Abstract

Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been established as a classic procedure for the management of cervical radiculopathy. However, it is unclear whether combined uncinate process resection (UPR) is necessary for treating cervical radiculopathy. Here, we investigated the clinical outcome of ACDF combined with UPR compared to ACDF alone to determine the necessity of UPR in treating cervical radiculopathy.Hypothesis: Uncinate process resection may be necessary in certain patients along with ACDF to achieve better clinical outcomes of cervical radiculopathy.Patients and Methods: Fifty-five patients underwent ACDF with UPR, and 126 patients without UPR were reviewed. The width and height of the intervertebral foramen were measured by 45° oblique X-rays. We also measured the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and visual analog scale (VAS) score. C2–C7 Cobb angles were obtained from all patients pre- and post-operatively. Meanwhile, linear regression analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between the clinical outcomes and the intervertebral foramen width before surgery.Results: Linear regression analysis indicated that the improvement in the JOA and VAS scores was irrelevant to both the pre-operative width of the intervertebral foramen (wIVF) and the height of the intervertebral foramen (hIVF) in the ACDF+UPR group. However, pre-operative wIVF was associated with post-operative JOA and VAS scores in the ACDF alone group. Those with pre-operative wIVF <3 mm in the ACDF group had the least improvement in post-operative clinical symptoms due to the change in wIVF (P > 0.05). The ACDF group whose wIVF was over 3 mm showed similar clinical outcomes to the ACDF + UPR group, and wIVF significantly increased post-operatively (P < 0.05). The fusion rate and C2–C7 Cobb angles did not show significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05).Discussion: Our current findings suggest that UPR should be considered when wIVF is <3 mm pre-operatively. However, there is no need to sacrifice the uncovertebral joint in ACDF when the pre-operative wIVF is over 3 mm.Level of Evidence: Level III.

Highlights

  • In cervical radiculopathy, uncovertebral osteophytes are one of the most common causes of nerve root compression [1, 2]

  • Only the uncovertebral joints are involved in nerve root compression, and an immunohistochemical and histological study supported that the uncovertebral joints could be a potential pain generator in cervical radiculopathy patients because osteophytes from the uncinate process (UP) can develop foraminal stenosis, resulting in cervical radiculopathy [5]

  • The results demonstrated that the improvement of Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores was irrelevant to the pre-operative width of intervertebral foramen (IVF) (wIVF) in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) + uncinate process resection (UPR) but was associated with pre-operative wIVF in ACDF alone (Figure 3)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Uncovertebral osteophytes are one of the most common causes of nerve root compression [1, 2]. Only the uncovertebral joints are involved in nerve root compression, and an immunohistochemical and histological study supported that the uncovertebral joints could be a potential pain generator in cervical radiculopathy patients because osteophytes from the uncinate process (UP) can develop foraminal stenosis, resulting in cervical radiculopathy [5]. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been established as a classic procedure for the management of cervical radiculopathy in patients who fail conservative treatment. Due to the controversial role of uncovertebral joint resection, in this study, we sought to establish criteria to assess when UPR is necessary for treating patients with cervical radiculopathy. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been established as a classic procedure for the management of cervical radiculopathy It is unclear whether combined uncinate process resection (UPR) is necessary for treating cervical radiculopathy. We investigated the clinical outcome of ACDF combined with UPR compared to ACDF alone to determine the necessity of UPR in treating cervical radiculopathy.

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call