Operative treatment of cervical radiculopathy: anterior cervical decompression and fusion compared with posterior foraminotomy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Holy, Marek; MacDowall, Anna; Sigmundsson, F.; Olerud, Claes

doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05492-2

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 55 publications

(83 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Treatment for cervical spinal cord compression in Europe and USA has been performed via the anterior approach and this is considered “Golden standard,” however, in the Asian Pacific, the main treatment procedure is via the posterior approach. 33 Third, a PDQ score ≥13 actually indicates NeP suspected condition, and a PDQ score ≥18 strongly indicates the presence of NeP. In this study, analyses introducing 3 cut-off values of PDQ was not feasible considering the statistical power.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Association Between Preoperative Neuropathic Pain and Patient Reported Outcome Measures After Cervical Spinal Cord Decompression Surgery

Nagata

Tozawa

Miyahara

et al. 2022

Global Spine Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study design A prospective observational study. Objective To evaluate the impact on surgical outcomes of preoperative neuropathic pain (NeP) assessed by the painDETECT questionnaire (PDQ) administered to participants undergoing cervical decompression surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Methods Participating patients were separated into the Non-NeP group (preoperative PDQ score ≤ 12), and NeP group (score ≥ 13). They were asked to complete a booklet questionnaire, including NRS for pain, the Short Form-12 for PCS and MCS, EQ-5D, NDI, and COMI-Neck, at baseline and 1 year after surgery. The JOA score for DCM and radiological changes were also evaluated. Propensity scores were used for the generalized linear model to adjust the patients’ backgrounds. Results Of the 116 patients recruited, 105 completed the one-year follow-up. In this study, 31 (29.5%) and 74 (70.5%) patients in the NeP and non-NeP groups, respectively, were compared. Except for the higher female ratio in the NeP group (64.6% vs 33.2%, P = .009), preoperative demographic data and surgical factors were not significantly different between both groups. The NeP group showed greater neck/arm/hand NRS scores and worse pre- and postoperative NDI/EQ-5D/COMI-Neck scores at baseline and 1 year after surgery, but this was not significant in the MCS/PCS and JOA scores. Change scores of neck/arm/hand NRS scores and MCS/PCS/NDI/EQ-5D/COMI-Neck scores were not significant between both groups. Conclusions The preoperative NeP, assessed by PDQ, was observed in approximately 30% of patients with DCM who underwent decompression surgery. The presence of NeP was associated with worse pre- and postoperative NDI/EQ-5D/COMI-Neck scores.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Association Between Preoperative Neuropathic Pain and Patient Reported Outcome Measures After Cervical Spinal Cord Decompression Surgery

Nagata

Tozawa

Miyahara

et al. 2022

Global Spine Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, anatomical abnormalities on MRI are frequently observed in asymptomatic patients 32,33 . There is currently no consensus or high‐quality evidence regarding the optimal timing of medical imaging in patients with cervical radicular pain, with one randomized surgical study requiring a concordant MRI within 18 weeks of surgery 34 . In the absence of red flags, it is appropriate to limit the use of MRI to patients who remain symptomatic after 4–6 weeks of conservative treatment.…”

Section: Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…32,33 There is currently no consensus or high-quality evidence regarding the optimal timing of medical imaging in patients with cervical radicular pain, with one randomized surgical study requiring a concordant MRI within 18 weeks of surgery. 34 In the absence of red flags, it is appropriate to limit the use of MRI to patients who remain symptomatic after 4-6 weeks of conservative treatment. This proposed time window is a pragmatic recommendation based on the natural course of the disease and the recommendations available for lumbosacral radicular pain in clinical practice guidelines.…”

Section: Medical Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

2. Cervical radicular pain

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionCervical radicular pain is pain perceived in the upper limb, caused by irritation or compression of a cervical spine nerve, the roots of the nerve, or both.MethodsThe literature on the diagnosis and treatment of cervical radicular pain was retrieved and summarized.ResultsThe diagnosis is made by combining elements from the patient's history, physical examination, and supplementary tests. The Spurling and shoulder abduction tests are the two most common examinations used to identify cervical radicular pain. MRI without contrast, CT scanning, and in some cases plain radiography can all be appropriate imaging techniques for nontraumatic cervical radiculopathy. MRI is recommended prior to interventional treatments. Exercise with or without other treatments can be beneficial. There is scant evidence for the use of paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs, and neuropathic pain medications such as gabapentin, pregabalin, tricyclic antidepressants, and anticonvulsants for the treatment of radicular pain. Acute and subacute cervical radicular pain may respond well to epidural corticosteroid administration, preferentially using an interlaminar approach. By contrast, for chronic cervical radicular pain, the efficacy of epidural corticosteroid administration is limited. In these patients, pulsed radiofrequency treatment adjacent to the dorsal root ganglion may be considered.ConclusionsThere is currently no gold standard for the diagnosis of cervical radicular pain. There is scant evidence for the use of medication. Epidural corticosteroid injection and pulsed radiofrequency adjacent to the dorsal root ganglion may be considered. [Correction added on 12 June 2023, after first online publication: The preceding sentence was corrected.]

show abstract

“…33 The full protocol was published in 2021. 34 The outcomes have not yet been published; the expected completion date of the trial is January 2026.…”

Section: Randomised Controlled Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy for Cervical Brachialgia: the FORVAD RCT

Thomson,

Ainsworth,

Selvanathan

et al. 2023

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Posterior cervical foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy are routinely used operations to treat cervical brachialgia, although definitive evidence supporting superiority of either is lacking. Objective The primary objective was to investigate whether or not posterior cervical foraminotomy is superior to anterior cervical discectomy in improving clinical outcome. Design This was a Phase III, unblinded, prospective, United Kingdom multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled superiority trial comparing posterior cervical foraminotomy with anterior cervical discectomy. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during the close-down phase, involving remote semistructured interviews with trial participants and health-care professionals. Setting National Health Service trusts. Participants Patients with symptomatic unilateral cervical brachialgia for at least 6 weeks. Interventions Participants were randomised to receive posterior cervical foraminotomy or anterior cervical discectomy. Allocation was not blinded to participants, medical staff or trial staff. Health-care use from providing the initial surgical intervention to hospital discharge was measured and valued using national cost data. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was clinical outcome, as measured by patient-reported Neck Disability Index score 52 weeks post operation. Secondary outcome measures included complications, reoperations and restricted American Spinal Injury Association score over 6 weeks post operation, and patient-reported Eating Assessment Tool-10 items, Glasgow–Edinburgh Throat Scale, Voice Handicap Index-10 items, PainDETECT and Numerical Rating Scales for neck and upper-limb pain over 52 weeks post operation. Results The target recruitment was 252 participants. Owing to slow accrual, the trial closed after randomising 23 participants from 11 hospitals. The qualitative substudy found that there was support and enthusiasm for the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial and randomised clinical trials in this area. However, clinical equipoise appears to have been an issue for sites and individual surgeons. Randomisation on the day of surgery and processes for screening and approaching participants were also crucial factors in some centres. The median Neck Disability Index scores at baseline (pre surgery) and at 52 weeks was 44.0 (interquartile range 36.0–62.0 weeks) and 25.3 weeks (interquartile range 20.0–42.0 weeks), respectively, in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group (n = 14), and 35.6 weeks (interquartile range 34.0–44.0 weeks) and 45.0 weeks (interquartile range 20.0–57.0 weeks), respectively, in the anterior cervical discectomy group (n = 9). Scores appeared to reduce (i.e. improve) in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group, but not in the anterior cervical discectomy group. The median Eating Assessment Tool-10 items score for swallowing was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (13.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (0) on day 1, but not at other time points, whereas the median Glasgow–Edinburgh Throat Scale score for globus was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (15, 7, 6, 6, 2, 2.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (3, 0, 0, 0.5, 0, 0) at all postoperative time points. Five postoperative complications occurred within 6 weeks of surgery, all after anterior cervical discectomy. Neck pain was more severe on day 1 following posterior cervical foraminotomy (Numerical Rating Scale – Neck Pain score 8.5) than at the same time point after anterior cervical discectomy (Numerical Rating Scale – Neck Pain score 7.0). The median health-care costs of providing initial surgical intervention were £2610 for posterior cervical foraminotomy and £4411 for anterior cervical discectomy. Conclusions The data suggest that posterior cervical foraminotomy is associated with better outcomes, fewer complications and lower costs, but the trial recruited slowly and closed early. Consequently, the trial is underpowered and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Recruitment was impaired by lack of individual equipoise and by concern about randomising on the day of surgery. A large prospective multicentre trial comparing anterior cervical discectomy and posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia is still required. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN10133661. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

Operative treatment of cervical radiculopathy: anterior cervical decompression and fusion compared with posterior foraminotomy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Cited by 6 publications

References 55 publications

Association Between Preoperative Neuropathic Pain and Patient Reported Outcome Measures After Cervical Spinal Cord Decompression Surgery

Association Between Preoperative Neuropathic Pain and Patient Reported Outcome Measures After Cervical Spinal Cord Decompression Surgery

2. Cervical radicular pain

Posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy for Cervical Brachialgia: the FORVAD RCT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About