Microscopic Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Posterior Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Keyhole Foraminotomy for Single-level Unilateral Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis : Clinical Spine Surgery

Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Advanced Search
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Microscopic Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Posterior Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Keyhole Foraminotomy for Single-level Unilateral Cervical Radiculopathy

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Guo, Linlin MD*; Wang, Jiajing MD†; Zhao, Zhen MD†; Li, Jing MD‡; Zhao, Hongyang MD†; Gao, Yong MD§; Chen, Chao MD§,∥

Author Information

Departments of *Plastic Surgery

†Neurosurgery, Union Hospital

‡Department of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Tongji Hospital

§Department of Orthopaedics, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan

∥Department of Orthopaedics, Hefeng Central Hospital, Enshi, Hubei Province, China

L.G., J.W., and Z.Z. have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship.

C.C. and Y.G. have contributed equally to this work and share last authorship.

C.C. and Y.G. conceived and designed the experiments. Z.Z. and J.J.W. screened the studies and collected the data. L.L.G. and J.L. analyzed the data. L.L.G., Z.Z., and J.J.W. wrote the paper. H.Y.Z., Y.G., and C.C. were responsible for the critical reading of the manuscript.

The study received full approval from the ethics committee of Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology and informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study.

Supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81803917, 81904024).

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Reprints: Chao Chen, MD, Department of Orthopaedics, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1277 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan 430022, Hubei Province, China (e-mail: [email protected]).

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Clinical Spine Surgery 36(2):p 59-69, March 2023. | DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001327
  • Open

Abstract

Cervical radiculopathy is characterized by cervical spine degenerative changes such as disk herniation and/or foraminal stenosis compressing the nerve roots.1–4 The typical clinical manifestations are pain in neck and one or both of the upper extremities, secondary to compression or irritation of nerve roots in the cervical spine. It can be accompanied by motor, sensory, or reflex deficits and is most common in persons 45–60 years of age, which result in terrible chronic pain and heavy economic burden for patients.5

Conservative treatment is usually effective for relieving symptoms for most patients. However, it does not work for some patients. For those patients, surgical operation is an excellent option. There are 2 main approaches of surgical treatment for cervical radiculopathy: anterior and posterior approaches. The most representative procedure using the anterior cervical approach is anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), proposed firstly by Smith and Robinson in 1958.6 ACDF is considered by many surgeons to be the “gold standard” of surgical interventions.7,8 However, ACDF still has some catastrophic complications in spite of using the microscope, including dysphagia, adjacent segment disease, and pseudoarthrosis.9,10 The posterior cervical approach can avoid these complications caused by the anterior cervical approach. The rapid development of endoscopic technique has made the posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) minimally invasive, avoiding the injury of the large surgical incision to the paravertebral muscles.11,12 So posterior percutaneous endoscopic keyhole foraminotomy (PPEKF) has become an alternative technique to open discectomy in the posterior cervical approach, especially for single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy.13,14

Few previous studies and meta-analysis have compared the therapeutic effects of ACDF and PCF in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy.15 Some researchers reported that the PCF method is significantly superior to the ACDF method, whereas others considered that there is no significant difference between the 2 methods in terms of treatment effect. So far, there is no meta-analysis that compared the treatment effect and safety for the single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy by MI-ACDF and PPEKF treatment, which may be attributed to the lack of comparative studies on the 2 surgical methods. To the best of our knowledge, only 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) has reported the therapeutic effects of MI-ACDF and PPEKF in the treatment of single-level cervical radiculopathy.13 Therefore, the controversy about whether MI-ACDF or PPEKF is superior for the treatment of single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy remains to be resolved.

Given that, we conducted a meta-analysis with recent single-arm studies to compare comprehensively the effective rate, total complication rate, and reoperation rate between the 2 surgical methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature Search

Electronic retrieval of articles published between January 2000 and December 2020, from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library, was performed to identify comparative or single-arm studies on MI-ACDF and PPEKF. A full-text search of all studies was performed using the following Boolean search strings: (cervical radiculopathy) AND (foraminotomy OR laminoforaminotomy OR discectomy) AND (microscopic OR microendoscopic OR endoscopic OR full-endoscopic). In addition, all reference lists of the included studies were reviewed to identify potentially relevant articles.

Eligibility Criteria

The inclusion criteria for the studies were as follows: randomized or nonrandomized controlled and case series designs, the inclusion of patients who were diagnosed with single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy, analysis of patients conservatively treated for >4 weeks, surgical intervention with MI-ACDF or PPEKF, and detailed reporting of outcomes of complications and/or reoperation.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: enrollment of <10 patients; inclusion of patients with multilevel or bilateral cervical radiculopathy; inclusion of patients whose diagnosis encompassed cervical myelopathy, tumor, tuberculosis, fraction, infection, or malformation; inclusion of patients with a history of previous cervical surgery; keyhole foraminotomy using the anterior approach; cadaveric or biomechanical studies; and case reports, reviews, editorials, letters, or commentary articles.

Data Extraction

The following data were extracted from the selected studies: (1) first author, year of publication, and study region; (2) demographic features of participants, including sample size, male/female ratio, and mean age; (3) surgical methods; (4) duration of follow-up; (5) the number of people who were completely cured and obviously remission; (6) rate of overall complications and specific categories; and (7) number of reoperations and their reasons.

Quality Assessment

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of nonrandomized comparative studies. NOS includes the evaluation criteria of nonrandomized comparative studies, which are mainly divided into 3 categories: the selection of study groups, comparability between study groups, and outcome evaluation. The system uses a “star system” with 8 entries and has a full score of 9 stars. RCTs and nonrandomized studies with 6 or more stars were considered to be of studies with relatively high quality. Studies evaluated as low quality were excluded from this meta-analysis.

Two researchers independently performed the literature search, inclusion of qualified studies, quality evaluation, and data extraction (Z.Z., J.W.). When disagreements occurred, a consensus was reached through consultation with the third senior professor (C.C.).

Statistical Analysis

Two independent investigators (L.G., J.L.) performed the statistical analysis using the data-processing software program R GUI 3.6.1. The incidence rate and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a 0.5 cell correction for studies with zero event endpoints. And since the incidence rate of the original data was not in the range of 30% to 70%, it was first converted by the Arcsine transformation method to make it conform to the normal distribution. The t test and Higgins I2 statistics were used to assess heterogeneity, defined as the percentage of the error caused by differences between studies. We classified heterogeneity as follows: I2 <25%, no heterogeneity; I2=25%–50%, low heterogeneity; I2=50%–75%, moderate heterogeneity; and I2 >75%, high heterogeneity. I2 <50% generally indicates roughly consistent results and uniform research using the fixed-effects model. I2 >50% was used as the threshold to show significant heterogeneity, and the random-effects model was selected. Subgroup analysis was tried to find the source of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was performed by eliminating single studies and determining whether the other pooled results changed significantly. Funnel plot and Egger linear regression asymmetry tests were used to evaluate publication bias (P<0.05 was considered significant).

RESULTS

Search Results

According to the search sentence, a total of 813 studies were retrieved in 3 databases. After the duplicate investigation, 209 duplicate studies were excluded. Of the remaining 604 studies, 559 were excluded after the initial title, and abstract screening for that are conference abstracts, review articles, letters, laboratory studies, cadaver studies, and studies with irrelevant exposure or results.

The full texts of the remaining 45 articles were evaluated in detail, and 21 articles were excluded according to the eligibility criteria. Furthermore, the studies reported by the same authors may have common patients, so we excluded them. Finally, our meta-analysis included 24 articles. Among the included articles, 1 randomized controlled study simultaneously reported the results of the 2 methods, and 1 randomized controlled study reported the results of only 1 of the 2 surgical methods of interest. The results were separately analyzed in this meta-analysis. The flow diagram of the study inclusion process is shown in Figure 1.

F1
FIGURE 1:
Flowchart of literature search and selection.

Characteristics of the Included Studies

From the 24 studies finally identified, the meta-analysis included 1345 participants (MI-ACDF: 644, PPEKF: 701). Ruetten et al13 reported a direct comparison of these 2 surgical methods in a randomized controlled study; Lin et al16 retrospectively evaluated the clinical and radiologic results of ACDF, cervical disk replacement, and PCF; and the other studies reported 1 of the 2 surgical methods (either MI-ACDF or PPEKF), resulting in 10 studies on MI-ACDF and 16 studies on PPEKF. For one randomized controlled study, we included only the results of MI-ACDF in our study: Wirth et al17 reported the therapeutic effects of PCF and anterior cervical discectomy with and without fusion (all operations were performed under the microscope). The study population of MI-ACDF was 55.6% men, with an average age of 45.53 years and an average follow-up time of 32.8 months. Comparatively, the study population of MI-ACDF was 56.6% men, with an average age of 50.00 years and an average follow-up time of 16.0 months. The basic characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1 - Baseline Characteristics of the Included Studies
References Study Type Country Surgical Method Sample Size Male/Female Mean Age Follow-up
Ruetten et al13 RCT Germany MI-ACDF 86 NA NA 24
Ahn et al18 Cohort Korea MI-ACDF 65 36/28 47.5 60
Scholz et al19 Retrospective Germany MI-ACDF 40 20/20 50 33
Lin et al16 Retrospective Korea MI-ACDF 55 31/24 52.5 12
Türeyen20 Retrospective Turkey MI-ACDF 43 24/19 43 18
Chen et al21 Prospective China MI-ACDF 92 50/42 46.7 24
Omidi-Kashani et al22 Retrospective Iran MI-ACDF 68 20/48 41.2 31.25
Nemoto et al23 RCT Japan MI-ACDF 46 42/4 41.23 24
Korinth et al24 Retrospective Germany MI-ACDF 124 73/51 45.9 NA
Wirth et al17 RCT United States MI-ACDF 25 14/11 41.7 69
Ruetten et al13 RCT Germany PPEKF 89 NA NA 24
Xiao et al25 Retrospective China PPEKF 84 38/46 54.15 12
Liao et al26 Prospective Germany PPEKF 44 28/16 48.95 12
Shu et al27 Retrospective China PPEKF 32 14/18 63.0 12
Park et al28 Retrospective Korea PPEKF 13 5/8 47.1 14.8
Yao et al12 Retrospective China PPEKF 24 10/14 45.6 15.6
Won et al11 Retrospective Korea PPEKF 46 30/16 49.3 25.8
Kim et al29 Retrospective Korea PPEKF 32 22/10 49 12
Yang et al30 Cohort China PPEKF 42 28/14 40.5 12
Lin et al16 Retrospective Korea PPEKF 21 14/7 53.4 12
Ji-Jun et al31 Cohort China PPEKF 43 28/15 46.6 18
Wan et al32 Retrospective China PPEKF 25 14/11 38 12
Gushcha et al33 Retrospective Russia PPEKF 25 NA NA NA
Zhang et al34 Retrospective China PPEKF 42 28/14 47.1 15
Haijun et al35 Retrospective China PPEKF 106 56/50 61.21 NA
Luo et al36 Retrospective China PPEKF 33 17/16 56 25.7
MI-ACDF indicates anterior microscope cervical discectomy and fusion; NA, not available; PPEKF, posterior percutaneous full-endoscopic approach keyhole foraminotomy; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

