Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion or Posterior Foraminotomy for Cervical Radiculopathy: Results of a Single-Center Series

Abstract

Background Anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior foraminotomy (PF) are standard treatment options for cervical radiculopathy due to disk prolapse. Which method produces superior results has not yet been established. One reason for the dilemma, among others, is a lack of detailed outcome analysis in previous studies. We quantified outcome to compare both methods in our retrospective single-center series.

Method We conducted a retrospective analysis of 107 patients with cervical radiculopathy who were operated on via ACDF or via PF. Demographic data, symptoms, neurologic status, and pathology were recorded and correlated to outcome parameters such as Odom's criteria, visual analog scale values of radicular pain, Neck Disability Index values, and subjective satisfaction, which were also compared between both treatment groups. Intraoperative data, early and late complications, and reoperations were recorded and compared between both surgical groups.

Results None of the recorded preoperative data were predictive for postoperative outcome parameters. Patients in the PF group reported better overall outcome (Odom's criteria) and greater relief of radicular and neck pain. Operative time and blood loss were less in the PF group. Both groups showed comparable early complication rates, but PF patients tended to have more late reoperations.

Conclusion Due to a better overall outcome as well as greater relief of radicular and neck pain in our cohort, we consider PF the first-line treatment if morphology of the pathology is suitable.

Keywords

anterior cervical decompression and fusion - cervical radiculopathy - cervical disk prolapse - posterior foraminotomy

^* These authors have contributed equally to this article.

• References

• 1 Goffin JC. Management of soft cervical disc herniation: controversies and complication avoidance. In: Benzel EC. , ed. Spine Surgery. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2012: 779-786
• 2 Cloward RB. The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 1958; 15 (06) 602-617
• 3 Hadley MN, Sonntag VK. Cervical disc herniations. The anterior approach to symptomatic interspace pathology. Neurosurg Clin N Am 1993; 4 (01) 45-52
• 4 Woertgen C, Rothoerl RD, Henkel J, Brawanski A. Long term outcome after cervical foraminotomy. J Clin Neurosci 2000; 7 (04) 312-315
• 5 Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT, Overholt DP. Surgical management of cervical soft disc herniation. A comparison between the anterior and posterior approach. Spine 1990; 15 (10) 1026-1030
• 6 Korinth MC, Krüger A, Oertel MF, Gilsbach JM. Posterior foraminotomy or anterior discectomy with polymethyl methacrylate interbody stabilization for cervical soft disc disease: results in 292 patients with monoradiculopathy. Spine 2006; 31 (11) 1207-1214 ; discussion 1215–1216
• 7 Schebesch KM, Albert R, Schödel P, Proescholdt M, Lange M, Brawanski A. A single neurosurgical center's experience of the resolution of cervical radiculopathy after dorsal foraminotomy and ventral discectomy. J Clin Neurosci 2011; 18 (08) 1090-1092
• 8 Wirth FP, Dowd GC, Sanders HF, Wirth C. Cervical discectomy. A prospective analysis of three operative techniques. Surg Neurol 2000; 53 (04) 340-346 ; discussion 346–348
• 9 Smith GW, Robinson RA. The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1958; 40-A [phone]
• 10 Frykholm R. Deformities of dural pouches and strictures of dural sheaths in the cervical region producing nerve-root compression; a contribution to the etiology and operative treatment of brachial neuralgia. J Neurosurg 1947; 4 (05) 403-413
• 11 Frykholm R. Lower cervical nerve roots and their investments. Acta Chir Scand 1951; 101 (06) 457-471
• 12 Frykholm R. Lower cervical vertebrae and intervertebral discs; surgical anatomy and pathology. Acta Chir Scand 1951; 101 (05) 345-359
• 13 Frykholm R. The mechanism of cervical radicular lesions resulting from friction or forceful traction. Acta Chir Scand 1951; 102 (02) 93-98
• 14 Frykholm R. Cervical epidural structures, periradicular and epineurial sheaths. Acta Chir Scand 1951; 102 (01) 10-20
• 15 Miyazaki M, Hong SW, Yoon SH, Morishita Y, Wang JC. Reliability of a magnetic resonance imaging-based grading system for cervical intervertebral disc degeneration. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008; 21 (04) 288-292
• 16 Odom GL, Finney W, Woodhall B. Cervical disk lesions. J Am Med Assoc 1958; 166 (01) 23-28
• 17 Huskisson EC. Measurement of pain. Lancet 1974; 2 (7889): 1127-1131
• 18 Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991; 14 (07) 409-415
• 19 Bydon M, Xu R, Macki M. , et al. Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in a large series. Neurosurgery 2014; 74 (02) 139-146 ; discussion 146
• 20 Wang TY, Lubelski D, Abdullah KG, Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC, Mroz TE. Rates of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion after initial posterior cervical foraminotomy. Spine J 2015; 15 (05) 971-976
• 21 Skolasky RL, Albert TJ, Vaccaro AR, Riley III LH. Patient satisfaction in the cervical spine research society outcomes study: relationship to improved clinical outcome. Spine J 2009; 9 (03) 232-239
• 22 Cho TG, Kim YB, Park SW. Long term effect on adjacent segment motion after posterior cervical foraminotomy. Korean J Spine 2014; 11 (01) 1-6