Single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy for patients with cervical radiculopathy: a cost analysis

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.

Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical fusion and arthroplasty: Systematic review and updated meta-analysis

Introduction

This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis that investigates the efficacy of different surgical methods for treating cervical disc herniation or cervical foraminal stenosis.

Research question

The research aimed to compare the efficacy of Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy (MI-PCF) with anterior approaches, namely Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) and Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (CDA).

Material and methods

The study included a comprehensive review of eight articles that compared ACDF and MI-PCF, and four articles that compared CDA to MI-PCF.

Results

The results indicated no significant difference in surgical duration, hospital stay, complication rates, and reoperation rates between MI-PCF and ACDF. However, when comparing CDA with MI-PCF, it was found that CDA had a higher complication rate, while MI-PCF had a higher reoperation rate.

Discussion and conclusion

Despite these findings, the study recommends MI-PCF as the preferred surgical method for cervical radiculopathy, owing to the advancements in minimally invasive techniques. However, these findings are preliminary, and further research with longer follow-up periods and larger sample sizes is necessary to confirm these findings and to further explore the potential advantages and disadvantages of these surgical methods.

Perspective: Cervical laminoforaminotomy (CLF) is safer than anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) for lateral cervical disease

Background

The literature documents that laminoforaminotomy (CLF), whether performed open, minimally invasively, or microendoscopically, is safer than anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) for lateral cervical disease.

Methods

ACDF for lateral cervical disc disease and/or spondylosis exposes patients to multiple major surgical risk factors not encountered with CLF. These include; carotid artery or jugular vein injuries, esophageal tears, dysphagia, recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries, tracheal injuries, and dysphagia. CLF also exposes patients to lower rates of vertebral artery injury, dural tears (DT)/cerebrospinal fluid fistulas, instability warranting fusion, adjacent segment disease (ASD), plus cord and/or nerve root injuries.

Results

Further, CLF vs. ACDF for lateral cervical pathology offer reduced tissue damage, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), and cost.

Conclusion

CLFs', whether performed open, minimally invasively, or microendoscopically, offer greater safety, major pros with few cons, and decreased costs vs. ACDF for lateral cervical disease.

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.

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.

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.

Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Keyhole Foraminotomy versus Microscopic Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Single Level Unilateral Cervical Radiculopathy

Objective

To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes between microscopic anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and percutaneous endoscopic cervical keyhole foraminotomy (PECF) for single level unilateral cervical radiculopathy.

Methods

A total of 127 patients (59 in PECF VS 68 in ACDF) were enrolled in this study from April 2016 to May 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Clinical data including baseline data, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Visual Analogue Scale for neck and arm (VAS-n, VAS-a) were collected and compared. Radiological evaluation such as disc height, ROM of cervical, Cobb’s angle of cervical and Cobb’s angle of operated segment was measured by two experienced radiologists in twice.

Results

There was no significant difference between the two groups in the baseline data, and hospital stay was significantly decreased in PECF group than ACDF group (P < 0.001). PECF group did not yield superior better outcomes in NDI, VAS-a and VAS-n than ACDF group except at 1-month follow-up. As for radiological outcomes, PECF group has significantly better cervical motion, cervical angle and segmental angle than ADCF group at 12- and 24-month follow-up visit (P < 0.05); however, ACDF had shown better disc height restoration and maintenance than PECF (P < 0.05). More complications including surface hematoma and swallowing difficulty were occurred in ADCF group.

Conclusion

Percutaneous endoscopic cervical keyhole foraminotomy could be the alternative method for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in selective cases. However, the indication should be fulfilled, more studies need to be conducted to further testify the efficacy of PECF.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Systematic Review Registration: CRD42021284819.

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.

Cervical Radiculopathy Focus on Characteristics and Differential Diagnosis

Cervical radiculopathy is characterized by neurological dysfunction caused by compression and inflammation of the spinal nerves or nerve roots of the cervical spine. It mainly presents with neck and arm pain, sensory loss, motor dysfunction, and reflex changes according to the dermatomal distribution. The most common causes of cervical radiculopathy are cervical disc herniation and cervical spondylosis. It is important to find the exact symptomatic segment and distinguish between conditions that may mimic certain cervical radicular compression syndromes through meticulous physical examinations and precise reading of radiographs. Non-surgical treatments are recommended as an initial management. Surgery is applicable to patients with intractable or persistent pain despite sufficient conservative management or with severe or progressive neurological deficits. Cervical radiculopathy is treated surgically by anterior and/or posterior approaches. The appropriate choice of surgical treatment should be individualized, considering the patient’s main pathophysiology, specific clinical symptoms and radiographic findings thoroughly.

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.

Comparative analysis of the biomechanics of the adjacent segments after minimally invasive cervical surgeries versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A finite element study

Purpose

Percutaneous full-endoscopic anterior cervical discectomy (PEACD) and posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) as alternatives to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) are extensively used in the treatment of patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. The possibility of avoiding the risk of accelerated degeneration of the adjacent segments caused by fusion is claimed to be the theoretical advantage of these approaches; however, there is a paucity of supportive evidence from biomechanical data. Therefore, this study investigated and compared the effects of PCF, PEACD, and ACDF on the adjacent segments and operative segments of the cervical spine from a biomechanical standpoint.

Method

A normal and intact three-dimensional finite element digital model of C4-C7 was constructed and validated, and the finite element models of PEACD, PCF, and ACDF were obtained by modifying the C4-C7 model. All models were exposed to identical conditions of load during flexion, extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending. We calculated the range of motion (ROM), intervertebral disc pressure (IDP), and facet joint contact force (FJCF) of the operative segment and the adjacent segment in different motion conditions.

Result

The conventional ACDF had a remarkable influence on the ROM and IDP of the operative segment and the adjacent segments. In the PEACD model, the change of ROM was not noticeable; the IDP of the operative segment was significantly smaller, whereas the change of IDP of the adjacent segment was insignificant. In the PCF model, the ROM and IDP of all segments remained unaffected.During extension, the facet joint contact force changed significantly after ACDF, and it changed slightly after PECAD and PCF.

Conclusion

By comparatively analyzing the biomechanical changes of the cervical spine after PCF, PEACD, and ACDF using the finite element method, we suggested that PCF and PEACD were more suitable for surgical intervention of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy than ACDF from a biomechanical point of view and PCF may outperform PEACD.

Comparison of the effectiveness and safety of bioactive glass ceramic to allograft bone for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with anterior plate fixation

Recently, a bioactive glass ceramic (BGC) has been developed for use as intervertebral cages for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, the effectiveness and safety of BGC cages remain to be evaluated. We completed a retrospective comparison of the radiological and clinical outcomes of 36 patients (52 levels) who underwent ACDF with a BGC cage and 35 patients (54 levels) using allograft bone. The following variables were compared between the two groups: the visual analog (VAS) neck and arm pain score and the neck disability index (NDI), measured before surgery and 1 year after; the change in Cobb's angle, between the C2 and C7 vertebrae, the global sagittal angle, and disc height compared from before surgery to 1 year after; and the rate of spinal fusion and cage subsidence at 1 and 2 years after surgery. The VAS and NDI scores were not different between the two groups. Similarly, the spinal fusion rate was not different between the BGC and allograft bone group at 1 year (73% and 87%, respectively; p = 0.07) and 2 years (94% and 91%, respectively; p = 0.54) after surgery. However, the rate of cage subsidence was higher in the allograft bone (43%) than the BGC (19%) group (p = 0.03), as was the rate of instrument-related failure (p = 0.028), with a specifically higher incidence of implant fracture or failure in the allograft bone group (p = 0.025). Overall, our findings indicate that BGC cages provide a feasible and safe alternative to allograft bone for ACDF.

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

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Comparison of Anterior Cervical Foraminotomy and Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy for Treating Single Level Unilateral Cervical Radiculopathy

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical and radiological outcomes after two surgical procedures.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is the gold standard treatment for cervical radiculopathy. Cervical foraminotomy is an alternative decompressive treatment option to preserve segmental motion and avoid fusion-related complications. Anterior cervical foraminotomy (ACF) and posterior cervical foraminotmy (PCF) has been introduced to achieve foraminal decompression. The objective of this study was to compare long-term clinical and radiological outcomes after two surgical procedures for the treatment of single-level cervical radiculopathy.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients undergoing ACF or PCF for the treatment of single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy from 2010 to 2012 was performed. Demographic, perioperative, and clinical outcomes of 40 patients for each group were collected from the electronic medical records. Clinical outcomes were assessed by visual analog scores, while disc height (DH), cervical lordosis (CL), and C2-7 sagittal vertical axis (C2-7 SVA) data were obtained from pre- and postoperative radiography data.

RESULTS

Both groups showed similar clinical improvements after surgery. Radiographically, the ACF groups showed profound decrease in DH only at the first month after surgery, and there was no significant change in DH after 1 year. The PCF group showed no significant changes in DH at follow-up. With respect to CL, ACF showed a significant decrease. There was no statistically significant change in C2-7 SVA before or after surgery in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Both ACF and PCF showed significant clinical improvement of radiculopathy. In the ACF group, the DH decreased, and CL decreased during the early postoperative period. Radiological parameters were preserved in the PCF group after surgery. However, this group showed greater intraoperative bleeding and revision rates. Care should be taken to manage complications according to the specific surgical treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Economic Value in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The field of spine surgery remains a unique target in the transition to value-based care. While spine surgery has benefited from new medical technologies, including minimally invasive surgery (MIS), these technologies may be a key driver in rising US healthcare costs. As such, MIS needs to clear an economic value threshold through a rigorous evaluation of the outcomes they provide and costs they incur. In this article, we review recent MIS surgery literature from the perspective of economic value.

RECENT FINDINGS

Many studies report modest all-in cost savings and direct procedural cost equivalence for minimally invasive approaches relative to open surgeries. In terms of quality, studies found lower blood loss, length of stay, and infectious complications with MIS surgery but evidence on QALYs was mixed. In the past 5 years, there has been increasing research interest in defining economic value in MIS surgery. However, a significant amount of heterogeneity in research quality and methodology persists. Therefore, MIS surgery has the potential to be of high economic value, though this is not yet definitive. Future research should continue to focus on high-quality cost-effectiveness studies with clear methodologies to further elucidate economic value in MIS surgery.

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.

Evaluation of Current Trends in Treatment of Single-level Cervical Radiculopathy

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of this study were to identify epidemiological trends, differences, and complications in patients undergoing surgical treatment for single-level cervical radiculopathy (SLCR).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

SLCR that fails nonoperative management is effectively treated with either anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), cervical disc replacement (CDR), or posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF). Although studies have shown that all 3 options are clinically effective, trends in usage, differences in patient population, and differences in complications remain unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent either ACDF, CDR, or PCF in the treatment of SLCR from 2010 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Demographic data consisted of sex, age, ASA class, body mass index, and inpatient/outpatient status. Complications included surgical site infection, pneumonia, reintubation, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, readmissions, reoperations, operating time, and hospital length of stay. Utilization trends by year among the 3 procedures were also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 1102 patients with SLCR treated with single-level ACDF, CDR, or PCF were identified in NSQIP from 2010 to 2016. There was a relative increase in the number of CDR procedures (7.7%-16.1%) and a corresponding decrease in PCF procedures (20.3%-10.6%) without a significant effect on ACDF procedures (72.0%-73.3%). Patients who underwent CDR were younger and in a lower ASA class than those undergoing ACDF or PCF. Patients undergoing PCF were more likely to be treated as an outpatient. PCF procedures also had the shortest operating time and hospital length of stay. There were no significant differences in complications among the 3 procedures. Moreover, there were no significant trends in demographics or outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

ACDF remains the most common surgical treatment for patients with SLCR, and its utilization has remained consistent. Meanwhile, the increased utilization of CDR for the treatment of SLCR has resulted in a corresponding decrease in the utilization of PCF.

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.

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Day-care Posterior Foraminotomy and Decompression of the Cervical Spine

PURPOSE

Anterior cervical procedures are associated with many intra- and post-operative complications leading to long-term patient morbidity. In this study, we have evaluated the clinical and radiological Outcome of day care posterior cervical foraminotomy in patients with single-level cervical radiculopathy with or without neurodeficit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventeen patients underwent single-level posterior cervical foraminotomy for radicular symptoms were studied between June 2011 and May 2016. Clinical outcome was studied by visual analog scale (VAS) score, neck disability index (NDI), and Odom's criteria. Adjacent segment degeneration was evaluated on lateral cervical radiograph at every follow-up by calculating the focal and global angulation of the cervical spine and disc height at the operated level and adjacent segments. Dynamic lateral cervical spine radiograph was done to evaluate segmental instability.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up duration of 30.64 months, 13 patients had excellent, three patients had good, and one patient had fair outcome as per Odom's criteria. The mean VAS score for radicular pain, neck pain, and NDI was significantly reduced postoperatively (P < 0.001). The mean focal angulation, mean global angulation, the disc height at operated and adjacent level were not changed significantly (P > 0.05). There was no instability noted postoperatively on lateral dynamic cervical spine radiographs. There was no complication in our study.