Quality Assessment Results

The meta-analysis included 2 randomized controlled studies and 22 nonrandomized controlled studies (most of which were retrospective studies). After the NOS quality evaluation, all nonrandomized controlled studies received >6 stars, indicating that the quality of the studies was very high, which also laid the foundation for a high-quality meta-analysis. The detailed quality evaluation results for the included studies are shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2 - Quality Assessment of Nonrandomized Comparative Studies
References Selection Comparability Outcome Total
Ahn et al18 4 1 3 8
Scholz et al19 3 1 3 7
Lin et al16 4 1 3 8
Türeyen20 3 1 3 7
Chen et al21 3 1 2 6
Omidi-Kashani et al22 3 1 2 6
Nemoto et al23 4 1 3 8
Korinth et al24 4 1 3 8
Xiao et al25 3 1 3 7
Liao et al26 3 1 3 7
Shu et al27 3 1 3 7
Park et al28 3 1 3 7
Yao et al12 4 1 3 8
Won et al11 3 1 3 7
Kim et al29 4 1 3 8
Yang et al30 3 1 3 7
Ji-Jun et al31 3 1 3 7
Wan et al32 3 1 3 7
Gushcha et al33 4 1 3 8
Zhang et al34 3 1 3 7
Haijun et al35 4 1 2 7
Luo et al36 4 1 2 7

Meta-analysis Outcomes

Effective Rate

Taking into account the different descriptions of these studies, thus the definition of effective rate was unified as the number of people who were completely cured and obviously remission account for the total number of patients 2 weeks after the operation. There were 10 studies of MI-ACDF group and 14 studies of PPEKF group in the all studies reported effective rate. The results showed that the effective rate was 94.3% (95% CI, 87.2%–98.6%) for the MI-ACDF group and 93.3% (95% CI, 89.7%–96.2%) for the PPEKF group, which was observed no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (Fig. 2, P=0.625). A high heterogeneity between studies was noted in the MI-ACDF group (I2=90%), and a moderate degree of heterogeneity was observed in the PPEKF group (I2=61%).

F2
FIGURE 2:
Forest plots of pooled effective rate. There was no statistical difference between MI-ACDF and PPEKF (94.3% vs. 93.3%, P=0.625). CI indicates confidence interval; MI-ACDF, microscopic anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; PPEKF, posterior percutaneous endoscopic keyhole foraminotomy.

Total Complication Rate

As shown in Figure 3, complications occurred in 49 of the 644 patients who underwent MI-ACDF and in 40 of the 701 patients who underwent PPEKF. The incidence of total complications in the MI-ACDF group was 7.1% (95% CI, 4.2%–10.7%), and that in the PPEKF group was 4.7% (95% CI, 2.9%–7.0%). No statistically significant difference was observed between the 2 groups (P=0.198). A moderate degree of heterogeneity between studies was observed in the MI-ACDF group (I2=61%); however, a low degree of heterogeneity was noted in the PPEKF group (I2=39%).

F3
FIGURE 3:
Forest plots of pooled total complication rate. There was no statistical difference between MI-ACDF and PPEKF (7.1% vs. 4.7%, P=0.198). CI indicates confidence interval; MI-ACDF, microscopic anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; PPEKF, posterior percutaneous endoscopic keyhole foraminotomy.

