Abstract
BackgroundTo 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.MethodsRelevant 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionsAmong 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.
Highlights
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
Cervical radiculopathy is defined as pain in a radicular pattern in one or both upper extremities related to compression and/or irritation of one or more cervical nerve roots secondary to disc herniation or lateral foraminal stenosis [1]
Inclusion and exclusion criteria Studies were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) randomized or nonrandomized comparative studies, (2) patients who diagnosed with single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy, (3) comparative data between Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and PCF were available, and (4) sample size was bigger than 10
Summary
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. Cervical radiculopathy is defined as pain in a radicular pattern in one or both upper extremities related to compression and/or irritation of one or more cervical nerve roots secondary to disc herniation or lateral foraminal stenosis [1]. Surgical intervention is suggested for rapid pain relief for cervical radiculopathy when compared with nonsurgical treatments [2, 3]. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is considered to be the “gold standard” surgical intervention by many surgeons and is proved to be an effective treatment for cervical radiculopathy [4, 5]. Posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) is an alternative surgical approach for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy. PCF can be performed through a minimally invasive approach (MI-PCF) using tubular retractor or endoscopy, and the effectiveness of MI-PCF is considered to be equivalent to open PCF [11]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
