Logo image
Comparing outcomes between anterior cervical disc replacement (ACDR) and minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Comparing outcomes between anterior cervical disc replacement (ACDR) and minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy

Stuart Changoor, Joseph Farshchian, Neil Patel, Daniel Coban, George Abdelmalek, Kumar Sinha, Ki Hwang and Arash Emami
The spine journal, Vol.24(5), pp.800-806
05/2024
PMID: 38185140

Abstract

Adult Aged Cervical Vertebrae - surgery Diskectomy - adverse effects Diskectomy - methods Female Foraminotomy - methods Humans Male Middle Aged Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - methods Postoperative Complications - epidemiology Postoperative Complications - etiology Radiculopathy - surgery Retrospective Studies Spinal Fusion - adverse effects Spinal Fusion - methods Total Disc Replacement - adverse effects Total Disc Replacement - methods Treatment Outcome
Anterior cervical disc replacement (ACDR) and minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) have emerged as two increasingly popular alternatives to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the management of cervical radiculopathy. Both techniques provide advantages of segmental motion preservation and lower rates of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) compared to ACDF. The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical and functional outcomes of patients undergoing ACDR or MI-PCF for the treatment of unilateral cervical radiculopathy. Retrospective Cohort Review. A total of 152 patients were included (86 ACDR and 66 MI-PCF). (1) Patient demographics; (2) perioperative data; (3) rates of complications and revisions; (5) visual analogue scale (VAS) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores. A retrospective cohort review was performed to identify all patients at a single institution between 2012-2020 who underwent 1- or 2- level ACDR or MI-PCF from C3-C7 with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Patient demographics, perioperative data, postoperative complications, and revisions were analyzed. Patient reported outcome measures including VAS and NDI scores were compared. The ACDR group had a significantly greater mean operative time (99.8 minutes vs 79.2 minutes, p<.001), but comparable estimated blood loss and length of stay following surgical intervention (p=.899). The overall complication rate was significantly greater in the ACDR group than the MI-PCF group (24.4% vs 6.2%; p=.003) but was largely driven by approach-related dysphagia in 20.9% of ACDR patients. The MI-PCF group had significantly greater revision rates (13.6% vs 1.2%; p=.002) with an average time to revision of 20.7 months in the MI-PCF group compared to 40.3 months in the ACDR group. The ACDR cohort had significantly greater improvements in NDI scores at the final follow-up (25.0 vs 21.3, p<.001). Our results suggest that ACDR offer clinically relevant advantages over MI-PCF in terms of long-term revision rates despite an increased approach-related risk of transient postoperative dysphagia. Additionally, patients in the ACDR cohort achieved greater mean improvements in NDI scores but these results may have limited clinical significance due to inability to reach minimally clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds.

Metrics

1 Record Views

Details

Logo image