Clinical and radiological results of posterior cervical foraminotomy at two or three levels: a 3-year follow-up
- 122 Downloads
Single-level unilateral posterior cervical foraminotomy is regarded as a safe method. However, the outcomes of posterior cervical foraminotomy performed on two or three levels are uncertain and debated. We aimed to analyze the long-term clinical and radiological outcomes of posterior cervical foraminotomy at two or three levels.
From September 2008 to December 2011, a total of 42 patients who underwent a posterior cervical foraminotomy at two or three levels and were followed for at least 3 years were analyzed with retrospective cohort study. Clinical assessments were performed using the visual analog scale (VAS), neck disability index (NDI) and modified MacNab criteria. Radiological evaluation included the assessment of static and dynamic lateral radiographs to identify instability, postlaminectomy kyphotic deformity, adjacent segmental degeneration (ASD), and focal degeneration.
The mean VAS improved from preoperative score 8.5 ± 0.3 to postoperative score 1.8 ± 0.5 significantly. The mean presenting NDI score was 32.9 ± 2.0 and the mean postoperative NDI score was 14.2 ± 1.3. Improvement of radiculopathy was displayed in 39 patients (92.9%). During radiological evaluation, no significant change in disc height related to ASD and focal degeneration was noted. However, we confirmed one patient with radiological instability and one patient with radiological postlaminectomy kyphotic deformity.
Posterior cervical foraminotomy at two or three levels is fairly effective for treating patients with cervical radiculopathy, and results in long-lasting pain relief and improved quality of life in nearly all patients. However, further studies of three levels that include more patients are needed.
KeywordsPosterior foraminotomy Cervical Foraminotomy Multilevel
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of formal consent is not required.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this article.
- 14.Jagannathan J, Sherman JH, Szabo T, Shaffrey CI, Jane JA (2009) The posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical disc/osteophyte disease: a single-surgeon experience with a minimum of 5 years’ clinical and radiographic follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 10:347–356CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Korinth MC, Kruger A, Oertel MF, Gilsbach JM (2006) Posterior foraminotomy or anterior discectomy with polymethyl methacrylate interbody stabilization for cervical soft disc disease: results in 292 patients with monoradiculopathy. Spine 31:1207–1214. discussion 1215-1206 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Selvanathan SK, Beagrie C, Thomson S, Corns R, Deniz K, Derham C, Towns G, Timothy J, Pal D (2015) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of brachialgia: the Leeds spinal unit experience (2008-2013). Acta Neurochir 157:1595–1600CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Tschugg A, Neururer S, Scheufler KM, Ulmer H, Thome C, Hegewald AA (2014) Comparison of posterior foraminotomy and anterior foraminotomy with fusion for treating spondylotic foraminal stenosis of the cervical spine: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (ForaC). Trials 15:437CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar