Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain features evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for nonspecific low back pain as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2016. PURPOSE: The purpose of the guideline is to provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists when making clinical decisions for adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. This article provides a brief summary of the evidence-based guideline recommendations for diagnosing and treating patients with this condition. STUDY DESIGN: This is a guideline summary review. METHODS: This guideline is the product of the Low Back Pain Work Group of NASS' Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The methods used to develop this guideline are detailed in the complete guideline and technical report available on the NASS website. In brief, a multidisciplinary work group of spine care specialists convened to identify clinical questions to address in the guideline. The literature search strategy was developed in consultation with medical librarians. Upon completion of the systematic literature search, evidence relevant to the clinical questions posed in the guideline was reviewed. Work group members utilized NASS evidentiary table templates to summarize study conclusions, identify study strengths and weaknesses, and assign levels of evidence. Work group members participated in webcasts and in-person recommendation meetings to update and formulate evidence-based recommendations and incorporate expert opinion when necessary. The draft guideline was submitted to an internal and external peer review process and ultimately approved by the NASS Board of Directors. RESULTS: Eighty-two clinical questions were addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded according to the levels of evidence of the supporting literature. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence-based clinical guideline has been created using techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, literature search parameters, literature attrition flowchart, suggestions for future research, and all of the references, is available electronically on the NASS website at https://www.spine.org/ResearchClinicalCare/QualityImprovement/ClinicalGuidelines.aspx.

Guideline summary review: An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis features evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The guideline updates the 2008 guideline on this topic and is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for symptomatic degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of May 2013. The NASS guideline on this topic is the only guideline on degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis included in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC). PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists when making clinical decisions for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. This article provides a brief summary of the evidence-based guideline recommendations for diagnosing and treating patients with this condition. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of clinical studies relevant to degenerative spondylolisthesis was carried out. METHODS: This NASS spondyolisthesis guideline is the product of the Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Work Group of NASS' Evidence-Based Guideline Development Committee. The methods used to develop this guideline are detailed in the complete guideline and technical report available on the NASS website. In brief, a multidisciplinary work group of spine care specialists convened to identify clinical questions to address in the guideline. The literature search strategy was developed in consultation with medical librarians. Upon completion of the systematic literature search, evidence relevant to the clinical questions posed in the guideline was reviewed. Work group members used the NASS evidentiary table templates to summarize study conclusions, identify study strengths and weaknesses, and assign levels of evidence. Work group members participated in webcasts and in-person recommendation meetings to update and formulate evidence-based recommendations and incorporate expert opinion when necessary. The draft guidelines were submitted to an internal peer review process and ultimately approved by the NASS Board of Directors. Upon publication, the Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis guideline was accepted into the NGC and will be updated approximately every 5 years. RESULTS: Twenty-seven clinical questions were addressed in this guideline update, including 15 clinical questions from the original guideline and 12 new clinical questions. The respective recommendations were graded by strength of the supporting literature, which was stratified by levels of evidence. Twenty-one new or updated recommendations or consensus statements were issued and 13 recommendations or consensus statements were maintained from the original guideline. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical guideline was created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the care of patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, literature search parameters, literature attrition flow chart, suggestions for future research, and all of the references, is available electronically on the NASS website at https://www.spine.org/Pages/ResearchClinicalCare/QualityImprovement/ClinicalGuidelines.aspx and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

