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

Comparison of anterior spinal fusion and posterior cervical foraminotomy for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy in terms of postoperative recovery of upper-limb motor deficits

This study compared postoperative motor recovery between anterior spinal fusion (ASF) and posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) in patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR) who had motor deficits. From a database maintained by surgeons across 27 institutions, 227 patients undergoing primary ASF or PCF for CSR without myelopathy were evaluated. Among these, 106 patients with upper-limb motor deficits (manual muscle testing [MMT] grade 0-3) were observed for at least 12 months post-surgery. Data on preoperative and postoperative MMT grades were collected at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery and at the final follow-up. The recovery of motor function was compared between the ASF and PCF groups using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression analysis. While the overall excellent recovery rates (MMT grade ≥ 2) at the final follow-up were similar between the ASF and PCF group (74 % vs. 86 %, p = 0.15), the PCF group showed significantly faster motor recovery at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, with recovery rates of 43 %, 63 %, and 82 %, respectively, compared to 18 %, 46 %, and 54 % in the ASF group (HR = 1.62, p = 0.031). These findings suggest that PCF may offer a quicker recovery of motor function and could be a more suitable surgical procedure than ASF for patients with CSR and motor deficits.

Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy Compared with Anterior Cervical Discectomy with Fusion for Cervical Radiculopathy: Two-Year Results of the FACET Randomized Noninferiority Study

BACKGROUND

Posterior cervical foraminotomy (posterior surgery) is a valid alternative to anterior discectomy with fusion (anterior surgery) as a surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy, but the quality of evidence has been limited. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of these treatments after 2 years of follow-up. We hypothesized that posterior surgery would be noninferior to anterior surgery.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial assessed patients with single-level cervical radiculopathy in 9 Dutch hospitals with a follow-up duration of 2 years. The primary outcomes measured reduction of cervical radicular pain and were the success ratio based on the Odom criteria, and arm pain and decrease in arm pain, evaluated with the visual analog scale, with a 10% noninferiority margin, which represents the maximum acceptable difference between the new treatment (posterior surgery) and the standard treatment (anterior surgery), beyond which the new treatment would be considered clinically unacceptable. The secondary outcomes were neck pain, Neck Disability Index, Work Ability Index, quality of life, complications (including reoperations), and treatment satisfaction. Generalized linear mixed effects modeling was used for analyses. The study was registered at the Overview of Medical Research in the Netherlands (OMON), formerly the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR5536).

RESULTS

From January 2016 to May 2020, 265 patients were randomized (132 to the posterior surgery group and 133 to the anterior surgery group). Among these, 25 did not have the allocated intervention; 11 of these 25 patients had symptom improvement, and the rest of the patients did not have the intervention due to various reasons. At the 2-year follow-up, of 243 patients, primary outcome data were available for 236 patients (97%). Predicted proportions of a successful outcome were 0.81 after posterior surgery and 0.74 after anterior surgery (difference in rate, -0.06 [1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.02]), indicating the noninferiority of posterior surgery. The between-group difference in arm pain was -2.7 (1-sided 95% CI, 7.4) and the between-group difference in the decrease in arm pain was 1.5 (1-sided 95% CI, 8.2), both confirming the noninferiority of posterior surgery. The secondary outcomes demonstrated small between-group differences. Serious surgery-related adverse events occurred in 9 patients (8%) who underwent posterior surgery, including 9 reoperations, and 11 patients (9%) who underwent anterior surgery, including 7 reoperations (difference in reoperation rate, -0.02 [2-sided 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.05]).

CONCLUSIONS

This trial demonstrated that, after a 2-year follow-up, posterior surgery was noninferior to anterior surgery with regard to the success rate and arm pain reduction in patients with cervical radiculopathy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Relative Value Unit (RVU) and Medicare Severity Diagnosis-related Group (MS-DRG) Reimbursement in Cervical Spinal Fusion: A 2011-2023 Trends Report

STUDY DESIGN

Level 3 retrospective database study.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare work RVU (wRVU), practice expense RVU (peRVU), malpractice RVU (mpRVU), and inflation-adjusted facility price alongside MS-DRG relative weight length of stay (LOS) for cervical spine fusions between 2011 and 2023.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Both RVU and MS-DRG reimbursement have been studied in various surgical subspecialties; however, little investigation has centered on cervical spine fusions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate trends in RVU and MS-DRG reimbursement in cervical spine fusion throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) physician fee schedule was queried between 2011 and 2023 for RVU and facility reimbursement using common single and multilevel anterior and posterior cervical fusion codes. RVU facility prices were inflation adjusted to 2023. MS-DRG reimbursement data from 2011 to 2022 were compiled for cervical spinal fusion procedures with major complication or comorbidity (MCC) 471, complication or comorbidity (CC) 472, and without CC/MCC 473. Compound annual growth rates (CAGRs), Mean Annual Change, and yearly percent changes were calculated.