CONCLUSION

Posterior cervical foraminotomy is an effective surgical method for treatment of patients with single-level cervical radiculopathy and helps to achieve good clinical and radiological outcome, prevents postoperative adjacent segment degeneration and instability with minimal complications.

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.

UPPER CERVICAL RADICULOPATHY: THE HIDDEN PATHOLOGY OF THE SPINE

Axial neck pain can frequently be a vexing clinical problem for practitioners. Cervical spine surgery is generally regarded as less successful for axial neck pain than arm complaints. Although only few case series exist in the literature, there is evidence to suggest that upper cervical radiculopathy could be an important, treatable source of axial neck pain. Unlike patients with axial neck pain, patients with radiculopathy usually present with unilateral pain, particularly in the trapezial, parascapular, mid clavicular, or even in the form of suboccipital headaches. Similar to other regions of the cervical spine, initial imaging often consists of plain radiographs of the cervical spine, with the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) if further evaluation of the pathology is warranted. Selective injections and electromyography can be used in conjunction with the imaging studies to aid with proper diagnosis. The surgical management of upper cervical radiculopathy is reserved for patients who fail to improve with non-operative modalities. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) remain the most commonly performed and most reliable procedure for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy. Wide decompression of disc material from uncinate to uncinate is performed with or without a foraminotomy on the symptomatic side to address anterior compressive pathology. Artificial disc replacement (ADR) has been recently introduced in hopes of maintaining motion at the pathologic levels. Young patients (<40 years old) with minimal facet joint arthrosis are best indicated for this surgery. Posterior cervical foraminotomy avoids many approach related complications associated with anterior surgery and is the preferred approach when anterior surgery is contraindicated. Very few studies with small sample sizes (likely due to underdiagnosis) make it difficult to perform a comparative analysis of the different types of procedures. Ultimately, an accurate diagnosis is likely the most important predictor of a positive surgical outcome.

Clinical and radiological results of posterior cervical foraminotomy at two or three levels: a 3-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Single-level unilateral posterior cervical foraminotomy is regarded as a safe method. However, the outcomes of posterior cervical foraminotomy performed on two or three levels are uncertain and debated. We aimed to analyze the long-term clinical and radiological outcomes of posterior cervical foraminotomy at two or three levels.

METHODS

From September 2008 to December 2011, a total of 42 patients who underwent a posterior cervical foraminotomy at two or three levels and were followed for at least 3 years were analyzed with retrospective cohort study. Clinical assessments were performed using the visual analog scale (VAS), neck disability index (NDI) and modified MacNab criteria. Radiological evaluation included the assessment of static and dynamic lateral radiographs to identify instability, postlaminectomy kyphotic deformity, adjacent segmental degeneration (ASD), and focal degeneration.

RESULTS

The mean VAS improved from preoperative score 8.5 ± 0.3 to postoperative score 1.8 ± 0.5 significantly. The mean presenting NDI score was 32.9 ± 2.0 and the mean postoperative NDI score was 14.2 ± 1.3. Improvement of radiculopathy was displayed in 39 patients (92.9%). During radiological evaluation, no significant change in disc height related to ASD and focal degeneration was noted. However, we confirmed one patient with radiological instability and one patient with radiological postlaminectomy kyphotic deformity.

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior cervical foraminotomy at two or three levels is fairly effective for treating patients with cervical radiculopathy, and results in long-lasting pain relief and improved quality of life in nearly all patients. However, further studies of three levels that include more patients are needed.

Changes in foraminal area with anterior decompression versus keyhole foraminotomy in the cervical spine: a biomechanical investigation

OBJECTIVE

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with or without partial uncovertebral joint resection (UVR) and posterior keyhole foraminotomy are established operative procedures to treat cervical disc degeneration and radiculopathy. Studies have demonstrated reliable results with each procedure, but none have compared the change in neuroforaminal area between indirect and direct decompression techniques. The purpose of this study was to determine which cervical decompression method most consistently increases neuroforaminal area and how that area is affected by neck position.