Reoperation Rate

As shown in Figure 4, a total of 24 studies provided data on reoperation, 10 of which reported on reoperation after MI-ACDF and 14 reported on reoperation after PPEKF. The incidence of total complications was 1.8% (95% CI, 0.6%–3.8%) in the MI-ACDF group and 1.1% (95% CI, 0.2%–2.7%) in the PPEKF group. No statistically significant difference was found between the 2 groups (P=0.312). The moderate heterogeneity was both observed in the MI-ACDF group (I2=57%) and the PPEKF group (I2=52%).

F4
FIGURE 4:
Forest plots of pooled reoperation rate. There was no statistical difference between MI-ACDF and PPEKF (1.8% vs. 1.1%, P=0.312). CI indicates confidence interval; MI-ACDF, microscopic anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; PPEKF, posterior percutaneous endoscopic keyhole foraminotomy.

Subgroup Analysis

The results of subgroup analyses of effective rate, reoperation rate, and total complication rate according to age, duration of follow-up, and geographic region are presented as follows. In terms of efficient rate, age, follow-up time, and geographic region are not the source of heterogeneity of the MI-ACDF group, but follow-up time and geographic region may be the source of heterogeneity of the PPEKF group (Table 3). However, in terms of total complication rate and reoperation rate, age, follow-up time, and geographic region are both the source of heterogeneity of MI-ACDF and PPEKF (Tables 4, 5).

TABLE 3 - The Subgroup Analysis of Effective Rate for MI-ACDF and PPEKF
Subgroup Events Total R (95% CI) I 2 (%) P
MI-ACDF
 All studies 592 644 90% (87.2%–98.6%) 90 <0.01
 Age (y)
  <50 521 549 97% (92.6%–99.5%) 82 <0.01
  ≥50 71 95 74.3% (31.4%–99.3%) 95 <0.01
  No report 0 0 — — —
 Follow-up time (mo)
  <24 209 222 96.3% (87.2%–98.6%) 81 <0.01
  ≥24 383 422 93.1% (81.7%–99.2%) 92 <0.01
 Geographic region
  Asia 350 369 97.4% (90.9%–100%) 87 <0.01
  Non-Asia 242 275 87.3% (69.6%–98%) 92 <0.01
PPEKF
 All studies 592 642 93.3% (89.7%–96.2%) 61 <0.01
 Age (y)
  <50 231 252 93.2% (88%–97%) 52 0.05
  ≥50 259 276 93.2% (85.5%–98.1%) 75 <0.01
  No report 107 114 92.2% (76.8%–99.6%) 75 0.05
 Follow-up time (mo)
  <24 479 520 92.4% (88%–95.9%) 65 <0.01
  ≥24 118 122 96.7% (92.8%–99.1%) 0 0.92
 Geographic region
  Asia 448 484 93.1% (88.5%–96.6%) 68 <0.01
  Non-Asia 149 158 94% (87.1%–98.3%) 51 0.13
CI indicates confidence interval; MI-ACDF, microscopic anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; PPEKF, posterior percutaneous endoscopic keyhole foraminotomy; R, rate.

TABLE 4 - The Subgroup Analysis of Total Complication Rate for MI-ACDF and PPEKF
Subgroup Events Total R (95% CI) I 2 (%) P
MI-ACDF
 All studies 49 644 7.1% (4.2%–10.7%) 61 <0.01
 Age (y)
  <50 45 549 8% (4.6%–12.2%) 63 <0.01
  ≥50 4 95 4% (0.4%–11.1%) 47 0.17
  No report 0 0 — — —
 Follow-up time (mo)
  <24 11 222 4.6% (2.1%–8.1%) 11 0.32
  ≥24 38 422 8.8% (4.6%–14.1%) 66 <0.01
 Geographic region
  Asia 32 369 7.6% (3.1%–13.9%) 75 <0.01
  Non-Asia 17 275 0.6% (3.5%–9.1%) 0 0.47
PPEKF
 All studies 40 701 4.9% (3.4%–6.6%) 39 0.06
 Age (y)
  <50 15 311 3.3% (1%–6.9%) 54 0.03
  ≥50 20 276 7.1% (4.3%–10.4%) 0 0.67
  No report 5 114 4.2% (1.3%–8.7%) 0 0.37
 Follow-up time (mo)
  <24 33 533 5.2% (3.4%–7.2%) 49 0.02
  ≥24 7 168 4.1% (1.6%–7.6%) 0 0.82
 Geographic region
  Asia 35 543 5.8% (4%–8%) 13 0.32
  Non-Asia 5 158 2.2% (0%–8.7%) 68 0.08
CI indicates confidence interval; MI-ACDF, microscopic anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; PPEKF, posterior percutaneous endoscopic keyhole foraminotomy; R, rate.