RESULTS

No changes in wRVU were seen for all cervical CPT codes; however, the CAGR of peRVU (-0.51%±0.60%) and mpRVU (0.69%±0.41%) demonstrated marginal fluctuations. Every CPT code displayed an inflation-adjusted facility price decrease (-2.18%±0.24%). When assessing MS-DRG, there were marginal changes in geometric mean LOS (0.17%±0.45%), arithmetic mean LOS (-0.15%±0.84%), and relative weight (1.09%±0.68%). Unlike RVU reimbursement, the yearly percent change differs between each MS-DRG code.

CONCLUSIONS

Inflation-adjusted RVU reimbursement facility prices demonstrated a consistent decrease, while DRG code reimbursement stayed relatively consistent over the study period. This data may help surgeons and hospitals become cognizant of temporal variations in reimbursement patterns as it may affect their personal practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III retrospective study.

Is Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy Better Than Fusion for Warfighters?: A Biomechanical Study

INTRODUCTION

Cervical spondylosis in the warfighter is a common musculoskeletal problem and can be career-ending especially if it requires fusion. Head-mounted equipment and increased biomechanical forces on the cervical spine have resulted in accelerated cervical spine degeneration. Current surgical gold standard is anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) is a nonfusion surgical alternative, and this can be effective in alleviating radiculopathy from foraminal stenosis caused by disc-osteophyte complex. Biomechanical studies have not been done to analyze motion associated with military aircrew personnel following PCF. The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical responses of the effects of ACDF and PCF with different grades of facet resection under simulated military aircrew conditions using range of motion, disc pressure, and facet loads at the index and adjacent levels.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A validated 3D finite element model of the human cervical spinal column was used to simulate various graded PCF and ACDF. All surgical simulations were performed at the most commonly operated level (C5-C6) in warfighters. Pure moment loading under flexion, extension, and lateral bending, and in vivo follower force of 75 N were applied to the intact spine. Hybrid loading protocol was used to achieve 134 degrees of combined flexion-extension and 83 degrees of lateral bending in intact and surgical models to reflect military loading conditions. Segmental motions, disc pressure, and facet load were obtained and normalized with respect to the intact model to quantify the biomechanical effect.

RESULTS

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion decreased range of motion at the index and increased motion at the adjacent levels, while all graded PCF responses had an opposite trend: increased motion at the index and decreased motion at adjacent levels. The magnitude of changes depended on the level of resection, spinal level, and loading mode. Disc pressure increased at the index level and decreased at the adjacent levels after PCF. These changes were exaggerated with increasing extent of facet resection. Facet load increased at the index level after PCF especially with extension and right (contralateral) lateral bending. Complete facetectomy led to facet load increases greater than ACDF at the adjacent levels in both flexion and extension.

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior cervical foraminotomy is a motion-preserving implant-free surgical alternative to ACDF for warfighters with cervical radiculopathy after failure of conservative management. The treating surgeon must pay close attention to the extent of facet resection to avoid potential spinal instability and future disc and facet degeneration after PCF. Posterior cervical foraminotomy can be more advantageous than ACDF in terms of adjacent segment degeneration, motion preservation, reoperation rate, surgical cost, and retention of warfighters.

