Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy Research Articles

Key Takeaways From ISASS Webinar Series on Endoscopic Spine Surgery Techniques | Part 4: Advancing the Curve on Surgeons' Experience With Complex Lumbar Revision Scenarios, Grades 1 to 3 Spondylolytic Spondylolisthesis, Cervical Foraminotomy, and Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.

The fourth webinar in a 4-part series hosted by the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery explored contemporary endoscopic spine surgery techniques. This session covered complex revision strategies, endoscopic management of grades 1-3 spondylolytic spondylolisthesis, cervical foraminotomy, and decompression techniques for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). The aim was to assess surgeon endorsement of the discussed endoscopic spine surgery techniques both before and after the webinar using polytomous Rasch analysis. Additionally, the analysis sought to determine how these insights might shape clinical guideline recommendations. Before the webinar, which was attended by 868 potential participants, a survey was distributed to collect data on the level of support for various techniques using a Likert scale. The polytomous Rasch model analyzed these responses by evaluating decision complexity relative to surgeon expertise. This approach helped develop a logarithmic scale to objectively analyze categorical responses, distinguish between congruent and incongruent items, and contribute to the enhancement of clinical guidelines. Of the 868 surgeons, 263 accessed, 150 started, and 118 completed the prewebinar survey, with a completion rate of 78.7%. The participants were mainly orthopedic surgeons (59.3%) and neurosurgeons (34.7%) but also included residents (2.5%), fellows (1.7%), and interventional radiologists (1.7%). In the postwebinar phase, 298 participants accessed the survey, 169 started it, and 128 completed it, achieving a 75.7% completion rate. The demographics of postwebinar participants closely mirrored the initial group: 66.4% orthopedic surgeons, 23.4% neurosurgeons, 3.6% residents, 2.9% fellows, 0.7% medical students, and 2.9% interventional radiologists. The Rasch analysis confirmed high surgeon confidence for the posterior cervical foraminotomy and endoscopic treatment of spondylolytic spondylolisthesis grades 1 to 3 and posterior endoscopic decompression for CSM. Both pre- and postwebinar responses showed a good fit to the Rasch model for these endoscopic techniques, indicating minimal bias, supported by differential item functioning analysis. The application of the endoscopic surgery platform for procedures such as lumbar revision surgery for adjacent segment disease or failed interbody fusion cages and posterior decompression of CSM saw little shift in endorsement, as evidenced both in descriptive and the logarithmically transformed Rasch statistics. This webinar highlighted the evolving consensus on best practices in endoscopic spine surgery, displaying wide acceptance of endoscopic debridement of spondylolytic spondylolisthesis, cervical foraminotomy for herniated disc and bony stenosis, and posterior endoscopic decompression for CSM. Assessing surgeon confidence and acceptance of endoscopic spinal surgeries using polytomous Rasch analysis. Level 2 (inferential) and 3 (observational) evidence because Rasch analysis provides statistical validation of instruments rather than direct clinical outcomes.

Insights on High-Value Procedures From the ISASS 4-Part Webinar Series on Current and Emerging Techniques in Endoscopic Spine Surgery Based on Surgeon Experience.

The authors conducted a comprehensive review and integration of insights from 4 webinars hosted by the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS) to arrive at recommendations for best clinical practices for guideline development for endoscopic spine surgery. This perspective article discusses the limitations of traditional surgical trials and amalgamates surgeons' experience and research on various cutting-edge techniques. Data were extracted from surveys conducted during each webinar session involving 3639 surgeons globally. The polytomous Rasch model was employed to analyze responses, ensuring a robust statistical assessment of surgeon endorsements and educational impacts and focusing on operative nuances and experience-based outcomes. Bias detection was performed using the differential item functioning test. The ISASS webinars provided a dynamic platform for discussing advances in endoscopic spine surgery, identifying a range of high-value procedures from basic discectomies to complex lumbar interbody fusions. Each high-value endoscopic spine surgery was highlighted in separate peer-reviewed publications, which form the basis for this summary document that synthesizes key takeaways from these webinars. High-value clinical applications of endoscopic spine surgery, primarily defined as higher-intensity endorsement transformation from the pre- to postwebinar survey with a shift to higher mean logit locations of test items both with unbiased and orderly threshold progression, were: (a) Percutaneous interlaminar endoscopic decompression for lateral canal stenosis, (b) transforaminal debridement of low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis, (c) transforaminal full-endoscopic interbody fusion for hard disc herniation, (d) endoscopic standalone lumbar interbody fusion, (e) endoscopic debridement of spondylolytic spondylolisthesis, and (f) posterior cervical foraminotomy for herniated disc and bony stenosis. The ISASS webinar series has significantly impacted surgeons' education and contributed to the identification of high-value endoscopic spine surgery practices that may serve as a cornerstone for surgeon training standards, policy, and guidelines development. Ongoing research on technological advancements and expansions of clinical indications combined with systematic review is expected to refine the recommendations on high-value endoscopic spinal surgeries recommended for enhanced reimbursement. Assessing surgeon confidence and acceptance of endoscopic spinal surgeries using polytomous Rasch analysis. Level 2 (inferential) and 3 (observational) evidence because Rasch analysis provides statistical validation of instruments rather than direct clinical outcomes.

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

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

Posterior Endoscopic Cervical Discectomy

Cervical radiculopathy is a prevalent disorder of the cervical spine. With advances in minimally invasive surgery, posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) has been conducted using an endoscopic system, demonstrating favorable clinical outcomes. Posterior endoscopic cervical foraminotomy or posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy could reduce blood loss, operating time, and hospital stay compared to conventional open PCF. We performed a full-endoscopic cervical approach employing one portal with integrated working and viewing channels. When conducting foraminotomy and discectomy, we simultaneously applied a partial pediculotomy, partial vertebrotomy approach to minimize neural retraction and ensure sufficient decompression of osseous structures. The authors illustrate the surgical technique of posterior endoscopic cervical foraminotomy with discectomy.

Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Craniolateral Inclinatory Foraminotomy

Study Design: Case series. Objective: Endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy gains attention for cervical radiculopathy due to its feasibility, better outcomes, and lower complications than traditional approaches, enabling efficient multilevel decompression in a single operation while avoiding anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion–related issues. However, with multilevel decompression, the remnant lamina becomes thin and fragile. We propose craniolateral inclinatory foraminotomy to minimize bone removal during laminotomy, reducing the risk of iatrogenic or postoperative lamina fractures in tandem decompression. Materials and Methods: From 2021 to 2022, 8 consecutive patients underwent the procedure and were followed up for at least 6 months. The VAS, NDI, and MacNab scores were recorded for clinical recovery and patient satisfaction evaluations. Preoperative and postoperative CT scans were utilized to measure the lamina preservation percentage at each level. Results: The clinical outcomes improved significantly in every patient. No postoperative neck pain, segmental instability, or lamina fracture were observed. The mean lamina preservation percentages of C5, C6, C7, and all vertebrae were 68.8%, 73.22%, 71.86%, and 72.18%, respectively. Conclusions: Ongoing technical adjustments will accompany endoscopic technique development to decrease complications and enhance benefits. Our reported technique avoids extensive laminotomy in multilevel tandem decompression, aiming to prevent lamina fractures and anticipate a reduction in postoperative neck pain. Level of Evidence: Level IV.

Comparative efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic and full-endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: a retrospective analysis.

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of the full-endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy (FE-PCF) and the unilateral biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy (UBE-PCF) in the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR). Patients who underwent posterior cervical spine surgery in our hospital from January 2020 to December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the surgical method, the patients were divided into two groups: FE-PCF group and UBE-PCF group. Perioperative data included operation time, Intraoperative blood loss and postoperative hospital stay were collected. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS)-arm, VAS-neck, and Neck Diability Index (NDI) was used to evaluate the clinical outcomes at preoperative, postoperative 1 week and Last follow-up. Serum creatine phosphokinase (CPK) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were recorded to evaluate surgical invasiveness. A total of 160 patients were included, including 89 cases of FE-PCF and 71 cases of UBE-PCF. The demographic and preoperative data showed no significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05). The mean operating time was significantly shorter in the UBE-PCF group compared to FE-PCF group (P < 0.05). Serum CRP and CPK levels of the two groups both exhibited a pattern of rising and then falling, peaking one day following surgery and decreasing to near normal values three days after the operation. Compared with preoperative, both groups showed significant improvement in postoperative VAS and NDI scores, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). However, the differences in results between the groups were not significant. Both UBE-PCF and FE-PCF are secure and efficient methods for treating CSR by continuous visualization. UBE-PCF offers predictable and adequate decompression within a reduced surgical duration, facilitated by its separate observation and operation channels.