TABLE 5 - The Subgroup Analysis of Reoperation Rate for MI-ACDF and PPEKF
Subgroup Events Total R (95% CI) I 2 (%) P
MI-ACDF
 All studies 17 644 1.8% (0.6%–3.8%) 57 0.01
 Age (y)
  <50 14 549 1.9% (0.6%–3.8%) 49 0.06
  ≥50 3 95 1.8% (0%–15.7%) 86 <0.01
  No report 0 0 — — —
 Follow-up time (mo)
  <24 3 222 0.4% (0%–3.1%) 63 0.07
  ≥24 14 422 2.8% (0.9%–5.5%) 52 0.05
 Geographic region
  Asia 5 369 0.6% (0%–2.3%) 47 0.1
  Non-Asia 12 275 4.1% (0.6%–3.8%) 0 0.43
PPEKF
 All studies 15 634 1.1% (0.2%–2.7%) 52 0.01
 Age (y)
  <50 3 269 0.5% (0%–1.6%) 2 0.42
  ≥50 6 276 1.4% (0%–4.6%) 60 0.04
  No report 6 89 6.7% (2.5%–12.8%) — —
 Follow-up time (mo)
  <24 8 466 0.9% (0.2%–1.9%) 40 0.08
  ≥24 7 168 2.2% (0%–8.6%) 71 0.03
 Geographic region
  Asia 9 501 1% (0.3%–2.1%) 34 0.12
  Non-Asia 6 133 1.9% (0%–14.7%) 88 <0.01
CI indicates confidence interval; MI-ACDF, microscopic anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; PPEKF, posterior percutaneous endoscopic keyhole foraminotomy; R, rate.

Common Complications of MI-ACDF and PPEKF

According to the literature reading and data analysis, the most common complications of MI-ACDF mainly included transient dysphagia, vertebral body sinking, and wound infection (Table 6). A total of 8 patients from 4 studies were complained of transient dysphagia after surgery. Among them, 3 patients had transient dysphagia recovered 2 days, 1 patient recovered 2 weeks later, and 3 patients recovered after 1 month. The remaining 1 patient also had transient dysphagia but without reporting the recovered time. There were 7 patients detected vertebral body sinking in the MI-ACDF group, including 1 patients underwent reoperation, 6 patients of mild vertebral body sinking without revision surgery. Only 1 patient underwent a second operation due to infection, and the other infected patients were healed by using the escalated antibiotics.

TABLE 6 - Complication Rates of Studies Included in the Microscopic Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion
Overall Complications Reoperation Transient Dysphagia Vertebral Body Sinking Others
References n Incidence (%) n Incidence (%) n Incidence (%) n Incidence (%) n Incidence (%)
Ruetten et al13 3 4.7 4 4.7 3 3 — — — —
Ahn et al18 3 4.7 1 1.6 3 4.7 — — — —
Scholz et al19 3 7.5 3 7.5 — — — — — —
Lin et al16 1 1.8 0 0 — — — — 1 1.8
Türeyen20 2 4.7 0 0 1 2.3 — — 1 2.3
Chen et al21 5 5.4 3 3.3 — — — — 5 5.4
Omidi-Kashani et al22 14 20.6 1 1.5 1 1.5 7 10.3 10 16.2
Nemoto et al23 7 15.2 0 0 — — — — — —
Korinth et al24 8 6.5 3 2.4 — — — — — —
Wirth et al17 3 12 2 8 — — — — 3 12
— indicates no report.

In contrast, transient root injury, dural injury, and wound infection were the main complications of PPEKF (Table 7). There were 24 patients experienced transient root injury in 10 included studies. Among them, 10 patients were not reported the prognostic results, 9 patients recovered at different time after conservative treatment, 2 patients were complained intermittent pain in long term without need of special interventions, the others underwent reoperation after failure of medication treatment. In terms of dural injury, 5 patients were found dural injury in 3 included studies. Two patients were cured without surgical intervention, and the other 3 underwent secondary dural repair surgery. All infected patients recovered after antibiotic treatment.

TABLE 7 - Complication Rates of Studies Included in the Posterior Percutaneous Endoscopic Keyhole Foraminotomy
Overall Complications Reoperation Transient Root Palsy Dural Tear Others
References n Incidence (%) n Incidence (%) n Incidence (%) n Incidence (%) n Incidence (%)
Ruetten et al13 3 3 6 6.7 3 3 — — — —
Xiao et al25 6 7.1 1 1.2 6 7.1 — — — —
Liao et al26 0 0 0 0 0 0 — — — —
Shu et al27 1 3.1 0 0 1 3.1 — — — —
Park et al28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — —
Yao et al12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — —
Won et al11 2 4.3 1 2.2 0 0 0 0 2 4.3
Kim et al29 3 9.4 0 0 2 6.3 1 3.1 — —
Yang et al30 2 4.8 1 2.4 1 2.4 — — — —
Lin et al16 3 14.3 3 14.3 — — — — — —
Ji-Jun et al31 4 9.3 0 0 2 4.7 2 4.7 — —
Wan et al32 2 8 1 4 — — — — 1 4
Gushcha et al33 2 8 — — 2 8 — — — —
Zhang et al34 2 4.8 — — 2 2.4 — — — —
Haijun et al35 8 7.5 2 1.9 4 3.8 0 0 2 1.9
Luo et al36 2 6.1 0 0 1 3 2 6.1 — —
— indicates no report.

