Feasibility and Safety of Microendoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy in an Ambulatory Surgery Center: A Longitudinal Experience with 1000 Cases

Monk, Steve; Zeitouni, Daniel; Cowan, David; Rossi, Vincent J.; Parish, Jonathan; Dyer, E Hunter; Kim, Paul K.; Adamson, Tim E.

doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2023.02.035

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…21,22 Compared with MECF, both UBE-PCF and FPCF showed the following differences. MECF is performed in the sitting position, and air embolism is a concern during the procedure, 23 while both FPCF and UBE-PCF are performed in the prone position. In addition, the outer diameter of the microendoscopic working sheath is 16-20 mm, while that is 6-8 mm in FPCF and 6-7 mm in UBE-PCF.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy

Zhong

Huang

et al. 2023

Clinical Spine Surgery: A Spine Publication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design: Retrospective control study. Objective: To compare the curative effects of unilateral biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy (UBE-PCF) with full-endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy (FPCF). Summary of Background Data: There are few studies directly comparing outcomes between UBE-PCF and FPCF. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes between UBE-PCF and FPCF. Methods: A retrospective control study was conducted for 69 patients of cervical radiculopathy from July 2019 to December 2021. Clinical outcomes scores, including neck disability index, visual analog scale (VAS)-arm, and VAS-neck were evaluated. Serum creatine kinase levels and the size of the operating hole were measured. Results: Postoperative neck disability index, VAS-neck, and VAS-arm scores showed statistically significant improvement over preoperative scores (P<0.01). The operating time was significantly shorter in the UBE-PCF group (P<0.001). No significant differences were found in serum creatine kinase levels between the 2 groups (P>0.05). The mean area of the operating hole was 1.47+0.05 cm2 in the FPCF group and 1.79+0.11 cm2 in the UBE-PCF group. The difference was statistically significant (P<0.001). Conclusions: Both UBE-PCF and FPCF are safe and effective procedures for cervical radiculopathy. Predictable and sufficient decompression could be achieved by UBE-PCF in a shorter operation time. Level of Evidence: Treatment Benefits Level III.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%