Cargando…

Minimally Invasive versus Open Cervical Foraminotomy: A Systematic Review

Posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy is an effective treatment for cervical radiculopathy due to disc herniations or spondylosis. Over the last decade, minimally invasive (i.e., percutaneous) procedures have become increasingly popular due to a smaller incision size and presumed benefits in postope...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Clark, Jeffrey G., Abdullah, Kalil G., Steinmetz, Michael P., Benzel, Edward C., Mroz, Thomas E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Thieme Medical Publishers 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3864482/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24353931
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1296050
_version_ 1782295939618177024
author Clark, Jeffrey G.
Abdullah, Kalil G.
Steinmetz, Michael P.
Benzel, Edward C.
Mroz, Thomas E.
author_facet Clark, Jeffrey G.
Abdullah, Kalil G.
Steinmetz, Michael P.
Benzel, Edward C.
Mroz, Thomas E.
author_sort Clark, Jeffrey G.
collection PubMed
description Posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy is an effective treatment for cervical radiculopathy due to disc herniations or spondylosis. Over the last decade, minimally invasive (i.e., percutaneous) procedures have become increasingly popular due to a smaller incision size and presumed benefits in postoperative outcomes. We performed a systematic review of the literature and identified studies of open or percutaneous laminoforaminotomy that reported one or more perioperative outcomes. Of 162 publications found by our initial screening, 19 were included in the final analysis. Summative results indicate that patients undergoing percutaneous cervical laminoforaminotomy have lower blood loss by 120.7 mL (open: 173.5 mL, percutaneous: 52.8 mL, n = 670), a shorter surgical time by 50.0 minutes (open: 108.3 minutes, percutaneous: 58.3 minutes, n = 882), less inpatient analgesic use by 25.1 Eq (open: 27.6 Eq, percutaneous: 2.5 Eq, n = 356), and a shorter hospital stay by 2.2 days (open: 3.2 days, percutaneous: 1.0 days, n = 1472), compared with patients undergoing open procedures. However, the heterogeneous nature of published data calls into question the reliability of these summative results. Further structured trials should be conducted to better characterize the risks and benefits of percutaneous laminoforaminotomy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3864482
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Thieme Medical Publishers
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38644822013-12-18 Minimally Invasive versus Open Cervical Foraminotomy: A Systematic Review Clark, Jeffrey G. Abdullah, Kalil G. Steinmetz, Michael P. Benzel, Edward C. Mroz, Thomas E. Global Spine J Article Posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy is an effective treatment for cervical radiculopathy due to disc herniations or spondylosis. Over the last decade, minimally invasive (i.e., percutaneous) procedures have become increasingly popular due to a smaller incision size and presumed benefits in postoperative outcomes. We performed a systematic review of the literature and identified studies of open or percutaneous laminoforaminotomy that reported one or more perioperative outcomes. Of 162 publications found by our initial screening, 19 were included in the final analysis. Summative results indicate that patients undergoing percutaneous cervical laminoforaminotomy have lower blood loss by 120.7 mL (open: 173.5 mL, percutaneous: 52.8 mL, n = 670), a shorter surgical time by 50.0 minutes (open: 108.3 minutes, percutaneous: 58.3 minutes, n = 882), less inpatient analgesic use by 25.1 Eq (open: 27.6 Eq, percutaneous: 2.5 Eq, n = 356), and a shorter hospital stay by 2.2 days (open: 3.2 days, percutaneous: 1.0 days, n = 1472), compared with patients undergoing open procedures. However, the heterogeneous nature of published data calls into question the reliability of these summative results. Further structured trials should be conducted to better characterize the risks and benefits of percutaneous laminoforaminotomy. Thieme Medical Publishers 2011-12 /pmc/articles/PMC3864482/ /pubmed/24353931 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1296050 Text en © Thieme Medical Publishers
spellingShingle Article
Clark, Jeffrey G.
Abdullah, Kalil G.
Steinmetz, Michael P.
Benzel, Edward C.
Mroz, Thomas E.
Minimally Invasive versus Open Cervical Foraminotomy: A Systematic Review
title Minimally Invasive versus Open Cervical Foraminotomy: A Systematic Review
title_full Minimally Invasive versus Open Cervical Foraminotomy: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Minimally Invasive versus Open Cervical Foraminotomy: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Minimally Invasive versus Open Cervical Foraminotomy: A Systematic Review
title_short Minimally Invasive versus Open Cervical Foraminotomy: A Systematic Review
title_sort minimally invasive versus open cervical foraminotomy: a systematic review
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3864482/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24353931
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1296050
work_keys_str_mv AT clarkjeffreyg minimallyinvasiveversusopencervicalforaminotomyasystematicreview
AT abdullahkalilg minimallyinvasiveversusopencervicalforaminotomyasystematicreview
AT steinmetzmichaelp minimallyinvasiveversusopencervicalforaminotomyasystematicreview
AT benzeledwardc minimallyinvasiveversusopencervicalforaminotomyasystematicreview
AT mrozthomase minimallyinvasiveversusopencervicalforaminotomyasystematicreview