Management of unilateral cervical radiculopathy in the military: the cost effectiveness of posterior cervical foraminotomy compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of posterior versus anterior surgery for cervical radiculopathy: results from a multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial (FACET)

PURPOSE

For cervical nerve root compression, anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (anterior surgery) or posterior foraminotomy (posterior surgery) are safe and effective options. Posterior surgery might have a more beneficial economic profile compared to anterior surgery. The purpose of this study was to analyse if posterior surgery is cost-effective compared to anterior surgery.

METHODS

An economic evaluation was performed as part of a multicentre, noninferiority randomised clinical trial (Foraminotomy ACDF Cost-effectiveness Trial) with a follow-up of 2 years. Primary outcomes were cost-effectiveness based on arm pain (Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 0-100)) and cost-utility (quality adjusted life years (QALYs)). Missing values were estimated with multiple imputations and bootstrap simulations were used to obtain confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

In total, 265 patients were randomised and 243 included in the analyses. The pooled mean decrease in VAS arm at 2-year follow-up was 44.2 in the posterior and 40.0 in the anterior group (mean difference, 4.2; 95% CI, - 4.7 to 12.9). Pooled mean QALYs were 1.58 (posterior) and 1.56 (anterior) (mean difference, 0.02; 95% CI, - 0.05 to 0.08). Societal costs were €28,046 for posterior and €30,086 for the anterior group, with lower health care costs for posterior (€12,248) versus anterior (€16,055). Bootstrapped results demonstrated similar effectiveness between groups with in general lower costs associated with posterior surgery.

CONCLUSION

In patients with cervical radiculopathy, arm pain and QALYs were similar between posterior and anterior surgery. Posterior surgery was associated with lower costs and is therefore likely to be cost-effective compared with anterior surgery.

The top-cited military relevant spine articles

Introduction

Historically musculoskeletal injury has substantially affected United States (US) service members. Lumbosacral spine injuries are among the most common sites of injury for service members across all US military branches and usually presents with pain in the lower back and extremities. The aim of this study is to identify and describe the 50 most-cited articles relevant to military medicine on the subject of the spine.

Methods

In April 2020 Web of Science was used to search the key words: spinal cord injury, spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, cervical spine, sacrum, sacral, cervical fusion, lumbar fusion, sacral fracture, combat, back pain, neck pain, and military. Articles published from 1900 to 2020 were evaluated for relevance to military spine orthopaedics and ranked based on citation number. The 50 most-cited articles were characterized based on country of origin, journal of publication, affiliated institution, topic, military branch, and conflict.

Results

1900 articles met search criteria. The 50 most-cited articles were cited 24 to 119 times and published between 1993 and 2017. 30 articles (60%) originated in the United States. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine accounted for the most frequent (n = 10) destination journal followed by Spine (n = 8). 37 institutions contributed to the top 50 most-cited articles. The most common article type was clinically focused retrospective analysis 36% (n = 18), clinically focused cohort study 10% (n = 5), and clinically focused cohort questionnaire, cross-sectional analysis, and randomized study 8% each (n = 4). 90% of articles were non-surgical (n = 45). The US Army had the greatest number of associated articles. Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom were the most-cited conflicts.

Conclusion

The 50 most-cited articles relevant to military spine orthopaedics are predominantly clinically focused, arising from the US, and published in Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, Spine, and The Spine Journal.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of PCF versus ACD in the treatment of cervical brachialgia (FORVAD trial)

BACKGROUND

Cervical radiculopathy occurs when a nerve root is compressed in the spine, if symptoms fail to resolve after 6 weeks surgery may be indicated. Anterior Cervical Discectomy (ACD) is the commonest procedure, Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy (PCF) is an alternative that avoids the risk of damage to anterior neck structures. This prospective, Phase III, UK multicentre, open, individually randomised controlled trial was performed to determine whether PCF is superior to ACD in terms of improving clinical outcome as measured by the Neck Disability Index (NDI) 52 weeks post-surgery.

METHOD

Following consent to participate and collection of baseline data, subjects with cervical brachialgia were randomised to ACD or PCF in a 1:1 ratio on the day of surgery. Clinical outcomes were assessed on day 1 and patient reported outcomes on day 1 and weeks 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 post-operation. A total of 252 participants were planned to be randomised. Statistical analysis was limited to descriptive statistics. Health economic outcomes were also described.

RESULTS

The trial was closed early (n = 23). Compared to baseline, the median (interquartile range (IQR)) NDI score at 52 weeks reduced from 44.0 (36.0, 62.0) to 25.3 (20.0, 42.0) in the PCF group and increased from 35.6 (34.0, 44.0) to 45.0 (20.0, 57.0) in the ACD group. ACD may be associated with more swallowing, voice and other complications and was more expensive; neck and arm pain scores were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

The trial was closed early, therefore no definitive conclusions on clinical or cost-effectiveness could be made.

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.

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.

Return to sport and active military duty after cervical disc arthroplasty: A systematic review

Introduction

Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has been established as an effective treatment for cervical disc degeneration or herniation in the general population. Return to sport (RTS) outcomes in athletes remain unclear.

Objective

The purpose of this review was to evaluate RTS following single-level, multi-level, or hybrid CDA, with additional return to activity context provided by return to duty (RTD) outcomes in active-duty military.

Methods

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane were searched through August 2022 for studies that reported RTS/RTD after CDA in athletic or active-duty populations. Data was extracted on the following topics: surgical failures/reoperations, surgical complications, RTS/RTD, and postoperative time to RTS/RTD.

Results

Thirteen papers covering 56 athletes and 323 active-duty members were included. Athletes were 59% male with a mean age of 39.8 years and active-duty members were 84% male with a mean age of 40.9 years. Only 1 of 151 cases required reoperation and only 6 instances of surgical complications were reported. Classified as return to general sporting activity, RTS was observed in 100% of patients (n = 51/51) after an average of 10.1 weeks to training and 30.5 weeks to competition. RTD was observed in 88% of patients (n = 268/304) after an average of 11.1 weeks. Average follow-up was 53.1 months for athletes and 13.4 months for the active-duty population.

Conclusion

CDA displays excellent RTS and RTD rates in physically demanding populations at rates superior or equivalent to alternative treatments. Surgeons should consider these findings when determining the optimal cervical disc treatment approach in active patients.

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.

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.

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.

A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Cited Articles in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

Study design

A bibliometric analysis.

Objective

To identify and analyze the top 100 cited articles in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Summary of Background Data

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is one of the most routine surgical procedures in spine surgery. Many surgeons and academics have researched ACDF thoroughly and published numerous articles. However, there is no relevant bibliometric analysis. Therefore, our study aims to identify and analyze the top 100 cited articles in ACDF to identify the research trends.

Methods

We searched the Web of Science (WOS) Core Collection database with restrictions and identified the top 100 cited publications in ACDF for analysis.

Results

The citation counts of the top 100 cited publications ranged from 37 to 361 (mean 67.42). All studies were published between 2008 and 2019, with 2013 and 2015 the most prolific years. The journals Spine and Journal of Neurosurgery-Spine provided the majority of the articles. Overall, the 100 articles came from 12 countries, with the United States being the top producer, followed by China and South Korea. The most frequent keywords were "spine", "anterior cervical discectomy and fusion", "interbody fusion", 'arthrodesis', "follow-up", "decompression", and "ACDF".

Conclusion

ACDF has been regarded as a classical gold standard in anterior cervical surgery, and the emergence of new surgical procedures has not affected its status. Cervical disc arthroplasty still needs further research and development. As the first bibliometric analysis of ACDF, this bibliometric study is meant to provide guidance for clinicians and scholars to research the development trend of this field.

Classification criteria for cervical radiculopathy: An international e-Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Establishing a set of uniform classification criteria (CC) for cervical radiculopathy (CR) is required to aid future recruitment of homogenous populations to clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES

To establish expert informed consensus on CC for CR.

DESIGN

A pre-defined four round e-Delphi study in accordance with the guidance on Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies.

METHODS

Individuals with a background in physiotherapy who had authored two or more peer-reviewed publications on CR were invited to participate. The initial round asked opinions on CC for CR. Content analysis was performed on round one output and a list of discrete items were generated forming the round two survey. In rounds two to four, participants were asked to rate the level of importance of each item on a six-point Likert scale. Data were analysed descriptively using median, interquartile range and percentage agreement. Items reaching pre-defined consensus criteria were carried forward to the next round. Items remaining after the fourth round constituted expert consensus on CC for CR.

RESULTS

Twelve participants participated with one drop out. The final round identified one inclusion CC and 12 exclusion CC. The inclusion CC that remained achieved 82% agreement and was a cluster criterion consisting of radicular pain with arm pain worse than neck pain; paraesthesia or numbness and/or weakness and/or altered reflex; MRI confirmed nerve root compression compatible with clinical findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The CC identified can be used to inform eligibility criteria for future CR trials although caution should be practiced as consensus on measurement tools requires further investigation.

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.

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.

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.

Current State of Health Economic Analyses for Low-Grade Glioma Management: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Health economic analyses help determine the value of a medical intervention by assessing the costs and outcomes associated with it. The objective of this study was to assess the level of evidence in economic evaluations for low-grade glioma (LGG) management.

METHODS

Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of English articles in Medline, Embase, The Central Registration Depository, EconPapers, and EconLit. The results were screened, and data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers for studies reporting economic evaluations for LGG. The quality of each study was evaluated using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklist, the hierarchy scale developed by Cooper et al. (2005), and the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument.

RESULTS

Three studies met our inclusion criteria. The adjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values for the included studies ranged from $3934 to $9936, but each evaluated a different aspect of LGG management. All had a good quality of reporting per the CHEERS checklist. Based on the Cooper et al. hierarchy scale, the quality of data use was lacking most for utilities. The quality of study design was scored as 82, 92, and 100 for each study using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a limited number of economic evaluations were identified, the studies evaluated here were well designed. The interventions assessed were all considered cost-effective, but pooled analysis was not possible because of heterogeneity in the interventions assessed. Given the importance of value and cost-effectiveness in medical care, more evidence is needed in this area.

Anatomical Importance Between Neural Structure and Bony Landmark: Clinical Importance for Posterior Endoscopic Cervical Foraminotomy

Objective

Posterior endoscopic cervical foraminotomy (PECF) is a well-established, minimally invasive surgery for cervical radiculopathy, but have the more chances of neural structure damage due to the limited visibility and steeper learning curve. So, the anatomical understanding of the nerve associated with the bony structure will be an essential surgical guideline.

Methods

We measured the distance between the bilateral dura lateral edge and bilateral V-point on axial cuts of cervical magnetic resonance imaging and 3-dimensional spine computed tomography imaging, respectively, from 80 patients. We then calculate the distance and position between the dura lateral edge and the V-point as surgically critical width (SCW). Transverse interdural distance (TIDW), transverse inter-V-point distance, and anatomical facet joint width were measured.

Results

The mean TIDW decreased as the levels down in the 40s–60s but increased at the C4–5, C5–6, and C6–7 levels in the 70s. Statistically significant difference was shown at the C6–7 level between the 40s and the 70s. The mean anatomical inter-V-point distance markedly decreased at C5–6 and continued till the C7–Tl level at all age groups. Moreover, a statistically significant difference was shown at the C3–4 and C4–5 level between the 40s and the 70s. The mean negative values of SCW increased from the 40s to 70s at the C5–6 and C6–7 levels (C5–6: -0.60 ± 1.10 mm to -1.63 ± 1.56 mm; C6–7: -0.90 ± 0.74 mm to -2.18 ± 1.25 mm). There were statistically significant differences between the 2 aged groups at the C3–4, C4–5, C5–6, and C6–7 levels.

Conclusion

A prediction of the correlated position between the lateral dura edge and the V-point is essential for the PECF not to injure the neural structure. In the case of a performing the PECF at the C5–6 and C6–7 level in the old-aged patient, it should be considered the laterally moved dura edge, and more extended bony remove is needed for less neural structure damage.

Systematic review of radiological cervical foraminal grading systems

The study design of this paper is systematic review. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the existing radiological grading systems that are used to assess cervical foraminal stenosis. The importance of imaging the cervical spine using CT or MRI in evaluating cervical foraminal stenosis is widely accepted; however, there is no consensus for standardized methodology to assess the compression of the cervical nerve roots. A systematic search of Ovid Medline databases, Embase 1947 to present, Cinahl, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ISRCTN and WHO international clinical trials was performed for reports of cervical foraminal stenosis published before 01 February 2020. In collaboration with the University of Leeds, a search strategy was developed. A total of 6952 articles were identified with 59 included. Most of the reports involved multiple imaging modalities with standard axial and sagittal imaging used most. The grading themes that came from this systematic review show that the most mature for cervical foraminal stenosis is described by (Kim et al. Korean J Radiol 16:1294, 2015) and (Park et al. Br J Radiol 86:20120515, 2013). Imaging of the cervical nerve root canals is mostly performed using MRI and is reported using subjective terminology. The Park, Kim and Modified Kim systems for classifying the degree of stenosis of the nerve root canal have been described. Clinical application of these scoring systems is limited by their reliance on nonstandard imaging (Park), limited validation against clinical symptoms and surgical outcome data. Oblique fine cut images derived from three dimensional MRI datasets may yield more consistency, better clinical correlation, enhanced surgical decision-making and outcomes.

The Biportal Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Inclinatory Foraminotomy for Cervical Radiculopathy: Technical Report and Preliminary Results

The purpose of the current study was to introduce a surgical technique for posterior cervical inclinatory foraminotomy (PCIF) using a percutaneous biportal endoscopic (BE) approach. Consecutive 7 patients underwent BE-PCIF for their cervical radiculopathy. Postoperative radiologic images (x-rays, computed tomography [CT], and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) were evaluated postoperatively for optimal neural decompression status and stability. A visual analogue scale (VAS) for the arm pain and the Neck Disability Index were used to evaluate clinical results in the preoperative and postoperative periods. Mean follow-up periods were 6.42 ± 2.99 months. The mean operative time was 101.42 ± 49.30 minutes. Postoperative MRI and CT revealed complete removal of herniated discs and ideal neural decompression of the treated segments in all patients. Disc height and stability were preserved on postoperative x-rays. Preoperative VAS and Oswestry Disability Index scores improved significantly after the surgery. BE-PCIF may be an effective surgical treatment of the cervical radiculopathic lesions, which provides successful surgical decompression as far as distal part of foramen with better operative view and more easy surgical manipulation. This approach may also minimize iatrogenic damages of the posterior cervical musculo-ligamentous structures and help to maximize the preservation of the facet joint.

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.

Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in U.S. Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND

Increasing costs put the value of spine surgery under scrutiny. In health economics, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are used to compare the value of competing procedures. However, inconsistent methodology prevents standardization and implementation of recommendations. The goal of this study is to perform a systematic review of all U.S. CEAs in spine surgery reported to date, highlight their strengths and weaknesses, and define metrics essential for high-quality CEAs.

METHODS

We followed AMSTAR systematic review methods, identifying all U.S. spine surgery CEAs reported to March 2019 with a structured, reproducible search of PubMed, Embase, and the Tufts CEA Registry.