An evidence-based clinical guideline for antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline on Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery provides evidence-based recommendations to address key clinical questions regarding the efficacy and the appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis protocol to prevent surgical site infections in patients undergoing spine surgery. The guideline is intended to address these questions based on the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of June 2011. PURPOSE: Provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine surgeons in preventing surgical site infections. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline. METHODS: This guideline is a product of the Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery Work Group of NASS Evidence-Based Guideline Development Committee. The work group consisted of neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons who specialize in spine surgery and are trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE (PubMed), ACP Journal Club, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and Web of Science to identify articles published since the search performed for the original guideline. The relevant literature was then independently rated using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final recommendations to answer each clinical question were developed via work group discussion, and grades were assigned to the recommendations using standardized grades of recommendation. In the absence of Levels I to IV evidence, work group consensus statements have been developed using a modified nominal group technique, and these statements are clearly identified as such in the guideline. RESULTS: Sixteen clinical questions were formulated and addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supporting literature, which was stratified by levels of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical guideline for antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the care of patients undergoing spine surgery. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all the references, is available electronically on the NASS Web site at http://www.spine.org/Pages/PracticePolicy/ClinicalCare/ClinicalGuidlines/Default.aspx and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of cervical radiculopathy from degenerative disorders.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy from Degenerative Disorders provides evidence-based recommendations on key clinical questions concerning the diagnosis and treatment of cervical radiculopathy from degenerative disorders. The guideline addresses these questions based on the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of May 2009. The guideline's recommendations assist the practitioner in delivering optimum efficacious treatment of and functional recovery from this common disorder. PURPOSE: Provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine care providers in improving quality and efficiency of care delivered to patients with cervical radiculopathy from degenerative disorders. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline. METHODS: This report is from the Cervical Radiculopathy from Degenerative Disorders Work Group of the NASS' Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The work group consisted of multidisciplinary spine care specialists trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. Each member of the group formatted a series of clinical questions to be addressed by the group. The final questions agreed on by the group are the subjects of this report. A literature search addressing each question using a specific search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and four additional evidence-based databases. The relevant literature was then independently rated by a minimum of three reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final recommendations to answer each clinical question were arrived at via work group discussion, and grades were assigned to the recommendations using standardized grades of recommendation. In the absence of Levels I to IV evidence, work group consensus statements have been developed using a modified nominal group technique, and these statements are clearly identified as such in the guideline. RESULTS: Eighteen clinical questions were formulated, addressing issues of natural history, diagnosis, and treatment of cervical radiculopathy from degenerative disorders. The answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supporting literature, which was stratified by levels of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: A clinical guideline for cervical radiculopathy from degenerative disorders has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid both practitioners and patients involved with the care of this condition. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all references, is available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

Conception in an infertile patient following obliteration of a huge anterior sacral meningocele: case report.

INTRODUCTION: We present the case of a 35-year-old woman with a large anterior sacral meningocele who had been unable to conceive. RESULT AND DISCUSSION: Following neurosurgical consultation, she underwent repair of her meningocele which resulted in complete resolution of her meningocele and 1 year later, she delivered her first child. CONCLUSION: This case demonstrates that following surgical treatment, female patients with anterior sacral meningoceles may be able to conceive and bear children.

An evidence-based clinical guideline for the use of antithrombotic therapies in spine surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The objective of the North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline on antithrombotic therapies in spine surgery was to provide evidence-based recommendations to address key clinical questions surrounding the use of antithrombotic therapies in spine surgery. The guideline is intended to address these questions based on the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2008. The goal of the guideline recommendations was to assist in delivering optimum, efficacious treatment with the goal of preventing thromboembolic events. PURPOSE: To provide an evidence-based, educational tool to assist spine surgeons in minimizing the risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline. METHODS: This report is from the Antithrombotic Therapies Work Group of the NASS Evidence-Based Guideline Development Committee. The work group was composed of multidisciplinary spine care specialists, all of whom were trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. Each member of the group was involved in formatting a series of clinical questions to be addressed by the group. The final questions agreed on by the group are the subject of this report. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and four additional, evidence-based databases. The relevant literature was then independently rated by at least three reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final grades of recommendation for the answers to each clinical question were arrived at via Web casts among members of the work group using standardized grades of recommendation. When Level I to IV evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation to answer a specific clinical question, expert consensus was arrived at by the work group through the modified nominal group technique and is clearly identified as such in the guideline. RESULTS: Fourteen clinical questions were formulated, addressing issues of incidence of DVT and PE in spine surgery and recommendations regarding utilization of mechanical prophylaxis and chemoprophylaxis in spine surgery. The answers to these 14 clinical questions are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supporting literature that was stratified by levels of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: A clinical guideline addressing the use of antithrombotic therapies in spine surgery has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and using the best available evidence as a tool to assist spine surgeons in minimizing the risk of DVT and PE. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all references, is available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

Introduction and methodology: guidelines for the surgical management of cervical degenerative disease.

In March 2006, the Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons compiled an expert group to perform an evidence-based review of the clinical literature on management of cervical degenerative spine disease. This process culminated in the formation of the Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Cervical Degenerative Disease. The purpose of the Guidelines was to address questions regarding the therapy, diagnosis, and prognosis of cervical degenerative disease using an evidence-based approach. Development of an evidence-based review and recommendations is a multitiered process. Typical guideline development consists of 5 processes: 1) collection and selection of the evidence; 2) assessment of the quality and strength of the evidence; 3) analysis of the evidentiary data; 4) formulation of recommendations; and 5) guideline validation. This manuscript details the methodology in compiling the Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Cervical Degenerative Disease.

The natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

OBJECT: The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to delineate the natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and identify factors associated with clinical deterioration. METHODS: The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to the natural history of CSM. Abstracts were reviewed and studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I-III). Disagreements regarding the level of evidence were resolved through an expert consensus conference. The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. RESULTS: The natural history of CSM is mixed: it may manifest as a slow, stepwise decline or there may be a long period of quiescence (Class III). Long periods of severe stenosis are associated with demyelination and may result in necrosis of both gray and white matter. With severe and/or long lasting CSM symptoms, the likelihood of improvement with nonoperative measures is low. Objectively measurable deterioration is rarely seen acutely in patients younger than 75 years of age with mild CSM (modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale score > 12; Class I). In patients with cervical stenosis without myelopathy, the presence of abnormal electromyography findings or the presence of clinical radiculopathy is associated with the development of symptomatic CSM in this patient population (Class I). CONCLUSIONS: The natural history of CSM is variable, which may affect treatment decisions.

Clinical prognostic indicators of surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

OBJECT: The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to assess whether clinical factors predict surgical outcomes in patients undergoing cervical surgery. METHODS: The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to clinical preoperative factors. Abstracts were reviewed, and studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I-III). Disagreements regarding the level of evidence were resolved through an expert consensus conference. The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. RESULTS: Preoperative sensory-evoked potentials may aid in providing prognostic information in selected patients in whom clinical factors do not provide clear guidance (Class II). Age, duration of symptoms, and preoperative neurological function may commonly affect outcome (Class III). CONCLUSIONS: Age, duration of symptoms, and preoperative neurological function should be discussed with patients when surgical intervention for cervical spondylotic myelopathy is considered. Preoperative sensory-evoked potentials may be considered for patients in whom clinical factors do not provide clear guidance if such information would potentially change therapeutic decisions.

Preoperative patient selection with magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and electroencephalography: does the test predict outcome after cervical surgery?

OBJECT: The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to assess whether preoperative imaging or electromyography (EMG) predicts surgical outcomes in patients undergoing cervical surgery. METHODS: The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to the preoperative imaging and EMG. Abstracts were reviewed after which studies meeting inclusion criteria were selected. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I-III). Disagreements regarding the level of evidence were resolved through an expert consensus conference. The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. RESULTS: Preoperative MR imaging and CT myelography are successful in confirming clinical radiculopathy (Class II). Multilevel T2 hyperintensity, T1 focal hypointensity combined with T2 focal hyperintensity, and spinal cord atrophy each convey a poor prognosis (Class III). There is conflicting data concerning whether focal T2 hyperintensity or cervical stenosis are associated with a worse outcome. Electromyography has mixed utility in predicting outcome (Class III). CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging or CT myelography are important for preoperative assessment. Magnetic resonance imaging may be helpful in assessing prognosis, whereas EMG has mixed utility in assessing outcome.

Cervical surgical techniques for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

OBJECT: The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to compare the efficacy of different surgical techniques for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). METHODS: The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to anterior and posterior cervical spine surgery and CSM. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I-III). The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. RESULTS: A variety of techniques have improved functional outcome after surgical treatment for CSM, including anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF), anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion (ACCF), laminoplasty, laminectomy, and laminectomy with fusion (Class III). Anterior cervical discectomy with fusion and ACCF appear to yield similar results in multilevel spine decompression for lesions at the disc level. The use of anterior plating allows for equivalent fusion rates between these techniques (Class III). If anterior fixation is not used, ACCF may provide a higher fusion rate than multilevel ACDF but also a higher graft failure rate than multilevel ACDF (Class III). Anterior cervical discectomy with fusion, ACCF, laminectomy, laminoplasty, and laminectomy with arthrodesis all provide near-term functional improvement for CSM. However, laminectomy is associated with late deterioration compared with the other types of anterior and posterior surgeries (Class III). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple approaches exist with similar near-term improvements; however, laminectomy appears to have a late deterioration rate that may need to be considered when appropriate.

Cervical laminectomy for the treatment of cervical degenerative myelopathy.

OBJECT: The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to examine the efficacy of cervical laminectomy for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). METHODS: The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to cervical laminectomy and CSM. Abstracts were reviewed after which studies meeting inclusion criteria were selected. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I-III). Disagreements regarding the level of evidence were resolved through an expert consensus conference. The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. RESULTS: Laminectomy has improved functional outcome for symptomatic cervical myelopathy (Class III). The limitations of the technique are an increased risk of postoperative kyphosis compared to anterior techniques or laminoplasty or laminectomy with fusion (Class III). However, the development of kyphosis may not necessarily to diminish the clinical outcome (Class III). CONCLUSIONS: Laminectomy is an acceptable therapy for near-term functional improvement of CSM (Class III). It is associated with development of kyphosis, however.

Laminectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical degenerative myelopathy.

OBJECT: The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to examine the efficacy of cervical laminectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). METHODS: The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to cervical laminectomy, fusion, and CSM. Abstracts were reviewed, after which studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Class I-III). Disagreements regarding the level of evidence were resolved through an expert consensus conference. The group formulated recommendations which contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer-review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. RESULTS: Cervical laminectomy with fusion (arthrodesis) improves functional outcome in patients with CSM and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). Functional improvement is similar to laminectomy or laminoplasty for patients with CSM and OPLL. In contrast to laminectomy, cervical laminectomy with fusion it is not associated with late deformity (Class III). CONCLUSIONS: Laminectomy with fusion (arthrodesis) is an effective strategy to improve functional outcome in CSM and OPLL.

Cervical laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical degenerative myelopathy.

OBJECT: The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to examine the efficacy of cervical laminoplasty in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). METHODS: The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to cervical laminoplasty and CSM. Abstracts were reviewed and studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I-III). Disagreements regarding the level of evidence were resolved through an expert consensus conference. The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons. RESULTS: Cervical laminoplasty has improved functional outcome in the setting of CSM or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale score, approximately 55-60% average recovery rate has been observed (Class III). The functional improvement observed after laminoplasty may be limited by duration of symptoms, severity of stenosis, severity of myelopathy, and poorly controlled diabetes as negative risk factors (Class II). There is conflicting evidence regarding age, with 1 study citing it as a negative risk factor, and another not demonstrating this result. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical laminoplasty is recommended for the treatment of CSM or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (Class III).

Anterior cervical surgery for the treatment of cervical degenerative myelopathy.

OBJECT: The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to examine the efficacy of anterior cervical surgery for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). METHODS: The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and key words relevant to anterior cervical surgery and CSM. Abstracts were reviewed, and studies meeting inclusion criteria were selected. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I-III). Disagreements regarding the level of evidence were resolved through an expert consensus conference. The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. RESULTS: Mild CSM (modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association [mJOA] scale scores > 12) responds in the short term (3 years) to either surgical decompression or nonoperative therapy (prolonged immobilization in a stiff cervical collar, "low-risk" activity modification or bed rest, and antiinflammatory medications) (Class II). More severe CSM responds to surgical decompression with benefits being maintained a minimum of 5 years and as long as 15 years postoperatively (Class III). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of mild CSM may involve surgical decompression or nonoperative therapy for the first 3 years after diagnosis. More severe CSM (mJOA scale score

Techniques for anterior cervical decompression for radiculopathy.

OBJECT: The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to identify the best techniques for anterior cervical nerve root decompression. METHODS: The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to techniques for the surgical management of cervical radiculopathy. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I-III). The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer-review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. RESULTS: Both anterior cervical discectomy (ACD) and anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) are equivalent treatment strategies for 1-level disease with regard to functional outcome (Class II). Anterior cervical discectomy with fusion may achieve a more rapid reduction of neck and arm pain compared to ACD with a reduced risk of kyphosis, although functional outcomes may be similar. Anterior cervical discectomy with fusion is not a lasting means of increasing foraminal or disc height compared to ACD. Anterior cervical plating (ACDF with instrumentation) improves arm pain (but not other clinical parameters) better than ACDF in the treatment of 2-level disease (Class II). With respect to 1-level disease, plating may reduce the risk of pseudarthrosis and graft problems (Class III) but does not necessarily improve clinical outcome alone (Class II). Cervical arthroplasty is recommended as an alternative to ACDF in selected patients for control of neck and arm pain (Class II). CONCLUSIONS: Anterior cervical discectomy, ACDF, and arthroplasty are effective techniques for addressing surgical cervical radiculopathy.