Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Minimally Invasive versus Open Approach for Cervical Laminoforaminotomy

  • Mark J. Winder (a1) (a2) and Kenneth C. Thomas (a3)

Abstract

Background:

Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy for radicular symptoms has become more prevalent. The reported experience with microscopic tubular assisted posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy (MTPF) for the treatment of radicular pain is lacking. Tubular assisted techniques have been considered to offer significant benefit, over open procedures, in terms of minimizing tissue damage, operative time, blood loss, analgesic requirements and length of hospital stay. We hypothesized that MTPF reduces post-operative analgesic requirements and length of hospital stay over the traditional open laminoforaminotomy, with no difference in complication rates and, secondly, that MTPF is comparable to endoscopic posterior foraminotomy (EPF).

Methods:

We conducted a retrospective review of 107 patients who underwent posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy for radicular pain between 1999 and 2009. Patient demographics, intra-operative parameters, length of hospitalization, post-operative analgesic use, complications and short-term neurological outcome were compared between groups.

Results:

Between 1999 and 2009, a total of 107 patients were identified to have undergone a cervical foraminotomy. An open approach was used in 65 patients, while 42 underwent MTPF. Operative time and complications were comparable between groups. Significant differences favoring MTPF were observed in operative blood loss, post-operative analgesic use and length of hospital stay (p<0.001). All results were comparable to previous reports utilizing EPF.

Conclusions:

MTPF for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy significantly reduces blood loss, post-operative analgesic use and length of hospital stay compared to the standard open approach. Operative time and complication rates were comparable between both techniques, whilst MTPF offered similar results compared to EPF.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Minimally Invasive versus Open Approach for Cervical Laminoforaminotomy
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Minimally Invasive versus Open Approach for Cervical Laminoforaminotomy
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Minimally Invasive versus Open Approach for Cervical Laminoforaminotomy
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

Level 7, St Vincent's Clinic, 430 Victoria St, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia

References

Hide All
1Spurling, RG, Scoville, WB.Lateral rupture of the cervical intervertebral disc. A common cause of shoulder and arm pain. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1944;798:3508.
2Frykholm, R.Cervical root compression resulting from disc degeneration and root sleeve fibrosis. Acta Chir Scand. 1951;160:S1149.
3Scoville, WB, Dohrman, GJ, Corkill, G.Late results of cervical disc surgery. J Neurosurg. 1976;45:20310.
4Murphey, F, Simmons, JC, Brunson, B.Surgical treatment of laterally ruptured cervical disc. Review of 648 cases, 1939 to 1972. J Neurosurg. 1973 Jun;38(6):67983.
5Semmes, RE, Murphey, F.Syndrome of unilateral rupture of the sixth intervertebral disk, with compression of the seventh cervical nerve root. Report of four cases with symptoms simulating coronary disease. JAMA. 1943;121:120914.
6Robinson, R, Smith, G.Anterolateral cervical disc removal and interbody for cervical disc syndrome. Bull John Hopkins Hosp. 1955;96223.
7Smith, 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 Jun;40-A(3): 60724.
8Cloward, R.The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical discs. J Neurosurg. 1958;15:60217.
9Clements, DH, O’Leary, PF.Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1990 Oct;15(10):10235.
10Bertalanffy, H, Eggert, HR.Clinical long-term results of anterior discectomy without fusion for treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. A follow-up of 164 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1988;90(3-4):12735.
11Hilibrand, AS, Yoo, JU, Carlson, GD, Bohlman, HH.The success of anterior cervical arthrodesis adjacent to a previous fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Jul 15;22(14):15749.
12Hunter, LY, Braunstein, EM, Bailey, RW.Radiographic changes following anterior cervical fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1980 Sep-Oct;5(5):399401.
13Braunstein, EM, Hunter, LY, Bailey, RW.Long term radiographic changes following anterior cervical fusion. Clin Radiol. 1980 Mar;31(2):2013.
14Wu, W, Thuomas, KA, Hedlund, R, Leszniewski, W, Vavruch, L.Degenerative changes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion evaluated by fast spin-echo MR imaging. Acta Radiol. 1996 Sep;37(5):6147.
15Pospiech, J, Stolke, D, Wilke, HJ, Claes, LE.Intradiscal pressure recordings in the cervical spine. Neurosurgery. 1999 Feb;44(2):37984; discussion 384-5.
16Hilibrand, AS, Carlson, GD, Palumbo, MA, Jones, PK, Bohlman, HH.Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999 Apr;81(4):51928.
17Ishihara, H, Kanamori, M, Kawaguchi, Y, Nakamura, H, Kimura, T.Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical interbody fusion. Spine J. 2004 Nov-Dec;4(6):6248.
18Robertson, JT, Papadopoulos, SM, Traynelis, VC.Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005 Dec;3(6):41723.
19Yue, WM, Brodner, W, Highland, TR.Long-term results after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with allograft and plating: a 5- to 11-year radiologic and clinical follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Oct 1;30(19):213844.
20Mummaneni, PV, Burkus, JK, Haid, RW, Traynelis, VC, Zdeblick, TA.Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007 Mar;6(3):198209.
21Mummaneni, PV, Robinson, JC, Haid, RW Jr., Cervical arthroplasty with the PRESTIGE LP cervical disc. Neurosurgery. 2007 Apr;60(4 Suppl 2):3104; discussion 314-5.
22Sasso, RC, Smucker, JD, Hacker, RJ, Heller, JG.Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Dec 15;32(26):293340; discussion 2941-2.
23Sasso, RC, Smucker, JD, Hacker, RJ, Heller, JG.Clinical outcomes of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial with 24-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007 Oct;20(7):48191.
24Morpeth, JF, Williams, MF.Vocal fold paralysis after anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion. Laryngoscope. 2000 Jan;110(1):436.
25Papavero, L, Heese, O, Klotz-Regener, V, Buchalla, R, Schroder, F, Westphal, M.The impact of esophagus retraction on early dysphagia after anterior cervical surgery: does a correlation exist? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 May 1;32(10):108993.
26Jagannathan, J, Sherman, JH, Szabo, T, Shaffrey, CI, Jane, JA.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. 2009 Apr;10(4):34756.
27Clarke, MJ, Ecker, RD, Krauss, WE, McClelland, RL, Dekutoski, MB.Same-segment and adjacent-segment disease following posterior cervical foraminotomy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007 Jan;6(1):59.
28McCormick, PC.The adjacent segment. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007 Jan;6(1):14; discussion
29Adamson, TE.Microendoscopic posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy for unilateral radiculopathy: results of a new technique in 100 cases. J Neurosurg. 2001 Jul;95 Suppl 1:517.
30Coric, D, Adamson, T.Minimally invasive cervical microendoscopic laminoforaminotomy. Neurosurg Focus. 2008;25(2):E2.
31Epstein, NE.A review of laminoforaminotomy for the management of lateral and foraminal cervical disc herniations or spurs. Surg Neurol. 2002 Apr;57(4):22633; discussion 233-4.
32Epstein, NE.Minimally invasive/endoscopic vs “open” posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy: do the risks outweigh the benefits? Surg Neurol. 2009 Mar;71(3):3301.
33Parker, WD.Cervical laminoforaminotomy. J Neurosurg. 2002 Mar;96 Suppl 2:254; author reply -5.
34Henderson, CM, Hennessy, RG, Shuey, HM Jr., Shackelford, EG.Posterior-lateral foraminotomy as an exclusive operative technique for cervical radiculopathy: a review of 846 consecutively operated cases. Neurosurgery. 1983 Nov;13(5):50412.
35Fessler, RG, Khoo, LT.Minimally invasive cervical microendoscopic foraminotomy: an initial clinical experience. Neurosurgery. 2002 Nov;51(5 Suppl):S3745.
36Ruetten, S, Komp, M, Merk, H, Godolias, G.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. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2007 Aug;50(4):21926.
37Ruetten, S, Komp, M, Merk, H, Godolias, G.Full-endoscopic cervical posterior foraminotomy for the operation of lateral disc herniations using 5.9-mm endoscopes: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Apr 20;33(9):9408.
38Kyoung-Tae, K, Young-Baeg, K.Comparison between open procedure and tubular retractor assisted procedure for cervical radiculopathy: results of a randomized controlled study. J Korean Med Sci. 2009;24:64953.
39Adamson, TE.The impact of minimally invasive cervical spine surgery. Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004. J Neurosurg Spine. 2004 Jul;1(1):436.
40Gala, VC, O’Toole, JE, Voyadzis, JM, Fessler, RG.Posterior minimally invasive approaches for the cervical spine. Orthop Clin North Am. 2007 Jul;38(3):33949; abstract v.
41Hanks, G, Cherny, N, Fallon, M.Opioid analgesic therapy. Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004. p. 31641.
42Shaheen, PE, Walsh, D, Lasheen, W, Davis, MP, Lagman, RL.Opioid equianalgesic tables: are they all equally dangerous? J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009 Sep;38(3):40917.
43Caglar, YS, Bozkurt, M, Kahilogullari, G, et al.Keyhole approach for posterior cervical discectomy: experience on 84 patients. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2007 Feb;50(1):711.
44Heary, RF, Ryken, T, Matz, PG, et al.Cervical laminoforaminotomy for the treatment of cervical degenerative radiculopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11(Aug):198202.
45Russell, SM, Benjamin, V.Posterior surgical approach to the cervical neural foramen for intervertebral disc disease. Neurosurgery. 2004 Mar;54(3):6625; discussion 665-6.
46Shiraishi, T.A new technique for exposure of the cervical spine laminae. Technical note. J Neurosurg. 2002 Jan;96 Suppl 1: 1226.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed