15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Minimally Invasive versus Open Cervical Foraminotomy: A Systematic Review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy is an effective treatment for cervical radiculopathy due to disc herniations or spondylosis. Over the last decade, minimally invasive (i.e., percutaneous) procedures have become increasingly popular due to a smaller incision size and presumed benefits in postoperative outcomes. We performed a systematic review of the literature and identified studies of open or percutaneous laminoforaminotomy that reported one or more perioperative outcomes. Of 162 publications found by our initial screening, 19 were included in the final analysis. Summative results indicate that patients undergoing percutaneous cervical laminoforaminotomy have lower blood loss by 120.7 mL (open: 173.5 mL, percutaneous: 52.8 mL, n = 670), a shorter surgical time by 50.0 minutes (open: 108.3 minutes, percutaneous: 58.3 minutes, n = 882), less inpatient analgesic use by 25.1 Eq (open: 27.6 Eq, percutaneous: 2.5 Eq, n = 356), and a shorter hospital stay by 2.2 days (open: 3.2 days, percutaneous: 1.0 days, n = 1472), compared with patients undergoing open procedures. However, the heterogeneous nature of published data calls into question the reliability of these summative results. Further structured trials should be conducted to better characterize the risks and benefits of percutaneous laminoforaminotomy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Full-endoscopic cervical posterior foraminotomy for the operation of lateral disc herniations using 5.9-mm endoscopes: a prospective, randomized, controlled study.

          Prospective, randomized, controlled study of patients with lateral cervical disc herniations, operated either in a full-endoscopic posterior or conventional microsurgical anterior technique. Comparison of results of cervical discectomies in full-endoscopic posterior foraminotomy technique with the conventional microsurgical anterior decompression and fusion. Anterior cervical decompression and fusion is the standard procedure for operation of cervical disc herniations with radicular arm pain. Mobility-preserving posterior foraminotomy is the most common alternative in the case of lateral localization of the pathology. Despite good clinical results, problems may arise due to traumatization of the access. Endoscopic techniques are considered standard in many areas, since they may offer advantages in surgical technique and rehabilitation. These days, all disc herniations of the lumbar spine can be operated in full-endoscopic technique. With the full-endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy a procedures is available for cervical disc operations. One hundred and seventy-five patients with full-endoscopic posterior or microsurgical anterior cervical discectomy underwent follow-up for 2 years. In addition to general and specific parameters, the following measuring instruments were used: VAS, German version North American Spine Society Instrument, Hilibrand Criteria. After surgery 87.4% of the patients no longer had arm pain, and 9.2% had occasional pain. The clinical results were the same in both groups. There were no significant difference between the groups in the revision or complication rate. The full-endoscopic technique brought advantages in operation technique, preserving mobility, rehabilitation, and traumatization. The recorded results show that the full-endoscopic posterior foraminotomy is a sufficient and safe supplement and alternative to conventional procedures when the indication criteria are fulfilled. At the same time, it offers the advantages of a minimally invasive intervention.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A new full-endoscopic technique for cervical posterior foraminotomy in the treatment of lateral disc herniations using 6.9-mm endoscopes: prospective 2-year results of 87 patients.

            Anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) is the standard procedure for operation of cervical disc herniations with radicular arm pain. Mobility-preserving posterior foraminotomy is the most common alternative in the case of a lateral localization of the pathology. Despite good clinical results, problems may arise due to traumatization of the access. Endoscopic techniques are considered standard in many areas, since they may offer advantages in surgical technique and rehabilitation. These days, all disc herniations of the lumbar spine can be operated in a full-endoscopic technique. The objective of this prospective study was to examine the technical possibilities of full-endoscopic posterior foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical lateral disc herniations. 87 patients were followed for 2 years. The results show that 87.4% no longer have arm pain and 9.2% have only occasional pain. The decompression results were equal to those of conventional procedures. The operation-related traumatization was reduced. The recurrence rate was 3.4%. No serious surgical complications occurred. The recorded results show that the full-endoscopic posterior foraminotomy is a sufficient and safe supplement and alternative to conventional procedures when the indication criteria are fulfilled. At the same time, it offers the advantages of a minimally invasive intervention.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Higher risk of dural tears and recurrent herniation with lumbar micro-endoscopic discectomy.

              Existing studies on micro-endoscopic lumbar discectomy report similar outcomes to those of open and microdiscectomy and conflicting results on complications. We designed a randomised controlled trial to investigate the hypothesis of different outcomes and complications obtainable with the three techniques. 240 patients aged 18-65 years affected by posterior lumbar disc herniation and symptoms lasting over 6 weeks of conservative management were randomised to micro-endoscopic (group 1), micro (group 2) or open (group 3) discectomy. Exclusion criteria were less than 6 weeks of pain duration, cauda equina compromise, foraminal or extra-foraminal herniations, spinal stenosis, malignancy, previous spinal surgery, spinal deformity, concurrent infection and rheumatic disease. Surgery and follow-up were made at a single Institution. A biomedical researcher independently collected and reviewed the data. ODI, back and leg VAS and SF-36 were the outcome measures used preoperatively, postoperatively and at 6-, 12- and 24-month follow-up. 212/240 (91%) patients completed the 24-month follow-up period. VAS back and leg, ODI and SF36 scores showed clinically and statistically significant improvements within groups without significant difference among groups throughout follow-up. Dural tears, root injuries and recurrent herniations were significantly more common in group 1. Wound infections were similar in group 2 and 3, but did not affect patients in group 1. Overall costs were significantly higher in group 1 and lower in group 3. In conclusion, outcome measures are equivalent 2 years following lumbar discectomy with micro-endoscopy, microscopy or open technique, but severe complications are more likely and costs higher with micro-endoscopy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Global Spine J
                Global Spine J
                Global Spine Journal
                Thieme Medical Publishers (333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. )
                2192-5682
                2192-5690
                December 2011
                : 1
                : 1
                : 9-14
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio
                [2 ]MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
                [3 ]Neurological Institute Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence and reprint requests Thomas E. Mroz Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, S-40, Cleveland, Ohio 44195 mrozt@ 123456ccf.org
                Article
                00024
                10.1055/s-0031-1296050
                3864482
                24353931
                6c529f4c-6d35-4d93-bb2e-448764ce5060
                © Thieme Medical Publishers
                History
                : 05 September 2011
                : 13 October 2011
                Categories
                Article

                cervical spine,laminoforaminotomy,minimally invasive spine surgery,percutaneous spine surgery,spine surgery outcomes

                Comments

                Comment on this article