RESULTS

We identified 40 CEA studies. Twelve (30%) used outcome data from a randomized controlled trial. To calculate costs, 22 (55%) used allowed charges but costing methods were often unclear or imprecise. Studies applying discounting had mean follow-up of 5.92 years compared with 3.00 years for studies without. Eleven of 15 (73%) cervical studies compared cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, finding cervical disc arthroplasty to be cost-effective (<$100,000/quality-adjusted life year) for 1-level and 2-level procedures. Eleven of 25 lumbar studies (44%) compared operative with nonoperative interventions for intervertebral disc herniation, lumbar stenosis, and lumbar spondylolisthesis. Lumbar studies comparing surgical with nonoperative intervention found surgery at least cost-effective for intervertebral disc herniation and lumbar stenosis, but cost-effective only for lumbar spondylolisthesis at 4 years follow-up. Most studies (70%) lacked appropriate sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Costing methodology remains obscure and inconsistent and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results incomparable. The language of costing methodology must be standardized and sensitivity analyses of outcome and cost inputs mandatory for publication.

Microendoscopic anterior cervical foraminotomy: a preliminary series of 76 cases

Background

Anterior cervical foraminotomy represents a relatively recent minimally invasive approach that can potentially preserve the intervertebral disc and thus the functional motion segment.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcome of microendoscopic anterior cervical foraminotomy (MACF) for patients with cervical unilateral radiculopathy due to single level soft disc herniation or hard disc-osteophyte complex (DOC).

Methods

In the period between August 2009 and March 2015, 76 consecutive patients with symptomatic unilateral cervical radiculopathy were included in this study. There were 40 left-sided cervical radiculopathy cases and 36 right-sided; of those, 42 had soft disc fragment herniation, 18 had DOC, 12 had a migrated disc fragment whether cranial or caudal, and four had far lateral (foraminal) disc herniation. In all cases, MACF with root decompression was performed. Cervical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT) scan, and plain X-rays were performed for all patients and then repeated postoperatively. All patients were followed-up for at least a year. Clinical and functional outcomes were assessed using visual analogue scale (VAS) and Odom’s criteria.

Results

According to VAS score, there was an improvement in neck pain from 6.4 (range 5–10) to 1.5 (1–5) and in arm pain from 7.2 (range 6–10) to 1.2 (0–4) at final follow-up (P < 0.05). Functional outcomes according to Odom’s criteria were excellent in 59 (78%) cases, good in ten (13%), fair in six (8%), and poor in one (1%) case. Success of surgery was considered to be achieved in 91% (excellent + good) of cases. Mean operating time was 81 min, and mean intraoperative blood loss was 21 ml. Most significant complications included a dural tear in one case, transient postoperative dysesthesia in six cases, excess bony work resulting in unintended uncinectomy in three cases, fracture of transverse process in one case, unintended near total discectomy in two cases, infective discitis in one case, and persistent radicular pain due to incomplete osteophyte removal in one case.

Conclusions

This preliminary report suggests that MACF yields overall excellent results in selected patients with unilateral cervical radiculopathy. The technique potentially can preserve the functional motion segment, thus patients typically experience immediate postoperative neck mobility and do not need to wear a cervical collar.

Treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy with posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy: Short-term outcomes of 24 cases

To determine the short-term clinical outcomes of single-segment cervical spondylotic radiculopathy treated with posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy (PPECD).Data of a total of 24 patients who underwent PPECD and local anesthesia for single-level segmental cervical spondylotic radiculopathy between March 2016 and December 2017 were reviewed. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association, visual analog scale (VAS), and neck disability index scores at preoperative 1 day, postoperative 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year were recorded. The modified MacNab criteria at the last follow-up were re-recorded for the evaluation of clinical effectiveness.All operations were successfully completed under endoscopic guidance. No patient showed spinal cord, nerve root, vascular injuries, dural tears or other complications. The postoperative VAS scores of the arm and neck were significantly reduced compared with the preoperative VAS scores (P < .05), while postoperative the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores were significantly increased (P < .05). The postoperative neck disability index scores were significantly reduced compared with preoperative scores (P < .05). The modified MacNab criteria at the last follow-up showed 16 excellent cases, 8 good cases, 0 fine cases, and 0 poor cases. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging and cervical 3-dimensional computed tomography reconstruction showed that the intervertebral disc was adequately resected and the nerve root was not under compression.PPECD is safe and effective for the treatment of single-segment cervical spondylotic radiculopathy.

Posterior foraminotomy versus anterior decompression and fusion in patients with cervical degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy: up to 5 years of outcome from the national Swedish Spine Register

OBJECTIVE

The long-term efficacy of posterior foraminotomy compared with anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy has not been previously investigated in a population-based cohort.

METHODS

All patients in the national Swedish Spine Register (Swespine) from January 1, 2006, until November 15, 2017, with cervical degenerative disc disease and radiculopathy were assessed. Using propensity score matching, patients treated with posterior foraminotomy were compared with those undergoing ACDF. The primary outcome measure was the Neck Disability Index (NDI), a patient-reported outcome score ranging from 0% to 100%, with higher scores indicating greater disability. A minimal clinically important difference was defined as > 15%. Secondary outcomes were assessed with additional patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

RESULTS

A total of 4368 patients (2136/2232 women/men) met the inclusion criteria. Posterior foraminotomy was performed in 647 patients, and 3721 patients underwent ACDF. After meticulous propensity score matching, 570 patients with a mean age of 54 years remained in each group. Both groups had substantial decreases in their NDI scores; however, after 5 years, the difference was not significant (2.3%, 95% CI -4.1% to 8.4%; p = 0.48) between the groups. There were no significant differences between the groups in EQ-5D or visual analog scale (VAS) for neck and arm scores. The secondary surgeries on the index level due to restenosis were more frequent in the foraminotomy group (6/100 patients vs 1/100), but on the adjacent segments there was no difference between groups (2/100).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with cervical degenerative disc disease and radiculopathy, both groups demonstrated clinical improvements at the 5-year follow-up that were comparable and did not achieve a clinically important difference from one another, even though the reoperation rate favored the ACDF group. This study design obtains population-based results, which are generalizable.

