Full Endoscopic Key Hole Technique for Cervical Foraminal Stenosis: Is Mere Dorsal Decompression Enough?

Outcome of Anterior and Posterior Endoscopic Procedures for Cervical Radiculopathy Due to Degenerative Disk Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

Cervical spine endoscopic discectomy and decompression have gained popularity in the last decade. This review aimed to shed light on the current outcomes of cervical spine endoscopic procedures for degenerative disc disease (DDD) and to calculate a pooled estimate of various outcome measures.

METHODS

We retrieved articles published in English related to endoscopic cervical spine procedures from 3 central databases from inception until September 2020. A subgroup analysis based on the anterior versus the posterior approach was performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-one articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria and included 1,410 patients. A successful outcome was observed in 91.3% (88.6-93.4%, P = 0.000). This percentage was lower for the anterior approach (89.6% [85.8-92.5%], P = 0.000) than for the posterior approach (94.2% [90.4-96.5%], P = 0.000). A higher percentage of poor outcomes was reported for the anterior approach (5.7% [3.2-10.1%], P = 0.000 vs. 2.3% [1-5.5%], P = 0.000 for the posterior approach). The overall complication rate was 7.2% (5.2-9.8%, P = 0.000). There was a slightly higher complication rate for the anterior approach (7.9% [4.5-13.3%], P = 0.000) than for the posterior approach (6.7% [4.4-10%], P = 0.000). The revision rate was 4.2% (2.6-6.8%, P = 0.000); and 4.2% (1.8-9.7%, P = 0.000) for the anterior approach and 4.00% (2.2-7.4%, P = 0.000) for the posterior approach.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a higher success rate and lower complication rate with the posterior approach than with the anterior approach. However, high-quality randomized controlled trials are vital to evaluate the efficacy of these procedures.

Is the Severity of Cervical Foraminal Stenosis Related to the Severity and Sidedness of Symptoms?

(1) Background: Cervical foraminal stenosis (CFS) is a common cause of axial neck and arm pain. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between the severity of CFS and clinical symptoms in terms of severity and sidedness. (2) Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 75 consecutive patients with degenerative CFS. We graded 900 foramina from C3–4 to T1–2 using Park’s grading system. We collected visual analogue scale (VAS) and neck disability index (NDI) values from the neck and both arms. We analyzed the relationships with CFS grades and total number. We defined four types of left/right dominance of CFS (none, left-dominant, right-dominant, and both) by comparing left and right sides using total counts and maximal grade of CFS, respectively. We compared arm pain sidedness (no arm pain, left-only, right only, and bilateral) among different left and right CFS dominance types. (3) Results: Mean neck and left and right arm VAS scores were 4.4 ± 2.5, 4.9 ± 1.6, and 4.6 ± 2.0, respectively. The mean total NDI was 16.0 ± 8.0. The CFS grade at C3–4 and total count were correlated with neck VAS. Arm VAS was also correlated with CFS grade and total counts. Total NDI score was not correlated with radiological parameters. The presence and sidedness of arm pain were significantly different between left and right CFS dominance groups divided by total count of grade 2 and 3 CFS. (4) Conclusions: The CFS grade and total count were correlated with neck and arm VAS. Arm pain occurred more frequently on the side with more grade 2 and 3 CFS.

Comparative evaluation of posterior percutaneous endoscopy cervical discectomy using a 3.7 mm endoscope and a 6.9 mm endoscope for cervical disc herniation: a retrospective comparative cohort study

Background

Posterior percutaneous endoscopy cervical discectomy (p-PECD) is an effective strategy for the treatment of cervical diseases, with a working cannula ranging from 3.7 mm to 6.9 mm in diameter. However, to date, no studies have been performed to compare the clinical outcomes of the use of endoscopes with different diameters in cervical disc herniation (CDH) patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with unilateral CDH treated with p-PECD using a 3.7 mm endoscope and a 6.9 mm endoscope.

Methods

From January 2016 to June 2018, a total of 28 consecutive patients with single-level CDH who received p-PECD using either the 3.7 mm or the 6.9 mm endoscope were enrolled. The clinical results, including the surgical duration, hospitalization, visual analog scale (VAS) score and modified MacNab criteria, were evaluated. Cervical fluoroscopy, CT, and MRI were also performed during follow-up.

Results

Tthere was a significant difference in regard to the average identification time of the “V” point (18.608 ± 3.7607 min vs. 11.256 ± 2.7161 min, p < 0.001) and the mean removal time of the overlying tissue (16.650 ± 4.1730 min vs. 12.712 ± 3.3079 min, p < 0.05) for the use of the 3.7 mm endoscope and the 6.9 mm endoscope, respectively. The postoperative VAS and MacNab scores of the two endoscopes were significantly improved compared with those the preoperative scores (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The application of both the 3.7 mm endoscope and 6.9 mm endoscope represent an effective method for the treatment of CDH in selected patients, and no significant difference can be observed in the clinical outcomes of the endoscopes. The 6.9 mm endoscope shows superiority to the 3.7 mm endoscope in terms of the efficiency of “V” point identification, the removal of overlying soft tissue and the prevention of spinal cord injury. However, the 6.9 mm endoscope may be inferior to the 3.7 mm endoscope in regards to anterior foraminal decompression due to its large diameter; this result needs to be further evaluated with the support of a large number of randomized controlled trials.

A comparison study of posterior cervical percutaneous endoscopic ventral bony decompression and simple dorsal decompression treatment in cervical spondylotic radiculopathy caused by cervical foraminal and/or lateral spinal stenosis: a clinical retrospective study

Background

Percutaneous endoscopic cervical decompression (PECD) is an ideal minimally invasive decompression technique for the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR). However, the mainstream is the resection of dorsal bone and removal of free nucleus pulposus. The necessity of excision of ventral osteophytes and hyperplastic ligaments in the treatment of CSR caused by cervical foraminal and/or lateral spinal stenosis (CFa/oLSS) to be discussed.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study of 46 patients with CSR caused by CFa/oLSS from January 2017 to November 2018. These patients received posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical decompression-ventral bony decompression (PPECD-VBD)(23 cases, classified as VBD group) or posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical decompression-simple dorsal decompression (PPECD-SDD)(23 cases, classified as SDD group). Following surgery, we recorded Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Neck Disable Index (NDI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) Scores and myodynamia. We further evaluated the changes of cervical curvature and cervical spine motion in the VBD group and recorded the operation time and complications during the follow-up of each patient.

Results

All patients underwent successful operations, with an average follow-up time of 16.53 ± 9.90 months. The excellent and good rates in the VBD and SDD groups were 91.29 and 60.87%, respectively. In the SDD group, neck-VAS, arm-VAS, and NDI scores were significantly higher than those of the VBD group at 1 day, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery (P < 0.05), while the JOA scores and improvement rate of JOA were significantly lower than those of the VBD group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in terms of angular displacement (AD), horizontal displacement (HD), segmental angle (SA) and cervical curvature (CA) before and after the operation in the VBD group (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

PPECD-VBD was significantly better than PPECD-SDD as well as PPECD-VBD had no significant effects on cervical spine stability or cervical curvature.