2016
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-016-3193-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Microsurgery or open cervical foraminotomy for cervical radiculopathy? A systematic review

Abstract: Objective The purpose of this article was to systematically review the clinical outcomes of microendoscopic foraminotomy compared with the traditional open cervical foraminotomy. Methods A literature search of two databases was performed to identify investigations performed in the treatment of cervical foraminotomy with microsurgery or an open approach. Data including blood loss, surgical time, hospital stay, complications, clinical success rate, reduction of arm and neck pain, improvement of neurological func… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
14
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
(27 reference statements)
1
14
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The evolution of minimally invasive solutions to degenerative spine pathologies makes sense to patients who want to get back to life more quickly and may make sense to health care delivery systems as we have to consider how to pay for caring for this aging population. Other studies have shown that microendoscopic minimally invasive cervical foraminotomy is as successful as an open surgical approach for the same disease pathology (12,13). Patients with symptomatic cervical radiculopathy from foraminal stenosis can be effectively managed with either a traditional open or a minimally invasive foraminotomy, and here we describe an endoscopic technique for performing a multilevel posterior cervical foraminotomy that highlights nuances of a procedure that offers both advantages and challenges to the spine surgeon who is trying to take advantage of the newest advances in the growing technology available in minimally invasive spine surgery.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The evolution of minimally invasive solutions to degenerative spine pathologies makes sense to patients who want to get back to life more quickly and may make sense to health care delivery systems as we have to consider how to pay for caring for this aging population. Other studies have shown that microendoscopic minimally invasive cervical foraminotomy is as successful as an open surgical approach for the same disease pathology (12,13). Patients with symptomatic cervical radiculopathy from foraminal stenosis can be effectively managed with either a traditional open or a minimally invasive foraminotomy, and here we describe an endoscopic technique for performing a multilevel posterior cervical foraminotomy that highlights nuances of a procedure that offers both advantages and challenges to the spine surgeon who is trying to take advantage of the newest advances in the growing technology available in minimally invasive spine surgery.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While most of the patients who suffered from cervical radiculopathy were treated with conservative management. A good proportion of them failed conservative treatment and fulfilled the indications for surgery [19]. While anterior based procedures such as ACDF and ADR had demonstrated good clinical outcomes, these procedures sacrifice the intervertebral disc in order to achieve their objective of decompression.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The utilization of endoscopy can minimize soft tissue injury. A systematic review by Song et al (14) reported clinical outcomes of micro-endoscopic foraminotomy compared with traditional open method. They identified using of micro-endoscopy have less blood loss and shorter surgical time compared to the standard open surgery.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%