Cervical posterior foraminotomy: how i do it

BACKGROUND

Cervical pathologies are addressed through a variety of anterior and posterior approaches and minimally invasive procedures have been successfully applied during the last decades. Posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) should be proposed with isolated foraminal stenosis.

METHOD

We provide a step-by-step description of PCF through the use of tubular retractors. Its advantages and limitations were detailed.

CONCLUSION

PCF performed with tubular retractors represent a safe and efficient alternative to address an isolated level disease with unilateral radiculopathy. The risk of mechanical instability is limited when only the medial third of the facet is drilled. Patients present rapid functional recovery.

Comparison of outcomes following minimally invasive and open posterior cervical foraminotomy: description of minimally invasive technique and review of literature

Although minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MIS-PCF) is frequently employed in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy, there are very few studies directly comparing outcomes between MIS-PCF and open posterior cervical foraminotomy and between MIS-PCF and percutaneous endoscopic (full-endoscopic) posterior cervical foraminotomy (FE-PCF). This study includes a description of technique and systematic review of literature and analysis of clinical studies comparing outcomes between MIS-PCF and open posterior cervical foraminotomy and between MIS-PCF and FE-PCF. Six comparative studies, including one randomized controlled trial were included in analysis. Average operative time ranged from 60.5 to 171 minutes in the open group and 77.65 to 115 minutes in the MIS group. Mean intraoperative blood loss ranged from 43.5 to 246 cc in the open group and 42 to 138 cc in the MIS group. Average postoperative length of stay ranged from 58.6 to 304.8 hours in the open group and 20 to 273.6 hours in the MIS group. Two studies reported significantly increased VAS-N (Neck) scores postoperatively in patients undergoing open cervical foraminotomies, however both studies reported that the differences lost statistical significance with longer follow-up. There were no significant differences in complications or reoperations between open and MIS groups. One retrospective cohort study was included in analysis that compared MIS-PCF and FE-PCF. Postoperatively at 24 months, mean NDI and VAS-N were significantly lower after FE-PCF than MIS-PCF. There was no significant change in VAS-A (Arm) between the two groups. Direct comparative studies between MIS-PCF and open cervical foraminotomy are limited in number. Although, there is a significant heterogeneity in studies comparing open and MIS-PCF there appears to be a trend of decreased hospital length of stay and postoperative analgesic usage in the minimally invasive cohort.

Controversies in the Management of Cervical Spine Conditions in Elite Athletes

Cervical spine injuries in elite athletes can have detrimental consequences, which makes return to play for professional athletes after cervical spine injury controversial. Although most athletes can return to sport under some circumstances, such as single-level anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion for cervical disk herniation, return to play after cervical disk arthroplasty and multilevel fusion for cervical disk herniation remains controversial. Allowing athletes to return to play after a finding of cervical stenosis and in the incidence of pseudarthrosis remains unclear. This review provides a systematic framework to guide return-to-play decision-making in common cervical conditions in elite athletes. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(4):e370-e375.].

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.

The benefit zone of full-endoscopic spine surgery

Minimally invasive spine procedures have undergone rapid development during the last decade. Efforts to decrease muscle crush injuries during prolonged retraction, avoid significant soft tissue stripping and minimize bony resection are surgical principles that are employed to prevent iatrogenic instability and provide patients with decreased post-operative pain and disability. Full-endoscopic spine surgery represents a tool for the spine surgeon to provide targeted access to spinal pathology utilizing these principles. Endoscopic techniques have seen over 30 years of evolution and innovation, however, early iterations of these techniques largely focused on transforaminal lumbar microdiscectomies. Currently, endoscopic techniques are utilized for approaching pathology in the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine. There has been a growing body of literature that not only confirms the efficacy of these procedures but also underscores the advantages these procedures offer with respect to less morbidity and safer complication profiles. Endoscopic decompressions have been utilized in the settings of degenerative spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, previous fusion, tumor and infection. Furthermore, endoscopic interbody fusion has also been utilized in the lumbar spine as technology continues to advance. As technological innovation continues to facilitate reproducible surgical technique and expand the indications for use, we believe that endoscopic spine surgical techniques will provide surgeons with a more powerful and less morbid approach to spinal pathology that ultimately elevates the standard of care when treating our patients. We present a brief review of the history of endoscopic spine surgery, an overview of current techniques and review current outcomes of endoscopic spine surgical procedures in the context of an invasiveness/complexity index to elucidate the benefit zone of these newer techniques.

Ninety-Day Bundled Payment Reimbursement for Patients Undergoing Anterior and Posterior Procedures for Degenerative Cervical Radiculopathy

BACKGROUND

Anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) are the mainstay surgical treatment options for patients with degenerative cervical radiculopathy (DCR).

OBJECTIVE

To compare 90-d bundled payments between ACDF and PCF for DCR in a cohort study.

METHODS

Data were extracted from MarketScan database (2000-2016) using ICD-9, ICD-10, and CPT-4 codes. The bundle payments were calculated as the payments accumulated from the index hospitalization admission to 90 d postsurgery. We also analyzed the index hospitalization (physician, hospital, and total) and the postdischarge payments (hospital readmission, outpatient services, medications, and total). Surgical groups were matched based on baseline characteristics (age, sex, insurance type, and Elixhauser score).

RESULTS

A total of 100 041 patients met the inclusion criteria. 94.9% of patients (n = 95 031). Patients underwent ACDF with 5.1% (n = 5 010) treated via PCF. Overall, median 90-d costs were significantly higher for ACDF than for PCF ($31567 vs $18412; P < .0001). The median total index hospitalization ($27841 vs $15043), physician ($4572 vs $1920), and hospital payments ($14540 vs $7404) were higher for ACDF compared to PCF for both single- and multiple-level cohorts (P < .0001). There was no difference in overall 90-d postdischarge payments. Factors associated with higher 90-d payments for both cohorts included age and comorbidity scores.

CONCLUSION

ACDF is associated with greater bundle payments in patients diagnosed with DCR. No difference was noted for the total postdischarge payments. PCF may be a cost-effective surgical option in appropriately selected patients with unilateral, paracentral, and foraminal soft herniated discs.

Posterior Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Diskectomy: A Single-Center Experience of 252 Cases

BACKGROUND

Posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical foraminotomy and diskectomy has remarkably evolved with successful results. Although percutaneous endoscopic cervical diskectomy (PECD) has gained popularity, the risk of surgical failure may be a major obstacle to performing PECD. We analyzed unsuccessful cases requiring reoperation. The objective of this article was to find common causes of surgical failure and elucidate the limitations of the conventional PECD technique.

METHODS

Surgery-related complications were reviewed from the initial 252 cases of a single surgeon. The patients had cervical disk herniation or radiculopathy and underwent percutaneous endoscopic surgical management. We investigated clinical outcomes and complications. A retrospective review was performed on all patients who had undergone PECD between April 2013 and April 2016. Unsuccessful PECD was defined as a case requiring reoperation within 6 weeks after primary surgery. Chart review was done, and pre-, intra-, and postoperative radiographic reviews were performed. All unsuccessful PECD cases were classified according to the type of herniated disc, location of herniation, extruded disk migration, working channel position, and intra- and postoperative findings.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 89.4 minutes (range, 60-180 minutes). The mean intraoperative blood loss was 20.3 mL (range, 10-800 mL). Cerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred in 1 patient and healed well. The follow-up period ranged from 24 to 60 months. The mean score on the visual analog scale improved from 8.67 ± 1.30 preoperatively to 7.83 ± 1.40 at 1 month postoperatively to 1.67 ± 1.30 at the final follow-up (P < 0.05), with a recovery rate of 67.9% ± 21.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons should be aware of the specific complications for the PECD approach.

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

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) with tubes for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy in terms of the 1) overall revision proportion, 2) index and adjacent level revision rates, and 3) functional outcome scores.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed the records of consecutive patients who had undergone ACDF or MI-PCF at a single institution between 2009 and 2014. Patients treated for cervical radiculopathy without myelopathy and with a minimum 2-year follow-up were compared according to the procedure performed for their pathology. Primary outcome measures included the overall rate of revision with fusion and overall revision proportion as well as the rate of index and adjacent level revisions per year. Secondarily, self-reported outcome measures-Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for arm (VASa) and neck (VASn) pain-at the preoperative and postoperative evaluations were analyzed. Standard binomial and categorical comparative analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Forty-nine consecutive patients were treated with MI-PCF, and 210 consecutive patients were treated with ACDF. The mean follow-up for the MI-PCF cohort was 42.9 ± 6.6 months (mean ± SD) and for the ACDF cohort was 44.9 ± 10.3 months. There was no difference in the overall revision proportion between the two cohorts (4 [8.2%] of 49 MI-PCF vs. 12 [5.7%] of 210 ACDF, p = 0.5137). There was no difference in the revision rate per level per year (3.1 vs. 1.7, respectively, p = 0.464). Moreover, there was no difference in the revision rate per level per year at the index level (1.8 vs. 0.7, respectively, p = 0.4657) or at an adjacent level (1.3 vs. 1.1, p = 0.9056). Neither was there a difference between the cohorts as regards the change from preoperative to final postoperative functional outcome scores (NDI, VASa, VASn).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive PCF for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy demonstrates rates of revision at the index and adjacent levels similar to those following ACDF. In order to confirm the positive efficacy and cost analysis findings in this study, future studies need to extend the follow-up and show that the rate of revision with fusion does not increase substantially over time.

Treatment of cervical radiculopathy: A review of the evolution and economics

Background:

The surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy has centered around anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Alternatively, the posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy/microdiscectomy (PCF/PCM), which results in comparable outcomes and is more cost-effective, has been underutilized.

Methods:

Here, we compared the direct/indirect costs, reoperation rates, and outcome for ACDF and PCF vs. PCM using PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases.

Results:

There were no significant differences between the re-operative rates of PCF/PCM (2% to 9.8%) versus ACDF (2% to 8%). Direct costs of ACDF were also significantly higher; the 1-year cost-utility analysis demonstrated that ACDF had $131,951/QALY while PCM had $79,856/QALY.

Conclusion:

PCF/PCM for radiculopathy are safe and more cost-effective vs. ACDF, and have similar clinical outcomes.

The Difference in Clinical Outcomes After Anterior Cervical Fusion, Disk Replacement, and Foraminotomy in Professional Athletes

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

OBJECT

To compare postoperative outcomes of professional athletes treated for cervical disk herniation after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior foraminotomy (PF), or total disk replacement (TDR).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

ACDF, PF, and TDR have all led to excellent outcomes in the general population but the unique demands in the professional athlete necessitate specific study.

METHODS

Athletes of 4 major American professional sports leagues-National Football League, Major League Baseball, National Hockey League and National Basketball Association-diagnosed with cervical disk herniation and managed operatively were identified. Athletes were grouped into cohorts based on operation type. Athlete performance outcome measures were calculated based on sport-specific statistics and assessed as a percentage change after surgery to standardize comparison across sports.

RESULTS

A total of 101 professional athletes were identified (ACDF=86, PF=13, and TDR=2). The PF cohort had a significantly greater return to play rate and shortest time to return after surgery (P=0.03 and P=0.04, respectively). However, the reoperation rate at the index level was significantly higher in PF athletes compared with ACDF (46.2% vs. 5.8%; P<0.001) over the study follow-up period (average, 13.5 y). There was no significant difference in performance score after surgery for all surgical cohorts (P=0.41) and among cohorts (P=0.41). When analyzed by sport only baseball athletes experienced a significant decrease in performance after surgery (P=0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

ACDF and PF are both viable options with excellent outcomes in professional athletes. PF allows a significantly higher rate and quicker return to play but portends a higher risk for reoperation compared with ACDF. TDR results are limited in our cohort and require further study to determine professional athlete outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy: Freiburg Experience With 34 Patients

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

Assessment of outcome after minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Surgical management of cervical radiculopathy represents a controversial area in spinal surgery. Preferred approaches include both anterior cervical discectomy and posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF). Numerous studies showed comparable results. Employing PCF eliminates risks associated with anterior approach. PCF as originally described by Spurling and Scoville necessitates extensive stripping of cervical muscles to expose the cervical spine, resulting in muscle injury, impaired muscle function, prolonged postoperative neck pain, and increased use of narcotics. There are only few studies investigating outcome after employing MI-PCF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of 34 patients who underwent MI-PCF for presenting complaints, postoperative and follow-up outcome.

RESULTS

In the last follow-up the weakness resolved completely in 62.6% of patients, in 4.1% improved and in 16.5% remained unchanged. In the last follow-up 76.7% of patients originally presenting with pain reported complete resolution of pain and 10% reported partial improvement of pain. In total, 23.5% of patients were lost during follow-up as far as pain was concerned. In the last follow-up, 75% of patients achieved relative neck-pain-freedom (Visual Analog Scale≤3) at rest and 62.5% of patients under strain. The mean neck pain on Visual Analog Scale at rest was 2.13 (SD=2.42) and 3.34 (SD=3.01) under strain. In total, 93.8% (n=15) of patients would undergo the same procedure for the same achieved result.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive cervical foraminotomy is an effective procedure for decompression of cervical nerve roots regardless the type of the stenosis. Even employing minimally invasive technique still causes neck pain in the long term affecting up to 25% of patients. More randomized control studies are required to clarify the benefits of minimally invasive PCF.

Trends in the Treatment of Single and Multilevel Cervical Stenosis: A Review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database

BACKGROUND

In order to identify any changes in the utilization of new and old techniques, we investigated trends in the operative management of cervical stenosis by orthopaedic surgeons applying for board certification.

METHODS

We queried the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery database from 1998 to 2013 to identify all of the cervical spine procedures for stenosis that had been performed by candidates taking Part II of the licensing examination. Longitudinal trends were determined for the utilized approach, the individual procedures that had been performed, and whether a motion-preserving technique had been employed.

RESULTS

There were 5,068 cervical spine procedures performed by 1,025 candidates. Procedure totals remained relatively constant until 2011, when a sudden increase of 280% (202 to 768 procedures) was noted. This trend continued, reaching a 460% increase (202 to 1,131 procedures) compared with 2010. The number of candidates only rose by 150% (42 to 105) over the entire study period. The proportion of procedures performed via an anterior approach saw a bimodal distribution; early on, this approach predominated over posterior procedures and was largely driven by the number of corpectomies that were performed. From 2004 to 2011, posterior procedures became more prevalent, but there was a sharp decline in 2011, driven by the large number of anterior cervical discectomies and fusions that were performed. This remained constant through 2013. Lastly, motion-preserving techniques, which included total disc replacement and laminoplasty, had modest increases in utilization from 2005 to 2007. This increased prevalence was short-lived, and it steadily declined through 2014 to <5% utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of candidates performing cervical spine procedures increased more than twofold over a 16-year period. This reflects a larger proportion of the orthopaedic graduates who subspecialize in spine surgery. While the number of surgeons performing spine surgery has increased, the sheer number of procedures that each surgeon performed greatly outpaced the increased number of surgeons. Motion-preserving techniques had their peak utilization in 2007, and have since decreased to <5%, in contrast to fusion techniques, which predominate, comprising >90% of the performed procedures.