Comparative Outcomes of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) versus Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy (PCF) in the Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy

Comparative Outcomes of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) versus Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy (PCF) in the Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy

Clinical Outcomes and Complications of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With a Comparison to Full-Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy.

The unilateral biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy (UBE-PCF) has been recently adopted for unilateral radiating arm pain due to cervical herniated intervertebral disc or foraminal stenosis. We systematically meta-analyzed clinical outcomes and complications of the UBE-PCF and compared them with those of full-endoscopic PCF (FE-PCF). We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science until February 29, 2024. Clinical outcomes and complications of the UBE-PCF and FE-PCF were collected and analyzed using the fixed-effect or random-effects model. Clinical outcomes of the UBE-PCF were compared with minimal clinically important difference (MCID) following PCF to evaluate the efficacy of UBE-PCF. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. In the random-effects meta-analysis, the Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analogue scale (VAS) neck, and VAS arm were significantly decreased after the UBE-PCF (p<0.001). The improvement of NDI, VAS neck, and VAS arm were significantly higher than MCID (p<0.05). The improvement of NDI, VAS neck, and VAS arm were not significantly different between the UBE-PCF and FE-PCF (p>0.05). Overall incidence of complications of the UBE-PCF was 6.2% (24 of 390). The most common complication was dura tear (2.1%, 8 of 390). The incidence in overall complications was not significantly different between the UBE-PCF and FE-PCF (p=0.813). We found that the UBE-PCF significantly improved clinical outcomes. Regarding clinical outcomes and complications, the UBE-PCF and FE-PCF were not significantly different. Therefore, the UBE-PCF would be an advantageous surgical option comparable to FE-PCF for unilateral radiating arm pain.

Preoperative Factors on Loss of Range of Motion after Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy.

Background and Objectives: Posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) aims to resolve cervical radiculopathy while preserving range of motion (ROM). However, its effectiveness in maintaining ROM is uncertain. This study investigates the changes in ROM after PCF and identifies preoperative factors that influence ROM reduction post surgery. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients treated at our hospital from August 2016 to September 2021. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain and the neck disability index (NDI). Radiological outcomes included the segmental angle (SA), cervical angle (CA), C2-C7 SVA, Pfirrmann grade, extent of facetectomy, foraminal stenosis, and ROM. Patients were categorized into two groups based on segmental ROM changes: decreased (Group D) and maintained (Group M). Radiological and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors for ROM loss after PCF. Results: 76 patients were included: 34 in Group D and 42 in Group M, with no demographic differences. Preoperatively, Group D had significantly larger flexion segmental and cervical angles than Group M (segmental, p < 0.001; cervical, p = 0.001). Group D also had a higher Pfirrmann grade (p = 0.014) and more bony bridge formations (p = 0.004). While no significant differences were observed in arm pain VAS and NDI scores, Group D exhibited worse neck pain VAS at the last follow-up (p = 0.03). Univariate linear regression indicated that preoperative segmental ROM (p < 0.001, B = 0.82) and bony bridge formation (p = 0.046, B = 5.33) were significant predictors of ROM loss post PCF. Conclusions: Patients with higher preoperative flexion angles and Pfirrmann grades at the operative level are at an increased risk for ROM loss and neck pain and often exhibit bony bridge formation. Accounting for these factors can improve surgical planning and patient outcomes.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Cervical One-Hole Split Endoscopic Keyhole Surgery for Cervical Radiculopathy.