Comparison of Load-Sharing Responses Between Graded Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy and Conventional Fusion Using Finite Element Modeling

Following the diagnosis of unilateral cervical radiculopathy and need for surgical intervention, anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (conventional fusion) and posterior cervical foraminotomy are common options. Although patient outcomes may be similar between the two procedures, their biomechanical effects have not been fully compared using a head-to-head approach, particularly, in relation to the amount of facet resection and internal load-sharing between spinal segments and components. The objective of this investigation was to compare load-sharing between conventional fusion and graded foraminotomy facet resections under physiological loading. A validated finite element model of the cervical spinal column was used in the study. The intact spine was modified to simulate the two procedures at the C5-C6 spinal segment. Flexion, extension, and lateral bending loads were applied to the intact, graded foraminotomy, and conventional fusion spines. Load-sharing was determined using range of motion data at the C5-C6 and immediate adjacent segments, facet loads at the three segments, and disk pressures at the adjacent segments. Results were normalized with respect to the intact spine to compare surgical options. Conventional fusion leads to increased motion, pressure, and facet loads at adjacent segments. Foraminotomy leads to increased motion and anterior loading at the index level, and motions decrease at adjacent levels. In extension, the left facet load decreases after foraminotomy. Recognizing that foraminotomy is a motion preserving alternative to conventional fusion, this study highlights various intrinsic biomechanical factors and potential instability issues with more than one-half facet resection.

Evolution of Cervical Endoscopic Spine Surgery: Current Progress and Future Directions-A Narrative Review

Cervical endoscopic spine surgery is rapidly evolving and gaining popularity for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. This approach significantly reduces muscular damage and blood loss by minimizing soft tissue stripping, leading to less postoperative pain and a faster postoperative recovery. As scientific evidence accumulates, the efficacy and safety of cervical endoscopic spine surgery are continually affirmed. Both anterior and posterior endoscopic approaches have surfaced as viable alternative treatments for various cervical spine pathologies. Newer techniques, such as endoscopic-assisted fusion, the anterior transcorporeal approach, and unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression, have been developed to enhance clinical outcomes and broaden surgical indications. Despite its advantages, this approach faces challenges, including a steep learning curve, increased radiation exposure for both surgeons and patients, and a relative limitation in addressing multi-level pathologies. However, the future of cervical endoscopic spine surgery is promising, with potential enhancements in clinical outcomes and safety on the horizon. This progress is fueled by integrating advanced imaging and navigation technologies, applying regional anesthesia for improved and facilitated postoperative recovery, and incorporating cutting-edge technologies, such as augmented reality. With these advancements, cervical endoscopic spine surgery is poised to broaden its scope in treating cervical spine pathologies while maintaining the benefits of minimized tissue damage and rapid recovery.

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.

Single-level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Results in Lower Five-year Revisions than Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy in a Large National Cohort

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study using the 2010-2020 MSpine PearlDiver administrative data set.

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative adverse events and five-year revisions for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Cervical disk disease can often be treated surgically using single-level ACDF or PCF. Prior studies have suggested that posterior approaches provide similar short-term outcomes as ACDF; however, posterior procedures may have an increased risk of revision surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The database was queried for patients undergoing elective single-level ACDF or PCF (excluding cases performed for myelopathy, trauma, neoplasm, and/or infection). Outcomes, including specific complications, readmission, and reoperations, were assessed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to ascertain odds ratios (OR) of 90-day adverse events controlling for age, sex, and comorbidities. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to determine five-year rates of cervical reoperation in the ACDF and PCF cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 31,953 patients treated by ACDF (29,958, 93.76%) or PCF (1995, 6.24%) were identified. Multivariable analysis, controlling for age, sex, and comorbidities, demonstrated that PCF was associated with significantly greater odds of aggregated serious adverse events (OR 2.17, P <0.001), wound dehiscence (OR 5.89, P <0.001), surgical site infection (OR 3.66, P <0.001), and pulmonary embolism (OR 1.72, P =0.04). However, PCF was associated with significantly lower odds of readmission (OR 0.32, P <0.001), dysphagia (OR 0.44, P <0.001), and pneumonia (OR 0.50, P =0.004). At five years, PCF cases had a significantly higher cumulative revision rate compared with ACDF cases (19.0% vs. 14.8%, P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study is the largest to date to compare short-term adverse events and five-year revision rates between single-level ACDF and PCF for nonmyelopathy elective cases. Perioperative adverse events differed by procedure, and it was notable that the incidence of cumulative revisions was higher for PCF. These findings can be used in decision-making when there is clinical equipoise between ACDF and PCF.

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Microendoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy for Unilateral Cervical Radiculopathy: A 1-Year Cost-Utility Analysis

BACKGROUND

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) are the most common surgical approaches for medically refractory cervical radiculopathy. Rigorous cost-effectiveness studies comparing ACDF and PCF are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-utility of ACDF vs PCF performed in the ambulatory surgery center setting for Medicare and privately insured patients at 1-year follow-up.

METHODS

A total of 323 patients who underwent 1-level ACDF (201) or PCF (122) at a single ambulatory surgery center were compared. Propensity matching generated 110 pairs (220 patients) for analysis. Demographic data, resource utilization, patient-reported outcome measures, and quality-adjusted life-years were assessed. Direct costs (1-year resource use × unit costs based on Medicare national allowable payment amounts) and indirect costs (missed workdays × average US daily wage) were recorded. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated.

RESULTS

Perioperative safety, 90-day readmission, and 1-year reoperation rates were similar between groups. Both groups experienced significant improvements in all patient-reported outcome measures at 3 months that was maintained at 12 months. The ACDF cohort had a significantly higher preoperative Neck Disability Index and a significantly greater improvement in health-state utility (ie, quality-adjusted life-years gained) at 12 months. ACDF was associated with significantly higher total costs at 1 year for both Medicare ($11 744) and privately insured ($21 228) patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ACDF was $184 654 and $333 774 for Medicare and privately insured patients, respectively, reflecting poor cost-utility.

CONCLUSION

Single-level ACDF may not be cost-effective in comparison with PCF for surgical management of unilateral cervical radiculopathy.

Short-Term Neck Pain After Posterior Foraminotomy Compared with Anterior Discectomy with Fusion for Cervical Foraminal Radiculopathy: A Secondary Analysis of the FACET Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Short-term neck pain after posterior cervical foraminotomy (posterior surgery) compared with anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (anterior surgery) treating cervical radiculopathy has only been assessed once, retrospectively, to our knowledge. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the course of neck pain for 6 weeks after both treatments.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of the multicenter Foraminotomy ACDF Cost-Effectiveness Trial (FACET), conducted from January 2016 to May 2020. Of 389 patients who had single-level, 1-sided cervical radiculopathy and were screened for eligibility, 265 were randomly assigned to undergo posterior surgery (n = 132) or anterior surgery (n = 133). The primary outcome of the present analysis was neck pain, assessed weekly for 6 weeks using the visual analog scale (VAS), on a scale of 0 to 100. The secondary outcomes were arm pain, neck disability, work ability, quality of life, treatment satisfaction, motor and sensory changes, and hospital length of stay. Data were analyzed with mixed model analysis in intention-to-treat samples using 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

In the first postoperative week, the mean VAS for neck pain was 56.2 mm (95% CI, 51.7 to 60.8 mm) after posterior surgery and 46.7 mm (95% CI, 42.2 to 51.2 mm) after anterior surgery. The mean between-group difference was 9.5 mm (95% CI, 3.3 to 15.7 mm), which gradually decreased to 2.3 mm (95% CI, -3.6 to 8.1 mm) at postoperative week 6. As of postoperative week 5, there was no significant difference between groups. Responder analyses confirmed this result. Secondary outcomes showed small differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Insight into the course of neck pain during the first 6 weeks after posterior compared with anterior surgery is provided. Despite initially more neck pain after posterior surgery, patients swiftly improved and, as of postoperative week 5, results similar to those after anterior surgery were observed. Our findings should enable improved patient counseling and enhanced shared decision-making between physicians and patients with cervical radiculopathy, where more neck pain in the first postoperative weeks should be balanced against the benefits of posterior surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Microscopic Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Posterior Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Keyhole Foraminotomy for Single-level Unilateral Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the safety of microscopic anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (MI-ACDF) and posterior percutaneous endoscopic keyhole foraminotomy (PPEKF) in patients diagnosed with single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

After conservative treatment, the symptoms will be relieved in about 90% of cervical radiculopathy patients. For the other one tenth of patients, surgical treatment is needed. The overall complication rate of MI-ACDF and PPEKF ranges from 0% to 25%, and the reoperation rate ranges from 0% to 20%.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic retrieval of studies from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library was performed to identify comparative or single-arm studies on MI-ACDF and PPEKF. A total of 24 studies were included in our meta-analysis by screening according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies, a meta-analysis was performed by using the R software. The pooled incidences of efficient rate, total complication rate, and reoperation rate were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies with 1345 patients (MI-ACDF: 644, PPEKF: 701) were identified. There was no significantly statistical difference in pooled patient effective rate (MI-ACDF: 94.3% vs. PPEKF: 93.3%, P =0.625), total complication rate (MI-ACDF: 7.1% vs. PPEKF: 4.7%, P =0.198), and reoperation rate (MI-ACDF: 1.8% vs. PPEKF: 1.1%, P =0.312). However, the common complications of the 2 procedures were different. The most common complications of MI-ACDF were dysphagia and vertebral body sinking, whereas the most common complication of PPEKF was nerve root palsy.

