Cargando…

Comparison between Anterior Cervical Decompression with Fusion and Posterior Cervical Fusion with Wide Facetectomy for Treatment of Severe Bony Foraminal Stenosis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical fusion (PCF) with wide facetectomy in the treatment of parallel-shaped bony foraminal stenosis (FS). METHODS: Thirty-six patients underwent surgery due to one-or-two levels of parallel-shaped cervical FS....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Subum, Cho, Dae-Chul, Chon, Haemin, Roh, Sung Woo, Choi, Il, Park, Jin Hoon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Neurosurgical Society 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8273773/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34185981
http://dx.doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2020.0263
_version_ 1783721435223556096
author Lee, Subum
Cho, Dae-Chul
Chon, Haemin
Roh, Sung Woo
Choi, Il
Park, Jin Hoon
author_facet Lee, Subum
Cho, Dae-Chul
Chon, Haemin
Roh, Sung Woo
Choi, Il
Park, Jin Hoon
author_sort Lee, Subum
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical fusion (PCF) with wide facetectomy in the treatment of parallel-shaped bony foraminal stenosis (FS). METHODS: Thirty-six patients underwent surgery due to one-or-two levels of parallel-shaped cervical FS. ACDF was performed in 16 patients, and PCF using CPS was performed in 20 patients. All patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Standardized outcome measures such as Numeric rating scale (NRS) score for arm/neck pain and Neck disability index (NDI) were evaluated. Cervical radiographs were used to compare the C2–7 Cobb’s angle, segmental angle, and fusion rates. RESULTS: There was an improvement in NRS scores after both approaches for radicular arm pain (mean change -6.78 vs. -8.14, p=0.012), neck pain (mean change -1.67 vs. -4.36, p=0.038), and NDI score (-19.69 vs. -18.15, p=0.794). The segmental angle improvement was greater in the ACDF group than in the posterior group (9.4°±2.7° vs. 3.3°±5.1°, p=0.004). However, there was no significant difference in C2–7 Cobb angle between groups (16.2°±7.9° vs. 14.8°±8.5°, p=0.142). As a complication, dysphagia was observed in one case of the ACDF group. CONCLUSION: In the treatment of parallel-shaped bony FS up to two surgical levels, segmental angle improvement was more favorable in patients who underwent ACDF. However, PCF with wide facetectomy using CPS should be considered as an alternative treatment option in cases where the anterior approach is burdensome.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8273773
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Korean Neurosurgical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82737732021-07-20 Comparison between Anterior Cervical Decompression with Fusion and Posterior Cervical Fusion with Wide Facetectomy for Treatment of Severe Bony Foraminal Stenosis Lee, Subum Cho, Dae-Chul Chon, Haemin Roh, Sung Woo Choi, Il Park, Jin Hoon J Korean Neurosurg Soc Clinical Article OBJECTIVE: To compare the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical fusion (PCF) with wide facetectomy in the treatment of parallel-shaped bony foraminal stenosis (FS). METHODS: Thirty-six patients underwent surgery due to one-or-two levels of parallel-shaped cervical FS. ACDF was performed in 16 patients, and PCF using CPS was performed in 20 patients. All patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Standardized outcome measures such as Numeric rating scale (NRS) score for arm/neck pain and Neck disability index (NDI) were evaluated. Cervical radiographs were used to compare the C2–7 Cobb’s angle, segmental angle, and fusion rates. RESULTS: There was an improvement in NRS scores after both approaches for radicular arm pain (mean change -6.78 vs. -8.14, p=0.012), neck pain (mean change -1.67 vs. -4.36, p=0.038), and NDI score (-19.69 vs. -18.15, p=0.794). The segmental angle improvement was greater in the ACDF group than in the posterior group (9.4°±2.7° vs. 3.3°±5.1°, p=0.004). However, there was no significant difference in C2–7 Cobb angle between groups (16.2°±7.9° vs. 14.8°±8.5°, p=0.142). As a complication, dysphagia was observed in one case of the ACDF group. CONCLUSION: In the treatment of parallel-shaped bony FS up to two surgical levels, segmental angle improvement was more favorable in patients who underwent ACDF. However, PCF with wide facetectomy using CPS should be considered as an alternative treatment option in cases where the anterior approach is burdensome. Korean Neurosurgical Society 2021-07 2021-06-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8273773/ /pubmed/34185981 http://dx.doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2020.0263 Text en Copyright © 2021 The Korean Neurosurgical Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Article
Lee, Subum
Cho, Dae-Chul
Chon, Haemin
Roh, Sung Woo
Choi, Il
Park, Jin Hoon
Comparison between Anterior Cervical Decompression with Fusion and Posterior Cervical Fusion with Wide Facetectomy for Treatment of Severe Bony Foraminal Stenosis
title Comparison between Anterior Cervical Decompression with Fusion and Posterior Cervical Fusion with Wide Facetectomy for Treatment of Severe Bony Foraminal Stenosis
title_full Comparison between Anterior Cervical Decompression with Fusion and Posterior Cervical Fusion with Wide Facetectomy for Treatment of Severe Bony Foraminal Stenosis
title_fullStr Comparison between Anterior Cervical Decompression with Fusion and Posterior Cervical Fusion with Wide Facetectomy for Treatment of Severe Bony Foraminal Stenosis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between Anterior Cervical Decompression with Fusion and Posterior Cervical Fusion with Wide Facetectomy for Treatment of Severe Bony Foraminal Stenosis
title_short Comparison between Anterior Cervical Decompression with Fusion and Posterior Cervical Fusion with Wide Facetectomy for Treatment of Severe Bony Foraminal Stenosis
title_sort comparison between anterior cervical decompression with fusion and posterior cervical fusion with wide facetectomy for treatment of severe bony foraminal stenosis
topic Clinical Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8273773/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34185981
http://dx.doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2020.0263
work_keys_str_mv AT leesubum comparisonbetweenanteriorcervicaldecompressionwithfusionandposteriorcervicalfusionwithwidefacetectomyfortreatmentofseverebonyforaminalstenosis
AT chodaechul comparisonbetweenanteriorcervicaldecompressionwithfusionandposteriorcervicalfusionwithwidefacetectomyfortreatmentofseverebonyforaminalstenosis
AT chonhaemin comparisonbetweenanteriorcervicaldecompressionwithfusionandposteriorcervicalfusionwithwidefacetectomyfortreatmentofseverebonyforaminalstenosis
AT rohsungwoo comparisonbetweenanteriorcervicaldecompressionwithfusionandposteriorcervicalfusionwithwidefacetectomyfortreatmentofseverebonyforaminalstenosis
AT choiil comparisonbetweenanteriorcervicaldecompressionwithfusionandposteriorcervicalfusionwithwidefacetectomyfortreatmentofseverebonyforaminalstenosis
AT parkjinhoon comparisonbetweenanteriorcervicaldecompressionwithfusionandposteriorcervicalfusionwithwidefacetectomyfortreatmentofseverebonyforaminalstenosis