One-hole Split Endoscopy (OSE) is a newer surgical modality that can be applied to posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF), lumbar discectomy, laminectomy, and decompression. It incorporates intervertebral foraminotomy, open surgery, and other lumboendoscopic techniques with a wide observation field, free space, and compatibility with various spinal surgical techniques and instruments. This study investigated the clinical efficacy of minimally invasive posterior cervical nucleus pulposus removal for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR) by OSE-Keyhole technique. This was a retrospective study of 63 patients treated with OSE keyhole treatment for CSR between May 2021 and September 2023 at Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University (Qingdao, China), and Second Hospital of Shandong University, respectively. Clinical outcomes included patients' preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) - arm and neck, Japanese Orthopaedic Association Assessment Treatment Score (JOA) - cervical spine, which were collected at baseline, two days postoperatively, one month postoperatively, and three months postoperatively after the last follow-up visit for evaluation, and perioperative indicators, including intraoperative bleeding, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and reoperations, which were also collected. Statistical analyses were performed for the baseline data and follow-up results of 63 patients. Compared to the preoperative baseline values, the follow-up results two days, one month and three months after surgery showed significant improvements in vas-arm, neck and JOA scores in the operated patients (P<0.05) as well as a reduction in all perioperative-related indices. In the treatment of cervical pain and disability due to radiculopathy, OSE keyhole removal of the posterior cervical nucleus pulposus is a better clinical option as it is less invasive and recovers better postoperatively.

Rapid qualitative analysis of recruitment obstacles in the FORVAD (Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy surgery versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy surgery in the treatment of cervical brachialgia) randomised, controlled trial

BackgroundThe number of surgical trials is increasing but such trials can be complex to deliver and pose specific challenges. A multi-centre, Phase III, RCT comparing Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Treatment of Cervical Brachialgia (FORVAD Trial) was unable to recruit to target. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during trial closedown to understand the experiences of healthcare professionals who participated in the FORVAD Trial, with the aim of informing future research in this area.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 healthcare professionals who had participated in the FORVAD Trial. Interviews explored participants’ experiences of the FORVAD trial. A rapid qualitative analysis was conducted, informed by Normalisation Process Theory.ResultsFour main themes were generated in the data analysis: (1) individual vs. community equipoise; (2) trial set-up and delivery; (3) identifying and approaching patients; and (4) timing of randomisation. The objectives of the FORVAD trial made sense to participants and they supported the idea that there was clinical or collective equipoise regarding the two FORVAD interventions; however, many surgeons had treatment preferences and lacked individual equipoise. The site which had most recruitment success had adopted a more structured process for identification and recruitment of patients, whereas other sites that adopted more “ad hoc” screening strategies struggled to identify patients. Randomisation on the day of surgery caused both medico-legal and practical concerns at some sites.ConclusionsOrganisation and implementation of a surgical trial in neurosurgery is complex and presents many challenges. Sites often reported low recruitment and discussed the logistical issues of conducting a complex surgical RCT. Future trials in neurosurgery may need to offer more flexibility and time during set-up to maximise opportunities for larger recruitment numbers. Rapid qualitative analysis informed by Normalisation Process Theory was able to quickly identify key issues with trial implementation so rapid qualitative analysis may be a useful approach for teams conducting qualitative research in trials.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN reference: 10,133,661. Registered 23rd November 2018.