Impact of insurance precertification on neurosurgery practice and health care delivery

OBJECTIVE

Insurance preauthorization is used as a third-party tool to reduce health care costs. Given the expansion of managed care, the impact of the insurance preauthorization process in delaying health care delivery warrants investigation through a diversified neurosurgery practice.

METHODS

Data for 1985 patients were prospectively gathered over a 12-month period from July 1, 2014, until June 30, 2015. Information regarding attending, procedure, procedure type, insurance type, need for insurance approval, number of days for authorization, or insurance denial was obtained. Delay in authorization was defined as any wait period greater than 7 days. Some of the parameters were added retrospectively to enhance this study; hence, the total number of subjects may vary for different variables.

RESULTS

The most common procedure was back surgery with instrumentation (28%). Most of the patients had commercial insurance (57%) while Medicaid was the least common (1%). Across all neurosurgery procedures, insurance authorization, on average, was delayed 9 days with commercial insurance, 10.7 days with Tricare insurance, 8.5 days with Medicare insurance, 11.5 days with Medicaid, and 14.4 days with workers' compensation. Two percent of all patients were denied insurance preauthorization without any statistical trend or association. Of the 1985 patients, 1045 (52.6%) patients had instrumentation procedures. Independent of insurance type, instrumentation procedures were more likely to have delays in authorization (p = 0.001). Independent of procedure type, patients with Tricare (military) insurance were more likely to have a delay in approval for surgery (p = 0.02). Predictably, Medicare insurance was protective against a delay in surgery (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Choice of insurance provider and instrumentation procedures were independent risk factors for a delay in insurance preauthorization. Neurosurgeons, not just policy makers, must take ownership to analyze, investigate, and interpret these data to deliver the best and most efficient care to our patients.

Comparison of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion versus Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy in the Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review

Controversy remains over whether anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) is superior for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy. We therefore performed a systematic review including three prospective randomized controlled trails (RCT) and seven retrospective comparative studies (RCoS) by searching PubMed and EMBASE. These studies were assessed on risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and the quality of evidence and level of recommendation were evaluated according to the GRADE approach. Clinical outcomes, complications, reoperation rates, radiological parameters, and cost/cost-utility were evaluated. The mean complication rate was 7% in the ACDF group and 4% in the PCF group, and the mean reoperation rate was 4% in the ACDF group and 6% in the PCF group within 2 years of the initial surgery. There was a strong level of recommendation that no difference existed in clinical outcome, complication rate and reoperation rate between the ACDF and the PCF group. There was conflicting evidence that the ACDF group had better clinical outcomes than the PCF group (one study with weak level of recommendation). PCF could preserve the range of motion (ROM) of the operated segment but did not increase the ROM of the adjacent segment (weak level of recommendation). Meanwhile, the average cost or cost-utility of the PCF group was significantly lower than that of the ACDF group (weak level of recommendation). In conclusion, the PCF was just as safe and effective as the ACDF in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy. Meanwhile, PCF might have lower medical cost than ACDF and decrease the incidence of adjacent segment disease. Based on the available evidence, PCF appears to be another good surgical approach in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled multicentre study: the Foraminotomy ACDF Cost-Effectiveness Trial (FACET) in patients with cervical radiculopathy

INTRODUCTION

Cervical radiculopathy due to discogenic or spondylotic stenosis of the neuroforamen can be surgically treated by an anterior discectomy with fusion (ACDF) or a posterior foraminotomy (FOR). Most surgeons prefer ACDF, although there are indications that FOR is as effective as ACDF, has a lower complication rate and is less expensive. A head-to-head comparison of the 2 surgical techniques in a randomised controlled trial has not yet been performed. The study objectives of the Foraminotomy ACDF Cost-Effectiveness Trial (FACET) study are to compare clinical outcomes, complication rates and cost-effectiveness of FOR to ACDF.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The FACET study is a prospective randomised controlled trial conducted in 7 medical centres in the Netherlands. The follow-up period is 2 years. The main inclusion criterion is a radiculopathy of the C4, C5, C6 or C7 nerve root, due to a single-level isolated cervical foraminal stenosis caused by a soft disc and/or osteophytic component, requiring operative decompression. A sample size of 308 patients is required to test the hypothesis of clinical non-inferiority of FOR versus ACDF. Primary outcomes are: 'operative success', the measured decrease in radiculopathy assessed by the visual analogue scale and 'patient success', assessed by the modified Odom's criteria. Secondary outcomes are: Work Ability Index (single-item WAI), quality of life (EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 level Survey, EQ-5D-5L), Neck Disability Index (NDI) and complications. An economic evaluation will assess cost-effectiveness. In addition, a budget impact analysis will be performed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center Groningen. Results of this study will be disseminated through national and international papers. The participants and relevant patient support groups will be informed about the results of the study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR5536, pre-results.