CONCLUSIONS

Both MI-ACDF and PPEKF can provide a relatively safe and reliable treatment for single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy. The 2 techniques are not significantly different in terms of effective rate, total complication rate, and reoperation rate.

Noninferiority of Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy vs Anterior Cervical Discectomy With Fusion for Procedural Success and Reduction in Arm Pain Among Patients With Cervical Radiculopathy at 1 Year: The FACET Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The choice between posterior cervical foraminotomy (posterior surgery) and anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (anterior surgery) for cervical foraminal radiculopathy remains controversial.

Objective

To investigate the noninferiority of posterior vs anterior surgery in patients with cervical foraminal radiculopathy with regard to clinical outcomes after 1 year.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter investigator-blinded noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted from January 2016 to May 2020 with a total follow-up of 2 years. Patients were included from 9 hospitals in the Netherlands. Of 389 adult patients with 1-sided single-level cervical foraminal radiculopathy screened for eligibility, 124 declined to participate or did not meet eligibility criteria. Patients with pure axial neck pain without radicular pain were not eligible. Of 265 patients randomized (132 to posterior and 133 to anterior), 15 were lost to follow-up and 228 were included in the 1-year analysis (110 in posterior and 118 in anterior).

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to posterior foraminotomy or anterior cervical discectomy with fusion.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were proportion of success using Odom criteria and decrease in arm pain using a visual analogue scale from 0 to 100 with a noninferiority margin of 10% (assuming advantages with posterior surgery over anterior surgery that would justify a tolerable loss of efficacy of 10%). Secondary outcomes were neck pain, disability, quality of life, work status, treatment satisfaction, reoperations, and complications. Analyses were performed with 2-proportion z tests at 1-sided .05 significance levels with Bonferroni corrections.

Results

Among 265 included patients, the mean (SD) age was 51.2 (8.3) years; 133 patients (50%) were female and 132 (50%) were male. Patients were randomly assigned to posterior (132) or anterior (133) surgery. The proportion of success was 0.88 (86 of 98) in the posterior surgery group and 0.76 (81 of 106) in the anterior surgery group (difference, -0.11 percentage points; 1-sided 95% CI, -0.01) and the between-group difference in arm pain was -2.8 (1-sided 95% CI, -9.4) at 1-year follow-up, indicating noninferiority of posterior surgery. Decrease in arm pain had a between-group difference of 3.4 (1-sided 95% CI, 11.8), crossing the noninferiority margin with 1.8 points. All secondary outcomes had 2-sided 95% CIs clustered around 0 with small between-group differences.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, posterior surgery was noninferior to anterior surgery for patients with cervical radiculopathy regarding success rate and arm pain at 1 year. Decrease in arm pain and secondary outcomes had small between-group differences. These results may be used to enhance shared decision-making.

Trial Registration

Netherlands Trial Register Identifier: NTR5536.

Biportal endoscopic spine surgery for cervical disk herniation: A technical notes and preliminary report

Biportal endoscopic spine surgery (BESS) for cervical disk herniation (CDH) has been rarely reported. The aim of the article is to describe a novel BESS as a posterior approach for CDH and report the preliminary outcomes and complications. This single-centered retrospective chart review included 109 consecutive patients who underwent BESS for symptomatic single-level CDH. Working and viewing portals were created in each unilateral paravertebral area at the target disk level. Endoscopic exploration allowed for effective and minimally invasive decompression via safe access to the medial foramen with minimal laminectomy and facetectomy. Clinical outcomes, including the visual analog scale, neck disability index, Macnab criteria, and the motor function of the involved arm, were evaluated at 4, 8, 12, and 24 postoperative weeks. Visual analog scale and neck disability index improved significantly at 24 weeks postoperatively (P < .01). According to the Macnab criteria, "excellent," "good," and "fair" results were obtained for 55.9%, 30.3%, and 13.8% of patients, respectively. The post 24-week distribution of the involved upper extremity strength grade was significantly improved compared to the initial value (P = .02). One patient had a motor weakness with a decreased grade over 4 weeks from excessive irrigation. The posterior approach of BESS was efficient and feasible for the treatment of CDH.

Limitations of minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy-a decompression method of posteriorly shifting the nerve root-in cases of large anterior osteophytes in cervical radiculopathy: A retrospective multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Posterior cervical foraminotomy against anterior osteophyte is an indirect decompression procedure but less invasive compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Residual compression to the nerve root may lead to poor surgical outcomes. Although clinical results of posterior cervical foraminotomy for osteophytes are not considered better than those of disk herniation, osteophyte size and the association of the decompression area with poor surgical outcomes remain unclear. This study aimed to identify the limitations of minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy for cervical radiculopathy and discuss the methods to improve surgical outcomes.

METHODS

We analyzed 55 consecutive patients with degenerative cervical radiculopathy who underwent minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy. Minimum postoperative follow-up duration was 1 year. We divided the patients into nonimproved and improved groups. The cutoff value between preoperative and postoperative Neck Disability Index scores was 30% improvement. Preoperative imaging data comprised disk height, local kyphosis, spinal cord compression, anterior osteophytes in the foramen, and anterior osteophytes of >50% of the intervertebral foramen diameter. Postoperative imaging data comprised craniocaudal length and lateral width of decompressed lamina, preserved superior facet width, and area of decompressed lamina.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients were divided into two groups: nonimproved (n = 19) and improved (n = 36). The presence of osteophytes itself was not significant; however, the presence of osteophytes of >50% of the foramen diameter increased in the nonimproved group (P = 0.004). Mean lateral width and mean area of decompressed lamina after surgery significantly increased in the improved group (P = 0.001, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

The presence of anterior osteophytes >50% of the diameter of the foramen led to poor improvement of clinical outcomes in minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy. However, the larger the lateral width and area of the decompressed lamina, the better the surgical outcome.

Surgical Treatment of Single Level Cervical Radiculopathy: A Comparison of Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion (ACDF) Versus Cervical Disk Arthroplasty (CDA) Versus Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy (PCF)

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to retrospectively compare the clinical outcomes, complication rates, and reoperation rates among the 4 treatments in patients with cervical radiculopathy.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Surgical options for cervical radiculopathy include anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), open posterior cervical foraminotomy (O-PCF), minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF), and cervical disk arthroplasty (CDA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective chart review after Review Board approval. Of the 384 patients in the study-257 ACDF, 18 O-PCF, 52 MI-PCF, and 56 CDA. Information was obtained from the charts and compared between the groups.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients above 18 years of age with single-level, unilateral cervical radiculopathy correlating with magnetic resonance imaging, failure of nonoperative management, and 1-level ACDF, O-PCF, MI-PCF, or CDA with >24 months of follow-up.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Score neck and arm pain, minimum clinically significant difference (MCID), complication rates, and reoperation rates.

RESULTS

Operative time was significantly shorter for MI-PCF. Median estimated blood loss was small, but greater with O-PCF compared with other interventions. The length of hospital stay was longest for the ACDF group. At 2 years' follow-up, 36 subjects (9%) had subsequent neck surgery. The most common indication for additional surgery was recurrent symptoms (3.4%) followed by adjacent segment disease (2.6%), pseudoarthrosis (2.1%), adjacent segment disease + pseudoarthrosis (0.5%), and implant-related complications (0.3%). There was no statistically significant difference in complication rates between groups. MCID in NDI was achieved in 40% of MI-PCF subjects, 42% of O-PCF subjects, 66% of CDA subjects and 46% of ACDF subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

All 4 treatment options confer good clinical results on patients for cervical radiculopathy. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were low and comparable in all 4 groups. MI-PCF had the shortest surgical time and length of hospital stay. More CDA patients achieved MCID in NDI compared with the others, and the rate for additional surgery at 2 years was lowest in the CDA group.

Subjective and Objective Quality-of-Life Assessment of Outcome Measures in Cervical Spine Surgery for Degenerative Changes

Cervical spine diskectomy is a commonly used procedure in degenerative disease of cervical spine surgery. However, it is difficult to assess the quality of life after this widely applied and variously modified procedure. This literature review presents cervical diskectomy results, according to various scales and measures in multidirectional surgical strategies. Using relevant databases, we tried to find the best treatment options for degenerative disk disease and the best method of quality-of-life assessment, searching for modalities that may influence the outcome.