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

Posterior cervical foraminotomy (posterior surgery) is a valid alternative to anterior discectomy with fusion (anterior surgery) as a surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy, but the quality of evidence has been limited. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of these treatments after 2 years of follow-up. We hypothesized that posterior surgery would be noninferior to anterior surgery. This multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial assessed patients with single-level cervical radiculopathy in 9 Dutch hospitals with a follow-up duration of 2 years. The primary outcomes measured reduction of cervical radicular pain and were the success ratio based on the Odom criteria, and arm pain and decrease in arm pain, evaluated with the visual analog scale, with a 10% noninferiority margin, which represents the maximum acceptable difference between the new treatment (posterior surgery) and the standard treatment (anterior surgery), beyond which the new treatment would be considered clinically unacceptable. The secondary outcomes were neck pain, Neck Disability Index, Work Ability Index, quality of life, complications (including reoperations), and treatment satisfaction. Generalized linear mixed effects modeling was used for analyses. The study was registered at the Overview of Medical Research in the Netherlands (OMON), formerly the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR5536). From January 2016 to May 2020, 265 patients were randomized (132 to the posterior surgery group and 133 to the anterior surgery group). Among these, 25 did not have the allocated intervention; 11 of these 25 patients had symptom improvement, and the rest of the patients did not have the intervention due to various reasons. At the 2-year follow-up, of 243 patients, primary outcome data were available for 236 patients (97%). Predicted proportions of a successful outcome were 0.81 after posterior surgery and 0.74 after anterior surgery (difference in rate, -0.06 [1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.02]), indicating the noninferiority of posterior surgery. The between-group difference in arm pain was -2.7 (1-sided 95% CI, 7.4) and the between-group difference in the decrease in arm pain was 1.5 (1-sided 95% CI, 8.2), both confirming the noninferiority of posterior surgery. The secondary outcomes demonstrated small between-group differences. Serious surgery-related adverse events occurred in 9 patients (8%) who underwent posterior surgery, including 9 reoperations, and 11 patients (9%) who underwent anterior surgery, including 7 reoperations (difference in reoperation rate, -0.02 [2-sided 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.05]). This trial demonstrated that, after a 2-year follow-up, posterior surgery was noninferior to anterior surgery with regard to the success rate and arm pain reduction in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Radiological cervical foraminal stenosis severity and morphology as a predictor of pre-operative function and functional surgical outcome

Background Cervical foraminal stenosis on MRI may be assessed using the Kim, modified Kim or Siller methods. This study aimed to investigate which morphological features of cervical foraminal stenosis in patients with cervical radiculopathy correlated best with pre-operative and post-operative surgical outcome following Anterior Cervical Discectomy (ACD) or a Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy (PCF). Methods Pre-operative MRIs of adults with cervical radiculopathy were assessed by six raters. The following measurements were made; uncompressed nerve root diameter, maximal compressed nerve root diameter, anterior & posterior compression, length of the neuroforaminal canal where the diameter was less than the uncompressed nerve root diameter and the distance of maximum compression from the apex of the ligamentum flavum. The Kim, modified Kim and Siller grades were calculated. Neck Disability Index (NDI) was measured pre-operatively and six weeks post-operatively. The radiological measurements and grades were compared to the pre-operative and change in NDI. Results Mean NDI was higher in female (58.2) than male patients (45.6) p = 0.05. No other baseline, operative or radiological factors where significantly associated with the pre-operative NDI. The mean [±SD] post-operative NDI was 14.3 [±22.5]. This represents a change of 37.8 (p < 0.001). The pre-operative NDI correlated strongly with the post-operative NDI but no other patient, operation or radiological factors correlated significantly. Neither pre-operative NDI or change in NDI was statistically different in those treated with ACD and those treated with PCF. Conclusion There was no association between pre-operative NDI and any of the radiological measurements or radiological grades. Furthermore, whilst surgery significantly improved NDI, for those patients with anterior compression, there was no difference in outcome between those treated with an ACD and those treated with a PCF. Current axial MRIs do not adequately assess the cervical nerve root foramina or predict surgical approach, 3D isotropic acquisition and DTI should be explored.

Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy vs. anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the treatment of patients with single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy.

The aim of this study was to observe the clinical efficacy and safety of minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy (SLUCR). We retrospectively analyzed 81 patients with SLUCR in two hospitals from February 2020 to February 2022, including the MI-PCF group (n=40) and the ACDF group (n=41). The differences in neck and shoulder pain, visual analog score (VAS), upper limb radiating pain (VAS), and neck disability index (NDI) were compared. Operative time, intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay, and complications were also compared between the two groups. The degree of neck and shoulder pain relief at 1 day postoperatively was better in the ACDF group than in the MI-PCF group (p<0.05), while there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of neck and shoulder pain relief at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively, (p>0.05). There were no significant differences in the relief of upper limb radiating pain and the decrease of NDI scores between the two groups at 1 day, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery (p>0.05). The patients in MI-PCF group had shorter operative time, less bleeding, and shorter hospital stay, which were statistically different (p<0.05). There was no statistical difference in the complication rate between the two groups, (p>0.05). The clinical efficacy and safety of MI-PCF and ACDF in the treatment of SLUCR are satisfactory, meanwhile, MI-PCF has shorter operative time, less bleeding and shorter hospital stay than ACDF, which is worthy of clinical promotion.

Microendoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy Using TELIGEN: 2-Dimensional Operative Video.

This operative video details the treatment of cervical radiculopathy caused by unilateral cervical foraminal stenosis through a microendoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy in the sitting position using the TELIGEN system. A 67-year-old male patient presented with a unilateral C6-7 radiculopathy with imaging corroborating severe foraminal stenosis. Therefore, a microendoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy was recommended rather than an anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion or arthroplasty to preserve segmental motion and minimize hardware-related complications. This video reviews the nuances of this approach and key surgical steps. Emphasis is given to the patient positioning and ergonomic favorability and enhanced visualization afforded by the TELIGEN endoscopic platform. The patient tolerated the procedure well and reported significant improvement of radiculopathy after surgery. At 2-week follow-up, the patient reported resolution of his preoperative symptoms and returned to normal activity without restrictions. The patient consented to the procedure, and the participants and any identifiable individuals consented to publication of his/her image.

Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy Under Lateral Decubitus Position with Local Anesthesia

Endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy is gaining popularity among endoscopic spine surgeons for the treatment of radiculopathy caused by foraminal stenosis. This study describes a technique utilizing lateral decubitus position for an endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy under Monitored Anesthesia Care (MAC) and local anesthesia only. 10 patients with contraindications to general anesthesia underwent the procedure, resulting in an improvement in cervical radicular pain with no perioperative complications. The findings suggest that this approach is a viable alternative for high-risk patients for general anesthesia care, expanding the surgical options for the treatment of radiculopathy.

324 How Much Money Do You Actually Save Your Hospital When You Choose a Posterior Foraminotomy Instead of an ACDF for Cervical Radiculopathy?

INTRODUCTION: To our knowledge, a comparison of the true intraoperative costs of anterior cervical fusion (ACDF) vs. posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) has never been done. METHODS: Total cost was divided into direct and indirect costs. Individual costs were obtained by direct observation, electronic medical records, and through querying multiple departments. Timestamps for personnel and material resources were documented. Total intraoperative costs were estimated for all single-level ACDFs and PCFs from 2017 to 2022. Regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with total cost. RESULTS: A total of 256 and 32 patients underwent single-level ACDFs and PCF for cervical radiculopathy, respectively. The average total intraoperative cost for ACDFs was $7,574 ± $3,175 versus $3,062 ± $547 for PCF. For ACDFs, supply cost (69% for ACDFs vs. 33% for PCF) was the major contributor, while personnel cost (67% for PCF vs. 31% for ACDFs) constituted most of the cost incurred during PCFs. Supply cost, particularly implant cost ($3,818 ± $2,316), appeared to influence cost variability in ACDFs, while personnel cost ($2,051 ± $419) seemingly explained cost variability in PCFs. On linear regression analysis, ACDFs (β coefficient: $4,685 ± $575, p &lt; 0.001), males (p = 0.03), and patients with commercial insurance (p = 0.01) had significantly higher total costs when controlled for age, comorbidities, and smoking status. CONCLUSIONS: TDABC is a feasible methodology for estimating differences in true intraoperative costs between ACDFs and PCFs for cervical radiculopathy. The major cost contributors were supply and personnel costs. Implant cost appeared to influence total cost variability in ACDFs, while personnel costs seemingly explained cost variability among PCFs. ACDFs were associated with an additional $4,685 ± $575 of total intraoperative cost as compared to PCFs. Males and patients with commercial insurance were also associated with significantly higher total costs.

Comparing posterior cervical foraminotomy with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in radiculopathic patients: an analysis from the Quality Outcomes Database.

