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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |