height/position of cages, anterior plating, patients' factors, surgical techniques, and so forth. Cervical disc replacement (CDR) is designed to reduce the incidence of adjacent segment disease during long-term follow-up by maintaining cervical spine motion postoperatively. Many studies on excellent indications for the CDR, proper type/size/shape/height of the implants, and surgical techniques were performed. Posterior cervical foraminotomy is a safe and effective surgical option to avoid complications associated with anterior approach and fusion surgery. Most recent literature demonstrated that all three surgical techniques for patients with cervical radiculopathy have clear advantages and disadvantages and reveal satisfactory surgical outcomes under a proper selection of patients and application of appropriate surgical methods. For this, it is important to fully understand the factors for better surgical outcomes and to adequately practice the operative techniques for patients with cervical radiculopathy.

Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for cervical radiculopathy: a meta-analysis

With the recent development of minimally invasive techniques, minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MIS-PCF) has become increasingly popular as a minimally invasive method to treat cervical radiculopathy. However, there are still controversies about whether MIS-PCF is superior to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the therapeutic effects of MIS-PCF and ACDF on unilateral cervical radiculopathy without myelopathy. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus comprehensively using the terms related to MIS-PCF. Two reviewers independently evaluated the potential studies, and extracted and analyzed the data of operation time, hospital stay, neck disability index (NDI) score, visual analog scale for neck pain (VAS-neck) and arm pain (VAS-arm) scores, reoperation rate, and complications. Seven studies with 1175 patients were included. The study population was 53.5% male, with a mean age of 48.9. MIS-PCF presented a significantly shorter postoperative hospitalization time compared to ACDF, while the operation time, complication/reoperation rate, and VAS-arm, VAS-neck, and NDI scores were comparable between the two cohorts. In North America, the average cost of MIS-PCF is lower than ACDF. Thus, we suggest that MIS-PCF is an alternative to ACDF for selected patients.

Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy Versus Anterior Cervical Fusion and Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

Patients with lateral cervical disc and foraminal pathology can be treated with anterior and posterior approaches including anterior cervical discectomy and fusion(ACDF), cervical total disc arthroplasty(TDA), and minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy(MIS-PCF). Although MIS-PCF may have some advantages over the anterior approaches, few comparative studies and meta-analyses have been done to assess superiority.

METHODS

This study includes a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of studies directly comparing minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy to either anterior cervical discectomy and fusion or cervical total disc arthroplasty.

RESULTS

In comparing patients undergoing ACDF and MIS-PCF, operative time ranged from 68 to 97.8 minutes in the ACDF group compared to 28 to 93.9 minutes in the MIS-PCF group. Mean postoperative length of stay ranged from 33.84 to 112.8 hours in the ACDF group compared to 13.68 to 83.6 hours in the MIS-PCF group. The total complication rates were 3.72% in the ACDF group and 3.73% in the MIS-PCF group. A random-effects model meta-analysis was carried out which failed to show a statistically significant difference in the complication rate between the two procedures(OR .91; 95% CI 0.13, 6.43; P = .92, I² = 59%). The total reoperation rate was 3.5% in the ACDF group and 5.4% in the MIS-PCF group. A random-effects model meta-analysis was carried out which failed to show a statistically significant difference in the reoperation rate between the two procedures(OR .66; 95% CI 0.33, 1.33; P = .25, I² = 0). In comparing patients undergoing TDA and MIS-PCF, operative time ranged from 90.3 to 106.7 minutes in the TDA group compared to 77.4 to 93.9 minutes in the MIS-PCF group. Mean postoperative length of stay ranged from 103.2 to 165.6 hours in the TDA group and 93.6 to 98.4 hours in the MIS-PCF group. The complication rate ranged from 23.5 to 28.6% in the TDA group and 0 to 14.3% in the MIS-PCF group. The overall reoperation rates were 2.6% in the TDA group and 10.2% in the MIS-PCF group.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear superiority between MIS-PCF and ACDF/TDA in terms of operative time, postoperative length of stay, or rate of complications/reoperations. Further studies with increased follow-up intervals >48 months, and higher sample sizes are necessary to determine the true superiority of MIS-PCF and anterior neck approaches in treatment of lateral disc and foraminal pathology.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Surgical Treatments in Patients With Pure Cervical Radiculopathy

Background

Traditionally paired meta-analysis revealed inconsistencies in the safety and effectiveness of surgical interventions. We conducted a network meta-analysis to assess various treatments' clinical efficacy and safety for pure cervical radiculopathy.

Methods

The Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different treatment options for patients with pure cervical radiculopathy from inception until October 23, 2021. The primary outcomes were postoperative success rates, postoperative complication rates, and postoperative reoperation rates. The pooled data were subjected to a random-effects consistency model. The protocol was published in PROSPERO (CRD42021284819).

Results

This study included 23 RCTs (n = 1,844) that evaluated various treatments for patients with pure cervical radiculopathy. There were no statistical differences between treatments in the consistency model in terms of major clinical effectiveness and safety outcomes. Postoperative success rates were higher for anterior cervical foraminotomy (ACF: probability 38%), posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF: 24%), and anterior cervical discectomy with fusion and additional plating (ACDFP: 21%). Postoperative complication rates ranked from high to low as follows: cervical disc replacement (CDR: probability 32%), physiotherapy (25%), ACF (25%). Autologous bone graft (ABG) had better relief from arm pain (probability 71%) and neck disability (71%). Among the seven surgical interventions with a statistical difference, anterior cervical discectomy with allograft bone graft plus plating (ABGP) had the shortest surgery time.

Conclusions

According to current results, all surgical interventions can achieve satisfactory results, and there are no statistically significant differences. As a result, based on their strengths and patient-related factors, surgeons can exercise discretion in determining the appropriate surgical intervention for pure cervical radiculopathy.

Systematic Review Registration: CRD42021284819.

Evaluation of the nutrient foramen as a suitable landmark in spinal surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The posterior cervical approach is a very popular surgical procedure. Because of the slope-shaped laminae, a suitable landmark for laminectomy, laminoplasty, and pedicle screw placement does not exist.

PURPOSE

We investigated the association between the nutrient foramen and spinal canal, and the safety of bone gutter placement using nutrient foramina for safe and effective spinal surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational SETTING: University Hospital PATIENT SAMPLES: Two hundred and sixty-six consecutive patients treated for cervical pathologies in our university hospital between January 2005 and December 2019.

OUTCOME MEASURES

We identified the location of nutrient foramina and their anatomical association with the spinal canal using preoperative three-dimensional CT scanning.

METHODS

We studied the distance between each foramen and the spinal canal, and the angle of the nutrient foramen at each vertebral level.

RESULTS

The nutrient foramina were always located outside the spinal canal, with an average distance of +3.06±1.74 mm. The lower the spinal level, the closer the nutrient foramen to the spinal canal.

CONCLUSIONS

The nutrient foramen can be considered a reliable landmark when using the posterior cervical approach.

Comparing Mid-Term Outcomes Between ACDF and Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy in the Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of unilateral cervical radiculopathy.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

MI-PCF has been shown to be equally effective as ACDF in treating cervical radiculopathy due to foraminal stenosis and similar pathologies. Additionally, it has been hypothesized that preserving motion and avoiding fusion reduces risk for adjacent segment disease, but potentially increases risk for subsequent revision to an ACDF. With similar short-term outcomes and substantial advantages, MI-PCF may be an effective alternative to ACDF for addressing appropriate cervical pathology.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed to identify patients between 2009 and 2013 who underwent ACDF or MI-PCF with a minimum follow-up of 7 years. Demographic data was recorded. Revision rates and average time to revision between cohorts were compared. Clinical outcomes were assessed at each follow-up visit with Neck Disability Index and Visual Analog Scale for neck and Visual Analog Scale for arm pain scores. All complications were reviewed. Standard binomial and categorical comparative analysis were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 251 consecutive patients were included (205 ACDF, 46 MI-PCF). Mean follow-ups for the ACDF and MI-PCF groups were 98.3 and 95.9 months, respectively. Complication rates were 2.9% and 2.2% for the ACDF and MI-PCF cohorts, respectively (P = 0.779). Revision rates were 7.8% for the ACDF cohort and 8.7% for the MI-PCF cohort (P = 0.840). Both cohorts experienced significant improvements in their clinical scores compared with their preoperative values. Final Visual Analog Scale for neck pain (ACDF: 2.6; MI-PCF: 1.6) and Visual Analog Scale for arm pain (ACDF: 1.1; MI-PCF: 0.4) scores differed significantly at final follow-up (P =  < 0.001; P =  < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

MI-PCF is a safe and effective alternative to ACDF in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy, demonstrating substantial benefit. After final follow-up, MI-PCF demonstrated superior improvements in Visual Analog Scale scores, without increased complication or revision rates.Level of Evidence: 3.

Metal-on-metal versus metal-on-plastic artificial discs in two-level anterior cervical disc replacement: a meta-analysis with follow-up of 5 years or more

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Although highlighted in joint arthroplasty studies, long-term outcomes between differing biomaterial composites, such as metal-on-metal (MoM) and metal-on-plastic (MoP) in anterior cervical disc replacement (ACDR) have not been thoroughly investigated.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the patient-reported clinical outcomes, overall reoperation rates, complications, and rates of ASD of MoM versus MoP artificial discs in two-level ACDR for the treatment of cervical DDD.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Meta-analysis and systematic review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Nine hundred eighty patients (442 MoM, 538 MoP) across seven studies.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient reported clinical outcomes (NDI, VAS-n, VAS-a), overall reoperation rates, complications, and rates of ASD.

METHODS

A systematic search strategy of three electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL Plus, and SCOPUS) was conducted utilizing terms related to two-level ACDR. All studies included had a sample size of >10 patients, had a minimum 5-year follow-up, and reported data on adjacent segment disease. Cadaver studies, non-English manuscripts, articles with less than 5-year follow-up and studies in which only single-level ACDR was investigated were excluded. A total of seven studies were included in this analysis. Studies were analyzed for demographic data, clinical outcome scores (NDI, VAS-neck, and VAS-arm), overall reoperation rates, complications, and rates of ASD. A random-effects model of meta-analysis was used for groups that were determined to be heterogenous and a fixed-effects model was utilized for groups that were not. An overlap of 95% confidence intervals suggests no statistically significant difference at the p<.05 level.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included with data on 980 patients (442 MoM, 538 MoP). The study population was 52.84% female, with a mean age of 48.01 years, and a mean follow-up of 85.66 months. The mean improvement in NDI was 34.42 (95% CI, 32.49-36.36) and 29.72 (95% CI, 27.15-32.29) for the MoM and MoP groups, respectively. The mean improvement in VAS-neck was 11.20 (95% CI, 10.69-11.70) and 8.78 (95% CI, 7.81-9.74) for the MoM and MoP groups, respectively. The mean improvement in VAS-arm was 10.73 (95% CI, 9.83-11.63) and 8.49 (95% CI, 7.59-9.39) for the MoM and MoP groups, respectively. 3.85% (95% CI, 2.40-6.10) of patients who underwent ACDR with a MoM implant required reoperation compared to 5.33% (95% CI, 3.68-7.65) of patients with a MoP implant. Heterotopic ossification and dysphagia were the most common complications in both groups. The MoM cohort showed a higher incidence of HO (72.62% vs. 21.07%), but a lower incidence of dysphagia (0.96% vs. 16.31%) compared to the MoP cohort. The MoM cohort had a larger proportion of patients with ASD who underwent subsequent surgery at an adjacent level (7.89% MoM versus 1.91% MoP).

CONCLUSIONS

Our present meta-analysis suggests that the use of MoM artificial discs in two-level ACDR results in superior clinical outcome score improvement, but higher rates of ASD requiring secondary surgery compared to MoP discs after a follow-up period of 5 years or more.

Fully endoscopic cervical spine surgery: What does the future hold?

Fully endoscopic cervical spine surgery is an emerging novel approach to address cervical spinal pathology. Techniques, both anterior and posterior have been adapted to address various cervical pathologies. The primary goal of these procedures like other open techniques is to surgically decompress the canal centrally and/or along the foramen. The narrative review aims to provide the reader an overview of the rapidly advancing field of endoscopic cervical spinal surgery and evaluate whether these newer approaches could potentially reduce the cost and the risk associated with instrumented cervical fusion.

Operative treatment of cervical radiculopathy: anterior cervical decompression and fusion compared with posterior foraminotomy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Cervical radiculopathy is the most common disease in the cervical spine, affecting patients around 50–55 year of age. An operative treatment is common clinical praxis when non-operative treatment fails. The controversy is in the choice of operative treatment, conducting either anterior cervical decompression and fusion or posterior foraminotomy. The study objective is to evaluate short- and long-term outcome of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) and posterior foraminotomy (PF)

Methods

A multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial with 1:1 randomization, ACDF vs. PF including 110 patients. The primary aim is to evaluate if PF is non-inferior to ACDF using a non-inferiority design with ACDF as “active control.” The neck disability index (NDI) is the primary outcome measure, and duration of follow-up is 2 years.

Discussion

Due to absence of high level of evidence, the authors believe that a RCT will improve the evidence for using the different surgical treatments for cervical radiculopathy and strengthen current surgical treatment recommendation.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04177849. Registered on November 26, 2019

Intraoperative image guidance for cervical spine surgery

Intraoperative image-guidance in spinal surgery has been influenced by various technological developments in imaging science since the early 1990s. The technology has evolved from simple fluoroscopic-based guidance to state-of-art intraoperative computed tomography (iCT)-based navigation systems. Although the intraoperative navigation is more commonly used in thoracolumbar spine surgery, this newer imaging platform has rapidly gained popularity in cervical approaches. The purpose of this manuscript is to address the applications of advanced image-guidance in cervical spine surgery and to describe the use of intraoperative neuro-navigation in surgical planning and execution. In this review, we aim to cover the following surgical techniques: anterior cervical approaches, atlanto-axial fixation, subaxial instrumentation, percutaneous interfacet cage implantation as well as minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) and unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression. The currently available data suggested that the use of 3D navigation significantly reduces the screw malposition, operative time, mean blood loss, radiation exposure, and complication rates in comparison to the conventional fluoroscopic-guidance. With the advancements in technology and surgical techniques, 3D navigation has potential to replace conventional fluoroscopy completely.

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus posterior cervical foraminotomy for the treatment of single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare the effectiveness and safety of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) for patients diagnosed with single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy.

METHODS

Relevant studies comparing ACDF with PCF for cervical radiculopathy were searched in an electronic database. After data extraction and quality assessment of included studies, a meta-analysis was done by using the RevMan 5.3 software. The random effects model was used if there was heterogeneity between studies; otherwise, the fixed effects model was used.

RESULTS

A total of 3 randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 12 retrospective studies including 52705 patients were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and patients' satisfaction (P > 0.05) between treatment groups. The complication rate of the PCF group was equivalent compared with the ACDF group (P = 0.60), but the reoperation rate following PCF was on the higher side (P = 0.02). Data analysis also showed that the PCF group was associated with shorter operation time (P = 0.001) and shorter length of hospital stay (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy, PCF has comparable effectiveness and complication rate compared with ACDF. It seems that PCF is a sufficient alternative procedure with shorter operation time, shorter length of hospital stay, and less total hospital cost for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy. However, the higher reoperation rate following PCF should be also taken into consideration.

Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy as an Alternative to Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Unilateral Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes, complications, and reoperations of minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) for unilateral cervical radiculopathy without myelopathy, in comparison to anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

ACDF is a standard treatment for cervical radiculopathy secondary to lateral disc herniation or foraminal stenosis. Recent studies have suggested MI-PCF to be an effective alternative to ACDF. However, concern for reoperation and whether similar improvements in clinical outcomes can be achieved has led to a debate in the literature.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched PubMed, CINAHL Plus, and SCOPUS utilizing terms related to MI-PCF. Two independent reviewers assessed potential studies and extracted data on clinical outcome scores (neck disability index [NDI], visual analog scale [VAS]-neck, and VAS-arm), reoperation proportion, and complications. Studies included were on noncentral cervical pathology, published in the last 10 years, had a sample size of >10 patients, and reported data on minimally invasive techniques for posterior cervical foraminotomy. Heterogeneity and publication bias analyses were performed. The pooled proportions of each outcome were compared to those of ACDF obtained from two previously published studies.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included with data of 1216 patients. The study population was 61.8% male, with a mean age of 51.57 years, and a mean follow-up of 30 months. MI-PCF resulted in a significantly greater improvement in VAS-arm scores compared to ACDF, and similar improvements in VAS-neck and NDI scores. Proportions of complications and reoperations were similar between the two cohorts. The most common complications were transient neuropraxia, wound-related, and durotomy.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that MI-PCF may be utilized as a safe and effective alternative to ACDF in patients with unilateral cervical radiculopathy without myelopathy, without concern for increased reoperations or complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

MIS approaches in the cervical spine

Minimally invasive surgical approaches for the treatment of spinal pathologies have accelerated over the past three decades and resulted in superior functional outcomes with less complications. Yet cervical pathologies have been slower to gain traction for multiple anatomical factors and its "high-risk" profile. Various minimally invasive techniques for cervical disease have now been described and validated in long-term studies with comparable outcomes to traditional open approaches and concomitant reduction in morbidity and socioeconomic costs. Transnasal operations can be used to treat ventral upper cervical disease, circumventing traditional and morbid transoral approaches. Posterior-based focused treatments for radiculopathy and myelopathy such as tubular-guided foraminotomies and unilateral laminotomies for bilateral cord decompression have also been described and becoming increasingly less invasive. Cervical fusions can now be performed percutaneously through modified, stand-alone facet joint cages that can be packed with allogeneic bone graft. These advances have been facilitated by the development of intraoperative imaging technologies (intraoperative CT) and 3-dimensional stereotactic navigation software. While this review focuses on these procedures and evidence-based outcomes data, the future for MIS applications in cervical spine surgery will continue to evolve over the coming years with wider indications and technological adjuncts.

Does the Neck Pain, Function, or Range of Motion Differ After Anterior Cervical Fusion, Cervical Disc Replacement, and Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate clinical and radiologic results as well as biomechanical changes after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), cervical disc replacement (CDR), and posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) and/or discectomy in individuals with unilateral single-level cervical radiculopathy.

METHODS

A total of 97 patients received surgical treatment for unilateral intolerable radiculopathy between February 2012 and August 2017. Clinical outcomes included Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analogue scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain, and modified Odom's criteria. Range of motion (ROM) of the whole cervical (C-ROM), operated segment (S-ROM), and upper and lower adjacent segment (U-ROM and L-ROM) were measured.

RESULTS

A total of 55 ACDFs, 21 CDRs, and 21 PCFs were performed. Clinical improvement in NDI and VAS scores were significant after surgery; however, there was no statistical significance among groups. Satisfaction rate (based on Odom's criteria) of PCF (76.2%) was inferior to that of ACDF (90.9%) and CDR (90.5%) without statistical difference. S-ROM, U-ROM, and L-ROM were slightly better in the CDR and PCF groups, without statistical significance. C-ROM significantly increased in CDR group (P = 0.04) and slightly increased in PCF group (P = 0.27). In the ACDF group, C-ROM decreased (P = 0.21) and on the contrary, the U-ROM and L-ROM increased (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

ACDF, CDR, and PCF resulted in pain relief and improvement in neck function for patients with unilateral radiculopathy. Comparatively, ACDF provides the lowest reoperation rate. CDR is effective in ameliorating cervical ROMs. PCF has a greater probability of reoperation; however, ROM after surgery is better than with ACDF.