The objective of this study was to compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between posterior foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients presenting with cervical radiculopathy. The Quality Outcomes Database was queried for patients who had undergone ACDF or posterior foraminotomy for radiculopathy. To create two highly homogeneous groups, optimal individual matching was performed at a 5:1 ratio between the two groups on 29 baseline variables (including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, symptoms, patient-reported scores, underlying pathologies, and levels treated). Outcomes of interest were length of stay, reoperations, patient-reported satisfaction, increase in EQ-5D score, and decrease in Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores for arm and neck pain as long as 1 year after surgery. Noninferiority analysis of achieving patient satisfaction and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in PROs was performed with an accepted risk difference of 5%. A total of 7805 eligible patients were identified: 216 of these underwent posterior foraminotomy and were matched to 1080 patients who underwent ACDF. The patients who underwent ACDF had more underlying pathologies, lower EQ-5D scores, and higher NDI and neck pain scores at baseline. Posterior foraminotomy was associated with shorter hospitalization (0.5 vs 0.9 days, p < 0.001). Reoperations within 12 months were significantly more common among the posterior foraminotomy group (4.2% vs 1.9%, p = 0.04). The two groups performed similarly in PROs, with posterior foraminotomy being noninferior to ACDF in achieving MCID in EQ-5D and neck pain scores but also having lower rates of maximal satisfaction at 12 months (North American Spine Society score of 1 achieved by 65.2% posterior foraminotomy patients vs 74.6% of ACDF patients, p = 0.02). The two procedures were found to be offered to different populations, with ACDF being selected for patients with more complicated pathologies and symptoms. After individual matching, posterior foraminotomy was associated with a higher reoperation risk within 1 year after surgery compared to ACDF (4.2% vs 1.9%). In terms of 12-month PROs, posterior foraminotomy was noninferior to ACDF in improving quality of life and neck pain. The two procedures also performed similarly in improving NDI scores and arm pain, but ACDF patients had higher maximal satisfaction rates.

Biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy with discectomy for unilateral radicular arm pain due to cervical herniated disc.

Recently, biportal endoscopic cervical approaches have been used to treat cervical degenerative disease. Biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy with or without discectomy has the advantage of reducing damage to the normal tissues during surgery and enhancing fast recovery after surgery. The biportal endoscopic cervical approach was performed using two portals. The first portal was an endoscopic viewing portal for the spinal endoscope, and the other portal was a working portal for using surgical instruments. The author illustrates the surgical technique of biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy with discectomy. The video can be found here: https://stream.cadmore.media/r10.3171/2024.1.FOCVID23225.

Surgical Outcomes of Full Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy for Proximal Cervical Spondylotic Amyotrophy.

Retrospective analysis of case series. This study aimed to clarify the effects of full endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy (FPCF) on cervical spondylotic amyotrophy (CSA). The method for decompressing the ventral nerve root and anterior horn (AH) in CSA is controversial. Patients without myelopathy who underwent FPCF for proximal CSA between 2017 and 2022 were analyzed. The outcome measure was the results of the manual muscle testing (MMT) of the deltoid and biceps. Preoperative nerve root and AH compression were evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging. The intervertebral foramen morphology and bony decompression extent were evaluated by computed tomography. FPCF was performed at the C4/5 level and at the C4/5 and C5/6 levels in 14 and 11 patients, respectively. The width of the narrowest intervertebral foramen was significantly narrower on the affected side than on the healthy side at the C4/5 (2.5 mm vs. 3.6 mm) and operated C5/6 (1.9 mm vs. 3.1 mm) levels. AH compression occurred at the C4/5 and C5/6 levels in 28% and 21% of the patients, respectively. Bony decompression was performed laterally beyond the narrowest foramen at the C4/5 and C5/6 levels in 96% and 91% of the patients, respectively. Compared with patients without AH compression, in those with AH compression, the lamina was resected medially by an average of >1.7 mm and >3.6 mm at the C4/5 and C5/6 levels, respectively. Furthermore, 76% and 81% of the facet joint surfaces were preserved at the C4/5 and C5/6 levels, respectively. Postoperative MMT grade improvement was excellent, good, and fair in 64%, 20%, and 16% of the patients, respectively. FPCF was effective for treating proximal CSA.