Sensitivity Analysis and Publication Bias

There was no significant impact on the overall results by the individual elimination of each study. The Figure 5 showed that all funnel plots were not obvious asymmetry. In addition, the Egger test results again showed no substantial publication bias (all P>0.05). Therefore, the sensitivity analysis and publication bias tests confirmed that the results of the meta-analysis are reliable.

F5
FIGURE 5:
Funnel plots of SE by logit event rate. Each circle represents an identified study. A, The funnel plot of effective rate in MI-ACDF group. B, The funnel plot of total complication rate in MI-ACDF group. C, The funnel plot of reoperation rate in MI-ACDF group. D, The funnel plot of effective rate in PPEKF group. E, The funnel plot of total complication rate in PPEKF group. F, The funnel plot of reoperation rate in PPEKF group. The plots are all basically symmetric about the mean effect, which indicates an absence of substantial publication bias. MI-ACDF indicates microscopic anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; PPEKF, posterior percutaneous endoscopic keyhole foraminotomy.

DISCUSSION

Conservative treatment is provided first for cervical radiculopathy. However, if the symptoms do not considerably improve after conservative treatment for >4 weeks, surgical treatment should be considered. Nowadays, 2 major traditional surgical methods are available for single-level cervical radiculopathy: ACDF and PCF. ACDF has been widely popular with spinal surgeons due to its wide application range, high relief rate, and short learning curve.37–39 However, there are also some complications accompanied such as dysphagia, vertebral body sinking, and wound infection. MI-ACDF is a modified procedure performed under a microscope, which reduces some complications caused by dissection and separation of soft tissues. In contrast, open PCF can cause significant damage to the posterior muscles of the neck, leading to axial pain after surgery. To avoid serious complications caused by open surgery, Ruetten et al40 first investigated the treatment effect of posterior percutaneous full-endoscopic keyhole cervical foraminotomy, and found that PPEKF achieved the same clinical treatment effect as open surgery while reducing the complications associated with open surgery.41,42 Since it may be confusing for surgeons to choose MI-ACDF or PPEKF for single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy, we comprehensively reviewed the recent studies on these 2 techniques in terms of effective rate, total complication rate, and reoperation rate. This systematic review and meta-analysis included a total of 24 studies involving 1345 patients.

The clinical effective rate of MI-ACDF was 94.3%, which agrees with those reports that the effective rate ranged from 80% to 100%.9,43,44 Similarly, the effective rate of PPEKF was also consistent with previous studies.45,46 The pooled effective rate of patients after MI-ACDF was higher than patients after PPEKF, but no statistical difference was observed between the 2 groups. The result was similar with the report by Ruetten et al13 that treatment effect with ACDF is same as PPEKF. Though, Lin et al16 reported that the therapeutic effect of ACDF is significantly better than that of PPEKF.

Our meta-analysis found that the overall complication incidence for single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy was 5.6% in MI-ACDF and 4.8% in PPEKF, without statistical difference (P=0.198). Chen et al21 conducted a prospective study involving 92 patients and found that the overall complication rate after MI-ACDF was 5.4%. Korinth et al24 also reported that the overall complication rate of MI-ACDF was 6.5%. We found that studies with large sample sizes reported a complication rate that was consistent with the overall complication rate of MI-ACDF obtained in this meta-analysis. Owing to the large difference in sample sizes of the studies on PPEKF, the overall postoperative complications greatly varied. Some studies did not report any complications,12,26,28 but one study reported an overall complication rate as high as 14.3%.16 However, the specific proportions of several common complications showed significant differences. According to a comparative analysis, the most common complication in MI-ACDF was vertebral body sinking, followed by dysphagia. In PPEKF, transient root palsy and dural injury were the most common complications, as proved in the previous meta-analysis by Wu et al.47

No statistical difference in reoperation rate was found between MI-ACDF and PPEKF (P=0.312). With respect to MI-ACDF treatment, there are many reasons for recurrence or reoperation, including adjacent segment disease, graft failure, incomplete removal of the nucleus pulposus, foraminal stenosis, and incorrect postoperative rehabilitation training. In contrast, the common risk factors for reoperation in PPEKF treatment include incomplete removal of the nucleus pulposus, destruction of the intraoperative annulus, and cerebrospinal fluid leakage. Many studies have shown that the most common reason is the incomplete removal of the herniated intervertebral disk tissue during the operation and excess or deficient residual nucleus pulposus. Studies have also demonstrated that the causes of reoperation for the endoscopic transforaminal lumbar intervertebral disk are the same.48,49