METHODS

Eight human cervical functional spinal units (4 each of C5–6 and C6–7) underwent sequential decompression. Each level received the following surgical treatment: bilateral foraminotomy, ACDF, ACDF + partial UVR, and foraminotomy + ACDF. Multidirectional pure moment flexibility testing combined with 3D C-arm imaging was performed after each procedure to measure the minimum cross-sectional area of each foramen in 3 different neck positions: neutral, flexion, and extension.

RESULTS

Neuroforaminal area increased significantly with foraminotomy versus intact in all positions. These area measurements did not change in the ACDF group through flexion-extension. A significant decrease in area was observed for ACDF in extension (40 mm2) versus neutral (55 mm2). Foraminotomy + ACDF did not significantly increase area compared with foraminotomy in any position. The UVR procedure did not produce any changes in area through flexion-extension.

CONCLUSIONS

All procedures increased neuroforaminal area. Foraminotomy and foraminotomy + ACDF produced the greatest increase in area and also maintained the area in extension more than anterior-only procedures. The UVR procedure did not significantly alter the area compared with ACDF alone. With a stable cervical spine, foraminotomy may be preferable to directly decompress the neuroforamen; however, ACDF continues to play an important role for indirect decompression and decompression of more centrally located herniated discs. These findings pertain to bony stenosis of the neuroforamen and may not apply to soft disc herniation. The key points of this study are as follows. Both ACDF and foraminotomy increase the foraminal space. Foraminotomy was most successful in maintaining these increases during neck motion. Partial UVR was not a significant improvement over ACDF alone. Foraminotomy may be more efficient at decompressing the neuroforamen. Results should be taken into consideration only with stable spines.

Cost Variation of Anterior Cervical Fusions in Elderly Medicare Beneficiaries

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective database review.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how demographics and comorbid diagnoses influence hospital costs during admission for anterior cervical fusions (ACFs) in the elderly Medicare population.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Elective ACFs to treat degenerative cervical pathology are extremely common within the elderly population. Although it is well known that every patient has a significantly different medical profile that guides treatment and postoperative care, little information is available regarding how hospital costs vary from patient to patient.

METHODS

Medicare records from the PearlDiver database (2011-2012) were retrospectively queried to select all 65- to 84-year-old patients who underwent primary, 1 to 2 level ACF (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification: 81.02) for either cervical spondylosis or cervical disc disease. All patients with corpectomies, posterior cervical fusions, and all other same-day spine fusion surgeries were excluded. The primary outcome of this study was Medicare reimbursement from the full inpatient stay as associated with the selected International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision procedure code. The relative contributions of year, age, sex, region, myelopathy diagnosis, and various comorbidities to the total cost were determined with both univariate statistics and multivariate analysis. For all analyses, P < 0.001 was determined to be significant.

RESULTS

In total, 21,853 patients were selected for analysis. The average reimbursement for the full cohort was $13,648 ± $7306. On multivariate analysis, advanced age ($1083), diagnosis of myelopathy ($2150), diabetes mellitus ($1019), obesity ($651), congestive heart failure ($1523), chronic kidney disease ($1962), and chronic pulmonary disease ($489) were all factors that increased costs. Of note, sex, smoking history, and prior liver disease were not associated with changes in cost.

CONCLUSION

Medicare reimbursements provide a value means by which determinants of cost can be elucidated. Although multiple comorbidities, older age, and myelopathy diagnosis could be theorized to contribute to increased costs, there is still some uncertainty regarding their relative costs. These data are informative to practicing physicians as health care as a whole transitions to a more value-based approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Posterior Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Foraminotomy and Diskectomy With Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy

This report describes a new, minimally invasive procedure, posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical diskectomy, performed with a unilateral biportal endoscopic approach. The procedure is used to treat cervical foraminal soft disk protrusion. This report also describes the short-term results with this procedure. In 2015, 14 patients underwent this new, minimally invasive procedure. The technique was applied with a standard arthroscopy device and conventional spine instruments. The Neck Disability Index and visual analog scale scores for the neck and upper arm were evaluated, and 13 consecutive patients were included in the analysis. Mean follow-up was 14.8 months (range, 12-18 months). The Neck Disability Index decreased from 27.0±2.5 to 6.8±1.4 at the last follow-up (P<.05). Visual analog scale scores for the neck and upper arm also decreased significantly (neck, 6.2±0.8 to 2.4±0.9; upper arm, 7.0±1.1 to 2.2±0.6). Posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical diskectomy with a uniportal endoscope provides a clear operative field because of continuous endoscopic saline irrigation and requires only a short hospitalization and no postoperative rehabilitation. Posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical diskectomy with a unilateral biportal endoscopic approach also can be performed efficiently because of the wide field of visualization and familiar surgical field. Thus, posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical diskectomy with the unilateral biportal endoscopic approach may be an alternative procedure for cervical foraminal soft disk protrusion. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(5):e779-e783.].

Preservation of Motion at the Surgical Level after Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy

Objective

Although minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) is an established approach for motion preservation, the outcomes are variable among patients. The objective of this study was to identify significant factors that influence motion preservation after MI-PCF.

Methods

Forty-eight patients who had undergone MI-PCF between 2004 and 2012 on a total of 70 levels were studied. Cervical parameters measured using plain radiography included C2–7 plumb line, C2–7 Cobb angle, T1 slope, thoracic outlet angle, neck tilt, and disc height before and 24 months after surgery. The ratios of the remaining facet joints after MI-PCF were calculated postoperatively using computed tomography. Changes in the distance between interspinous processes (DISP) and the segmental angle (SA) before and after surgery were also measured. We determined successful motion preservation with changes in DISP of ≤3 mm and in SA of ≤2°.

Results

The differences in preoperative and postoperative DISP and SA after MI-PCF were 0.03±3.95 mm and 0.34±4.46°, respectively, fulfilling the criteria for successful motion preservation. However, the appropriate level of motion preservation is achieved in cases in which changes in preoperative and postoperative DISP and SA motions are 55.7 and 57.1%, respectively. Based on preoperative and postoperative DISP, patients were divided into three groups, and the characteristics of each group were compared. Among these, the only statistically significant factor in motion preservation was preoperative disc height (Pearson’s correlation coefficient=0.658, p<0.001). The optimal disc height for motion preservation in regard to DISP ranges from 4.18 to 7.08 mm.

Conclusion

MI-PCF is a widely accepted approach for motion preservation, although desirable radiographic outcomes were only achieved in approximately half of the patients who had undergone the procedure. Since disc height appears to be a significant factor in motion preservation, surgeons should consider disc height before performing MI-PCF.

Minimally invasive fully endoscopic two-level posterior cervical foraminotomy: technical note

Posterior cervical foraminotomy is an effective surgical treatment method for relieving radicular symptoms that result from cervical nerve root compression. Minimally invasive techniques and tubular retractor systems are available to minimize tissue retraction, but minimally invasive approaches can carry with them the surgical challenge of trying to pass instruments through a long narrow retractor that is also the port for visualizing the surgical pathology. Herein, the authors present a case of a 65-year-old man who presented with symptoms of a left C6 and C7 radiculopathy and left C5-6 and left C6-7 foraminal narrowing on MRI. A minimally-invasive fully endoscopic left C5-6 and C6-7 posterior foraminotomy was performed through a 1cm outer diameter working channel endoscopic with a 6 mm working channel. Clinicians should be aware that new minimally invasive non-fusion approaches for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy that utilize endoscopic visualization are now coming into use in clinical practice.

Resource utilization for non-operative cervical radiculopathy: Management by surgeons versus non-surgeons

OBJECTIVES

To compare the estimated resource utilization for non-operative treatment of cervical radiculopathy if managed by surgeons versus non-surgeons.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A Cervical Spine Research Society-sponsored survey was administered at a national spine surgery conference to surgeons and non-surgeons, as classified above. The survey asked questions regarding resource utilization and perceived costs for the "average patient" with cervical radiculopathy managed non-operatively. Resource utilization and perceived costs were compared between surgeon and non-surgeon participants, and between private practice and academic and/or hybrid groups that combine academic and private practices.

