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.

Return-to-Duty Rates Following Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Performed on Active Duty Military Patients in an Ambulatory Surgery Center.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a primary health care utilization driver in the US population. Health care evaluation visits for low back pain are as common as medical evaluation for the common cold. Low back pain is the most common reason for reductions in activities of daily living and work activity in the general population. Although these statistics are compelling, in the military population, there is arguably a significantly greater economic impact on the military population, as the cost to train, retain, and deploy a service member is a tremendous cost. METHODS: The current study retrospectively examines surgical outcomes, return to duty, and patient-centric outcomes among 82 active duty or reserve military patients who underwent an outpatient minimally invasive spine surgery Laminotomy Foraminotomy Decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in an ambulatory surgery center. FINDINGS: Overall, our results indicate that within the 82 active duty military service members, 100% of the service members return to duty within 3 mo. Additionally, there was a significant reduction in self-reported pain and disability 12 mo postoperative, whereas the average length of surgery was 62 min with an average estimated blood loss of 30.64 mL. DISCUSSION: The current study indicates that minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in an ambulatory surgery center setting are an effective option for active duty servicemen to reduce return-to-duty rates and symptomatic back-related pain and disability.

A Transtubular Microsurgical Approach to Treat Lateral Cervical Disc Herniation.

OBJECTIVE: Different surgical options are available to treat radicular pain syndromes of the cervical spine. Use of the posterior approach for foraminotomy and sequestrectomy (Frykholm) fusion can be avoided, but neck pain affects the postoperative course. This retrospective study compares the classical Frykholm approach and the transtubular microsurgical approach for foraminotomy. METHODS: From 2004 to 2012, 40 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were enrolled into this retrospective study. The classical Frykholm approach was performed on 25 affected levels. The transtubular microsurgical approach was used on 19 affected levels. Endpoints were neck pain, radicular pain, surgery time, duration of hospital stay, and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: For the transtubular microsurgical approach and the classical Frykholm approach, the mean surgery time was 77.65 ± 23 minutes and 104 ± 27.59 minutes (P = 0.003), respectively. Radicular pain improved in all patients regardless of the technical approach. Significant differences were observed in neck pain on the first postoperative day (P = 0.003) and at discharge (P = 0.006), resulting in a shorter hospital stay of 4.82 days ± 2.1 for the transtubular microsurgical approach in comparison with 7.43 days ± 3.2 for the Frykholm approach (P = 0.005). According to the criteria of Odom, the rate of an excellent or good outcome was 97.5% (67.5% excellent and 30% good), without any differences between the compared approaches. CONCLUSION: The transtubular microsurgical approach shows advantages regarding postoperative neck pain, surgery time, and hospital stay with a trend towards an earlier return to work.

Reoperation rates after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus posterior cervical foraminotomy: a propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) are both used to surgically treat patients with cervical radiculopathy and have been shown to have similar outcomes. Nonetheless, ACDF has become increasingly more commonplace compared with PCF, in part because of a pervasive belief that PCF has a higher incidence of required reoperations. PURPOSE: To determine the reoperation rate at the index level of ACDF versus PCF 2 years postoperatively. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case-control. PATIENT SAMPLE: All patients that underwent ACDF and PCF for radiculopathy (excluding myelopathy indications) between January 2005 and December 2011. OUTCOME MEASURES: Revision surgery within 2 years, at the index level, was recorded. METHODS: Propensity score analysis between the ACDF and PCF groups was done, matching for age, gender, race, body mass index, tobacco use, median income and insurance status, primary surgeon, level of surgery, surgery duration, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Seven hundred ninety patients met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, including 627 ACDF and 163 PCF. Before propensity matching, the PCF group was found to be significantly older and more likely to be male. After matching, there were no significant differences between groups for any baseline characteristics. Reoperation rate at the index level was 4.8% for the ACDF group and 6.4% for the PCF group (p=.7) within 2 years of the initial surgery. Using equivalence testing, based on an a priori null hypothesis that a clinically meaningful difference between the two groups would be ≥5%, we found that the absolute difference of 1.6% was significantly (p=.01) less than our hypothesized difference. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that even after accounting for patient demographics, operative characteristics, and primary surgeon, there are no significant differences in 2-year reoperation rates at the index level between ACDF and PCF. The reoperation rates are statistically equivalent. Thus, spine surgeons can operate via the posterior approach without putting patients at increased risk for revision surgery at the index level.

[Learning curve for lumbar disc surgery]. / Courbe d'apprentissage pour la chirurgie de la hernie discale lombaire.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Various techniques are available for lumbar disc surgery. But failure and severe adverse events still occur during such procedures. Recent work concluded that the use of microscope was not mandatory for such procedures. METHODS: The first 70 spinal procedures for lower limb radicular syndrome by a surgeon at the beginning of this activity where studied. Particular interest was paid on adverse events, especially complications and failures. RESULT: Average duration of surgery (50min) and rate of reoperation (six reoperations needed out of 65 patients, five of them by the same surgeon) where, as expected, a bit higher than published in experienced hands. But no battered-root syndrome, injury to neighboring structures or other severe complication was observed. Noteworthy is that no patient was neurologically worsened by surgery. CONCLUSIONS: If the use of microscope may not be needed for lumbar disc open surgery in experienced hands, we strongly advice surgeons at the beginning of their practice to use it. At least, to avoid unforgiving mistakes such as picking out the root instead of the herniation.