TITLE:
Anterior Discectomy and Fusion versus Posterior Foraminotomy in Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy: A Comparative Prospective Study
AUTHORS:
Ahmad Abdalla, Ali A. Abd Elaleem
KEYWORDS:
Cervical Radiculopathy, Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion, Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy
JOURNAL NAME:
Open Journal of Modern Neurosurgery,
Vol.9 No.4,
October
18,
2019
ABSTRACT: Introduction: Cervical radiculopathy is caused by either cervical disc herniation or bone spurs due to cervical spine degeneration. It is common in middle aged and elderly patients. Those patients who are refractory to conservative treatment are candidates for surgical management. The surgical approaches for cervical radiculopathy are either anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF). In spite of many reports on ACDF and PCF, only a few studies directly compare the outcomes of both techniques. Purpose: To compare anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy, regarding the surgical, clinical and radiological outcomes. Patient and methods: This is a prospective randomized controlled clinical study carried on 44 patients with unilateral cervical radiculopathy. They are divided into 2 groups; group (A) included 23 patients who underwent ACDF and group (B) included 21 patients who underwent PCF, with 1 year follow up. The patient age, sex, clinical manifestations, surgical outcomes as number of cervical level, operative time, blood loss, complications and length of hospital stay were recorded. Visual analogus scale (VAS) and neck disability index (NDI) were used for evaluation of clinical outcomes. Postoperative imaging was done after 1 year to detect instability or adjacent level degeneration. Chi-square and unpaired T-test were used to compare the mean values of both groups. Results: The mean age was nearly 45 years for both groups. C5-6 ACDF was the most common level in group (A), while C6-7 PCF was the most frequent operated level in group (B). PCF group had less operative time, blood loss and length of hospital stay than ACDF group. Clinical improvement of the mean values of VAS and NDI were more pronounced in PCF group as compared to ACDF group with statistically significant difference. No cases of cervical instability were recorded during the period of follow up. Conclusion: Posterior cervical foraminotomy is a safe and effective technique for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy as compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. PCF has a shorter operative time, less hospital stay and better clinical outcome.