RESULTS

In total, 101 of the 125 conference attendees participated in the survey (return rate 80.8%, of which 60% were surgeons). Surgeon and non-surgeon estimates for duration of non-operative care did not differ (3.3 versus 4.2 months, p=0.071). Estimates also did not differ for estimated number of physical therapy visits (10.5 versus 10.5, p=0.983), cervical injections (1.4 versus 1.7, p=0.272), chiropractic visits (3.1 versus 3.7, p=0.583), or perceived days off from work (14.9 versus 16.3, p=0.816). The only difference identified was that surgeon estimates of the number of physician visits while providing non-operative care were lower than non-surgeon estimates (3.2 versus 4.0, p=0.018). In terms of estimated costs, surgeon and non-surgeon were mostly similar (only difference being that surgeon estimates for the total cost of physician visits per patient were lower than non-surgeon estimates ($382 versus $579, p=0.007). Surgeon estimates for the percent of their patients that go on to receive surgery within 6 months were higher than non-surgeon estimates (28.6% versus 18.8%, p=0.018). Similarly, surgeon estimates for the percent of their patients to go on to receive surgery within 2 years were higher than non-surgeon estimates (37.8% versus 24.8%, p=0.013). Academic/hybrid and private practice group resource utilization estimates and costs were also compared, and no significant differences were found in any comparisons. Additionally, no significant differences were found in these groups for duration of non-operative care, or the estimates of the percent of patients who go on to receive surgery within 6 months or two years.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that patients with cervical radiculopathy managed by surgeons and those by non-surgeons have overall similar resource utilization during a non-operative trial. This suggests that relatively similar care is provided regardless of whom initiates the non-operative trial (surgeon or non-surgeon). Although surgeons thought their patients more likely to undergo surgery following a non-operative trial, this may be a bias due to patient referral-specifically, surgeons may be more likely than non-surgeons to manage patients with more severe or longer-standing radiculopathy.

Quality Programs in Neurosurgery: The Memorial Hermann/University of Texas Experience

The importance of outcome measures is steadily increasing due to the rise of "pay for performance" and the advent of population health. In 2007, a quality initiative was started due to poor performance on rankings such as the University Health Consortium (UHC) report card. Inherent to all such efforts are common challenges: how to engage the providers; how to gather and ensure the accuracy of the data; how to attribute results to individuals; how to ensure permanent improvements. After analysis, a strategy was developed that included an initial focus on 3 metrics (mortality, infection rates, and complications), leadership from practicing neurosurgeons, protocol development and adherence, and subspecialization. In addition, it was decided that the metrics would initially apply to attending physicians only, but that the entire team would need to be involved. Once the fundamental elements were established, the process could be extended to other measures and providers. To support this effort, special information system tools were developed and a support team formed. As the program matured, measured outcomes improved and more metrics were added (to a current total of 48). For example, UHC mortality ratios (observed over expected) decreased by 75%. Infection rates decreased 80%. The program now involves all trainee physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, and other staff. This paper describes the design, implementation, and results of this effort, and provides a practical guide that may be useful to other groups undertaking similar initiatives.

Risk and Cost of Reoperation After Single-Level Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy: A Large Database Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the risk of undergoing another cervical spine surgery after single-level posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) and analyze the costs of such reoperations.

METHODS

Using the PearlDiver database, we created database algorithms to identify cohorts of patients who underwent single-level PCF and also had various reoperations of interest, within 1, 2, and 4 years of follow-up. We also identified the per-patient average charge (PPAC) for each reoperation cohort.

RESULTS

In the Medicare cohort, the incidence of any reoperation was 8.3%, 9.8%, and 10.5% within 1, 2, and 4 years of follow-up, respectively. The PPAC was $8520 for the initial PCF procedure. When a second cervical surgery was performed, the PPAC was $70 349 for anterior fusion, $15 760 for posterior decompression alone, and $77 976 for posterior decompression and fusion. In the UnitedHealth cohort, the incidence of any reoperation was 13.6%, 16.7%, and 17.0% within 1, 2, and 4 years of follow-up, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall incidence of another cervical spine operation was slightly higher in the Medicare population to that in previous literature, but much higher in the UnitedHealth population. The most common reoperation after PCF varied between the Medicare and UnitedHealth datasets, and costs varied widely based on the procedure performed. This study provides pertinent information that surgeons can use to discuss the risk of reoperation with their 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.