Minimally invasive cervical laminoforaminotomy - Technique and outcomes

Background:

Cervical radiculopathy is a common pathological entity encountered by spine surgeons. Many surgical options have been described including anterior cervical discectomy with or without fusion to arthroplasty and posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy. Being a motion-preserving procedure, posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy is an excellent treatment for patients with unilateral radiculopathy secondary to a laterally located herniated disc or foraminal stenosis. With the advent of minimally invasive techniques, this procedure has regained popularity.

Objectives:

Although there is enough evidence in the literature highlighting the benefits, safety, and efficacy of minimally invasive versus conventional techniques, a detailed technical report along with long-term surgical outcomes is lacking.

Methods:

The authors present their experience in minimally invasive cervical laminoforaminotomy (MIS-CLF) over a 7-year period (2013–2020) along with a technical note. Clinical evaluation was performed both before and after surgery, using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores. Patient functional outcome was measured using the modified Odom's criteria.

Results:

There were no major perioperative complications. No patient required surgery for the same level during the follow-up period which ranged from 1 to 3 years. Statistically significant results were obtained in all cases, reflected by an improvement in VAS for neck/arm pain.

Conclusion:

MIS-CLF is an effective technique for treatment of radiculopathy due to cervical disc herniation in a carefully selected subgroup of patients with good medium- to long-term outcomes. A larger study would possibly highlight the effectiveness of this procedure.

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.

Clinical observation and finite element analysis of cannulated screw internal fixation in the treatment of femoral neck fracture based on different reduction quality

Objective

Femoral neck fracture is one of the most common bone types. The effect of reduction quality on hip joint function and complications after screw internal fixation is not fully understood. To investigate the clinical efficacy and mechanical mechanism of positive buttress, anatomical reduction, and negative buttress in the treatment of femoral neck fracture after cannulated screw fixation.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of patients with femoral neck fracture treated with three cannulated screws internal fixation in our hospital from January 2013 to December 2018. According to the quality of fracture reduction, the patients were divided into positive buttress group, anatomical reduction group, and negative buttress group. Basic information such as injury mechanism, time from injury to surgery, Garden classification and Pauwels classification was collected, Harris scores were performed at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery, and postoperative complications (femoral head necrosis, femoral neck shortening, and femoral neck nonunion) were collected. At the same time, three groups of finite element models with different reduction quality were established for stress analysis, their stress clouds were observed and the average displacement and stress of the three groups of models were compared. P < 0.05 was used to represent a statistically significant difference.

Results

A total of 225 cases of unilateral femoral neck fractures were included and followed up for an average of 4.12 ± 0.69 years. There was no significant difference in age, gender, side, injury mechanism, time from injury to surgery, BMI, Garden classification, Pauwels classification, and follow-up time among the three groups (P > 0.05). However, there was significant difference in Harris score at 6 and 12 months after operation among the three groups (P < 0.05), which was higher in the positive buttress group and anatomical reduction group than in the negative buttress group. In addition, the incidence of osteonecrosis of the femoral head in the negative buttress group (32.2%) was greater than that in the anatomical reduction group (13.4%) and the positive buttress group (5.4%) (P < 0.05). In addition, the incidence of femoral neck nonunion and femoral neck shortening in the negative buttress group was also higher than that in the anatomical reduction positive buttress group (P < 0.05). The finite element results showed that the stress and fracture end displacement in the negative buttress group were greater than those in the positive buttress group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Both positive buttress and anatomical reduction in the treatment of femoral neck fracture with cannulated screw internal fixation can obtain better clinical effect and lower postoperative complications. Positive brace support and anatomic reduction can limit the restoration of femoral stress conduction. Therefore, it is not necessary to pursue anatomical reduction too deliberately during surgery, while negative buttress reduction should be avoided.

Radicular arm pain

Cervical radiculopathy is a neurological condition caused by dysfunction or compression of a cervical nerve root. Patients often report unilateral neck pain with radiation to the ipsilateral arm, often with sensory changes in a dermatomal distribution. Weakness and reflex changes are also commonly found and can be very troubling for patients. Careful history and examination is important to identify any more concerning features such as progressive symptoms and features of myelopathy, which could prompt surgical management. Although the majority of patients will see an improvement in their symptoms over time with conservative management, surgery is indicated in patients with debilitating pain, progressive neurology, significant weakness, instability or myelopathy. Advancements in surgical techniques offer a range of potential operations that should be considered carefully for each patient. This article outlines the clinical approach to presentation, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management.