Minimally Invasive Disc Preserving Surgery in Cervical Radiculopathies: The Posterior Microscopic and Endoscopic Approach

  • Angelo FranziniEmail author
  • Giuseppe Messina
  • Paolo Ferroli
  • Giovanni Broggi
Part of the Acta Neurochirurgica Supplementum book series (NEUROCHIRURGICA, volume 108)


The aim of this paper is the report of the long-term results of a prospective study on spinal cervical lamino-foraminotomy via posterior route for the surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathies due to spondylodiscoarthrosis. The goal of the described surgical procedure is the bony decompression of the involved root leaving the intervertebral protruded or herniated discs intact. Indication, surgical technique, outcome and complications are discussed. Although anterior spinal cervical approach is the standard for centrally-located disc herniations with myelopathy, posterior foraminotomy appears to be a safe, minimally-invasive and effective treatment for postero-lateral radicular compression in the cervical spine. In our opinion, microscopic and/or endoscopic minimally invasive lamino-foraminotomy must be included within the surgical options for degenerative disc diseases of the cervical spine. This approach allowed us to reduce about 30% of the number of patients treated by the anterior approach, thus consistently reducing the need for intersomatic fixation.


Cervical lamino-foraminotomy Cervical radicular compression Posterior foraminotomy 


Conflict of interest statement We declare that we have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Cağlar YS, Bozkurt M, Kahilogullari G, Tuna H, Bakir A, Torun F, Ugur HC (2007) Keyhole approach for posterior cervical discectomy: experience on 84 patients. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. Feb;50(1):7–11.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical discs. J Neurosurg 15:602–614..PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fessler RG, Khoo LT (2002) Minimally invasive cervical microendoscopic foraminotomy: an initial clinical experience. Neurosurgery 51(2):37–45.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Herkowitz HN, Kruz LT, Overholt DP. (1990) Surgical management of cervical soft disc herniation: a comparison between the anterior and posterior approach. Spine 15:1026–1030.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robinson RA, Smith GW. (1955) Anterolateral cervical disc removal and interbody fusion for cervical disc syndrome. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 96:223–224.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Russel SM, Benjamin V (2004) Posterior surgical approach to the cervical neural foramen for intervertebral disc disease. Neurosurgery 54:662–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scoville WB, Whitcomb BB (1966) Lateral rupture of cervical intervertebral discs. Postgrad Med 39:174–180.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stevens WR, Glazer PA, Kelley SD, Lietman TM, Bradford DS (1997) Ophtalmic complications after spinal surgery. Spine 22:1319–1324.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Verbiest H (1968) A lateral approach to cervical spine: technique and indications. J Neurosurg 28:191–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Webb KM, Kaptain G, Sheehan J, Jane JA Sr (2002) Pediculotomy as an adjunct to posterior cervical hemilaminectomy, foraminotomy, and discectomy. Neurosurg Focus 12(1):E10.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Williams RW (1983) Microcervical foramenotomy; a surgical alternative for intractable radicular pain. Spine 8:708–716.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angelo Franzini
    • 1
    Email author
  • Giuseppe Messina
    • 1
  • Paolo Ferroli
    • 1
  • Giovanni Broggi
    • 1
  1. 1.Istituto Nazionale Neurologico “Carlo Besta”MilanItaly

Personalised recommendations