This meta-analysis results showed high reliability, and we anticipated that the findings of our study can provide clarity to clinicians with respect to choosing appropriate surgical treatment for patients with single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy. But, this meta-analysis also had some limitations. First, not all of the included studies were RCT comparative studies of MI-ACDF and PPEKF. Most of the included studies reported only 1 of the 2 surgical methods, which might have caused a certain deviation in the research results. Second, this meta-analysis only studied the effective rate, total complication, and reoperation rate of the 2 surgical methods but did not report variations in Visual Analog Scale scores, Neck Disability Index, and radiologic results. Third, this study did not make a unified definition for overall postoperative complications, which might have led to a selection bias. Last, the results might also have been affected by the surgical experience of the surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, the findings showed no difference in treatment outcomes between MI-ACDF and PPEKF for patients with single-level cervical radiculopathy by evaluating the effectiveness, total complication rate, and reoperation rate. Thus, both MI-ACDF and PPEKF can provide a relatively safe and reliable treatment for single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy.

REFERENCES

1. Woods BI, Hilibrand AS. Cervical radiculopathy: epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28:E251–E259.
2. Eubanks JD. Cervical radiculopathy: nonoperative management of neck pain and radicular symptoms. Am Fam Physician. 2010;81:33–40.
3. Jagannathan J, Sherman JH, Szabo T, et al. 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;10:347–356.
4. Iyer S, Kim HJ. Cervical radiculopathy. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9:272–280.
5. Persson LC, Moritz U, Brandt L, et al. Cervical radiculopathy: pain, muscle weakness and sensory loss in patients with cervical radiculopathy treated with surgery, physiotherapy or cervical collar. A prospective, controlled study. Eur Spine J. 1997;6:256–266.
6. 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:607–624.
7. Fraser JF, Hartl R. Anterior approaches to fusion of the cervical spine: a metaanalysis of fusion rates. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6:298–303.
8. Engquist M, Lofgren H, Oberg B, et al. A 5-to 8-year randomized study on the treatment of cervical radiculopathy: anterior cervical decompression and fusion plus physiotherapy versus physiotherapy alone. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;26:19–27.
9. Kamani MM, Ballal A, Shetty V, et al. A prospective study of the functional outcome of anterior cervical discectomy with fusion in single level degenerative cervical disc prolapse. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10:C1–C4.
10. Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:2310–2317.
11. Won S, Kim CH, Chung CK, et al. Comparison of cervical sagittal alignment and kinematics after posterior full-endoscopic cervical foraminotomy and discectomy according to preoperative cervical alignment. Pain Physician. 2017;20:77–87.
12. Yao S, Ouyang B, Lu T, et al. Treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy with posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy: short-term outcomes of 24 cases. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99:e20216.
13. Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, et al. 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;33:940–948.
14. Kim CH, Kim KT, Chung CK, et al. Minimally invasive cervical foraminotomy and diskectomy for laterally located soft disk herniation. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:3005–3012.
15. Fang W, Huang L, Feng F, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus posterior cervical foraminotomy for the treatment of single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020;15:202.
16. Lin GX, Rui G, Sharma S, et al. Does the neck pain, function, or range of motion differ after anterior cervical fusion, cervical disc replacement, and posterior cervical foraminotomy? World Neurosurg. 2019;129:e485–e493.
17. Wirth FP, Dowd GC, Sanders HF, et al. Cervical discectomy. A prospective analysis of three operative techniques. Surg Neurol. 2000;53:340–346; 346–348.
18. Ahn Y, Keum HJ, Shin SH. Percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a comparative cohort study with a five-year follow-up. J Clin Med. 2020;9:371.
19. Scholz T, Geiger MF, Mainz V, et al. Anterior cervical decompression and fusion or posterior foraminotomy for cervical radiculopathy: results of a single-center series. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2018;79:211–217.
20. Türeyen K. Disc height loss after anterior cervical microdiscectomy with titanium intervertebral cage fusion. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2003;145:565–569; 569–570.
21. Chen JF, Wu CT, Lee ST. The use of a hollow polymethylmethacrylate cervical spacer with plating in the treatment of single level cervical disc disease. Chang Gung Med J. 2009;32:447–454.
22. Omidi-Kashani F, Ghayem HE, Ghandehari R. Impact of age and duration of symptoms on surgical outcome of single-level microscopic anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. Neurosci J. 2014;2014:808596.
23. Nemoto O, Kitada A, Naitou S, et al. Stand-alone anchored cage versus cage with plating for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled study with a 2-year follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015;25(suppl 1):S127–S134.
24. Korinth MC, Kruger A, Oertel MF, et al. Posterior foraminotomy or anterior discectomy with polymethyl methacrylate interbody stabilization for cervical soft disc disease: results in 292 patients with monoradiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31:1207–1214; 1215–1216.
25. Xiao CM, Yu KX, Deng R, et al. Modified K-hole percutaneous endoscopic surgery for cervical foraminal stenosis: partial pediculectomy approach. Pain Physician. 2019;22:E407–E416.
26. Liao C, Ren Q, Chu L, et al. Modified posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy for lateral cervical disc herniation: the vertical anchoring technique. Eur Spine J. 2018;27:1460–1468.
27. Shu W, Zhu H, Liu R, et al. Posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical foraminotomy and discectomy for degenerative cervical radiculopathy using intraoperative O-arm imaging. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2019;14:551–559.
28. Park JH, Jun SG, Jung JT, et al. Posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical foraminotomy and diskectomy with unilateral biportal endoscopy. Orthopedics. 2017;40:e779–e783.
29. Kim CH, Shin KH, Chung CK, et al. Changes in cervical sagittal alignment after single-level posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical diskectomy. Global Spine J. 2015;5:31–38.
30. Yang JS, Chu L, Chen L, et al. Anterior or posterior approach of full-endoscopic cervical discectomy for cervical intervertebral disc herniation? A comparative cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39:1743–1750.
31. Ji-Jun H, Hui-Hui S, Zeng-Wu S, et al. Posterior full-endoscopic cervical discectomy in cervical radiculopathy: a prospective cohort study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020;195:105948.
32. Wan Q, Zhang D, Li S, et al. Posterior percutaneous full-endoscopic cervical discectomy under local anesthesia for cervical radiculopathy due to soft-disc herniation: a preliminary clinical study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;29:351–357.
33. Gushcha AO, Arestov SO, Vershinin AV. The first experience with a new technique of portal endoscopic discectomy for herniated cervical discs. Zh Vopr Neirokhir Im N N Burdenko. 2016;80:15–23.
34. Zhang C, Wu J, Xu C, et al. Minimally invasive full-endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy assisted by O-arm-based navigation. Pain Physician. 2018;21:E215–E223.
35. Haijun M, Xiaobing Z, Bin G, et al. Trans-interlamina percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy for symptomatic cervical spondylotic radiculopathy using the new Delta system. Sci Rep. 2020;10:10290.
36. Luo RJ, Song Y, Liao ZW, et al. Keyhole foraminotomy via a percutaneous posterior full-endoscopic approach for cervical radiculopathy: an advanced procedure and clinical study. Curr Med Sci. 2020;40:1170–1176.
37. Bohlman HH, Emery SE, Goodfellow DB, et al. Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75:1298–1307.
38. Bartels RH, Donk R, van Azn RD. Height of cervical foramina after anterior discectomy and implantation of a carbon fiber cage. J Neurosurg. 2001;95(suppl):40–42.
39. Li T, Yang JS, Wang XF, et al. Can zero-profile cage maintain the cervical curvature similar to plate-cage construct for single-level anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion? World Neurosurg. 2020;135:e300–e306.
40. Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, et al. 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;50:219–226.
41. Winder MJ, Thomas KC. Minimally invasive versus open approach for cervical laminoforaminotomy. Can J Neurol Sci. 2011;38:262–267.
42. Witiw CD, Smieliauskas F, O’Toole JE, et al. Comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion to posterior cervical foraminotomy for cervical radiculopathy: utilization, costs, and adverse events 2003 to 2014. Neurosurgery. 2019;84:413–420.
43. Tomasino A, Gebhard H, Parikh K, et al. Bioabsorbable instrumentation for single-level cervical degenerative disc disease: a radiological and clinical outcome study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11:529–537.
44. Faldini C, Chehrassan M, Miscione MT, et al. Single-level anterior cervical discectomy and interbody fusion using PEEK anatomical cervical cage and allograft bone. J Orthop Traumatol. 2011;12:201–205.
45. Zheng C, Huang X, Yu J, et al. Posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical diskectomy: a single-center experience of 252 cases. World Neurosurg. 2018;120:e63–e67.
46. Caglar YS, Bozkurt M, Kahilogullari G, et al. Keyhole approach for posterior cervical discectomy: experience on 84 patients. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2007;50:7–11.
47. Wu PF, Liu BH, Wang B, et al. Complications of full-endoscopic versus microendoscopic foraminotomy for cervical radiculopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2018;114:217–227.
48. Ahn Y, Lee SH, Park WM, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for recurrent disc herniation: surgical technique, outcome, and prognostic factors of 43 consecutive cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29:E326–E332.
49. Ahn SS, Kim SH, Kim DW, et al. Comparison of outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar microdiscectomy for young adults: a retrospective matched cohort study. World Neurosurg. 2016;86:250–258.
Keywords:

meta-analysis; cervical radiculopathy; anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; keyhole; microscopic; endoscopic

Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.