Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background and Objectives: Full-endoscopic cervical foraminotomy (FECF) and microendoscopic cervical foraminotomy (MECF) are effective surgeries for cervical radiculopathy and are considered minimally invasive in terms of damage to paraspinal soft tissue. However, no studies have quantitatively compared FECF and MECF in terms of neurological invasiveness. The aim of this study was to compare the neurological invasiveness of FECF and MECF using intraoperative motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring. Materials and Methods: A chart review was conducted of 224 patients with cervical radiculopathy who underwent FECF or MECF between April 2014 and March 2020. Patients were 37 women and 187 men, with a mean age of 51 (range, 21–86) years. FECF was performed in 143 cases and MECF was performed in 81 cases. Results: Average MEP amplitude significantly increased from 292 mV before to 677 mV after nerve root decompression in patients who underwent the FECF. The average improvement rate was 273%. In patients who underwent the MECF, average MEP amplitude significantly increased from 306 mV before to 432 mV after nerve root decompression. The average improvement rate was 130%. The improvement rate was significantly higher for FECF compared with MECF. Conclusions: MEP amplitude increased after nerve root decompression in both FECF and MECF, but the improvement rate was higher in FECF. These results suggest that FECF might be more minimally invasive than MECF in terms of neurological aspects.

Background Cervical spondylosis (CS), including myelopathy and radiculopathy, is the most common degenerative cervical spine disease. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) compared to those of conventional anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) for treating unilateral cervical radiculopathy or coexisting cervical myelopathy induced by unilateral cervical herniated discs. Methods A prospective, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial was conducted. The sample consisted of 131 patients who underwent UBE or ACDF was conducted between September 2021 and September 2022. Patients with cervical nerve roots or coexisting spinal cord compression symptoms and imaging-defined unilateral cervical radiculopathy or coexisting cervical myelopathy induced by unilateral cervical herniated discs were randomized into two groups: a UBE group ( n  = 63) and an ACDF group ( n  = 68). The operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay after surgery, and perioperative complications were recorded. Preoperative and postoperative modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scale scores, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, neck disability index (NDI) scores, and recovery rate (RR) of the mJOA were utilized to evaluate clinical outcomes. Results The hospital stay after surgery was significantly shorter in patients treated with UBE than in those treated with ACDF ( p  < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the neck or arm VAS score, NDI score, mJOA score, or mean RR of the mJOA between the two groups ( p  < 0.05). Only mild complications were observed in both groups, with no significant difference ( p  = 0.30). Conclusion UBE can significantly relieve pain and disability without severe complications, and most patients are satisfied with this technique. Consequently, this procedure can be used safely and effectively as an alternative to ACDF for treating unilateral cervical radiculopathy or coexisting cervical myelopathy induced by unilateral cervical herniated discs. Trial registration This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on 02/08/2023 ( http://www.chictr.org.cn , #ChiCTR2300074273).

Background Most patients with cervical radiculopathy improve within the first months without treatment or with non-surgical treatment. A systematic review concluded that these patients improve, regardless of their intervention. Still, many patients are offered surgery, despite limited evidence regarding the indications for surgical treatments. The aim of this article is to describe the intervention that is going to be followed in the non-surgical treatment arm of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical treatment for patients with cervical radiculopathy. Methods The non-surgical intervention is a functional intervention within a cognitive approach founded on previous experiences, and current recommendations for best practice care of musculoskeletal pain and cervical radiculopathy. It is based on the biopsychosocial rather than a biomedical perspective, comprises an interdisciplinary approach (physicians, physiotherapy specialists), and includes brief intervention and graded activities. The intervention consists of 6 sessions over 12 weeks. The primary goals are first, to validate the patients´ symptoms and build a therapeutic alliance, second, to explore the understanding and promote alternatives, and third, to explore problems and opportunities based on patients´ symptoms and function. Motivational factors toward self-management are challenging. We will attempt shared decision-making in planning progress for the individual patient and emphasise learning of practical self-help strategies and encouragement to stay active (reinforcing the positive natural course). General physical activities such as walking will be promoted along with simple functional exercises for the neck- and shoulder region. We will also explore social activity, comorbidities, pain location, sleep, and work-related factors. The health providers will set individualised goals together with each patient. Discussion The aim of the intervention is to describe a functional intervention within a cognitive approach for patients with chronic cervical radiculopathy. The effectiveness of the present program will be compared to surgery in a randomised controlled trial.

Purpose For cervical nerve root compression, anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (anterior surgery) or posterior foraminotomy (posterior surgery) are safe and effective options. Posterior surgery might have a more beneficial economic profile compared to anterior surgery. The purpose of this study was to analyse if posterior surgery is cost-effective compared to anterior surgery. Methods An economic evaluation was performed as part of a multicentre, noninferiority randomised clinical trial (Foraminotomy ACDF Cost-effectiveness Trial) with a follow-up of 2 years. Primary outcomes were cost-effectiveness based on arm pain (Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 0–100)) and cost-utility (quality adjusted life years (QALYs)). Missing values were estimated with multiple imputations and bootstrap simulations were used to obtain confidence intervals (CIs). Results In total, 265 patients were randomised and 243 included in the analyses. The pooled mean decrease in VAS arm at 2-year follow-up was 44.2 in the posterior and 40.0 in the anterior group (mean difference, 4.2; 95% CI, − 4.7 to 12.9). Pooled mean QALYs were 1.58 (posterior) and 1.56 (anterior) (mean difference, 0.02; 95% CI, − 0.05 to 0.08). Societal costs were €28,046 for posterior and €30,086 for the anterior group, with lower health care costs for posterior (€12,248) versus anterior (€16,055). Bootstrapped results demonstrated similar effectiveness between groups with in general lower costs associated with posterior surgery. Conclusion In patients with cervical radiculopathy, arm pain and QALYs were similar between posterior and anterior surgery. Posterior surgery was associated with lower costs and is therefore likely to be cost-effective compared with anterior surgery.

Cervical radiculopathy is characterized by neurological dysfunction caused by compression and inflammation of the spinal nerves or nerve roots of the cervical spine. It mainly presents with neck and arm pain, sensory loss, motor dysfunction, and reflex changes according to the dermatomal distribution. The most common causes of cervical radiculopathy are cervical disc herniation and cervical spondylosis. It is important to find the exact symptomatic segment and distinguish between conditions that may mimic certain cervical radicular compression syndromes through meticulous physical examinations and precise reading of radiographs. Non-surgical treatments are recommended as an initial management. Surgery is applicable to patients with intractable or persistent pain despite sufficient conservative management or with severe or progressive neurological deficits. Cervical radiculopathy is treated surgically by anterior and/or posterior approaches. The appropriate choice of surgical treatment should be individualized, considering the patient’s main pathophysiology, specific clinical symptoms and radiographic findings thoroughly.

Background Cervical radiculopathy is usually caused by disc herniation or spondylosis. The prognosis is expected to be good in most patients, but there is limited scientific evidence on the indications for nonsurgical and surgical treatments. The aim of the present study is to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of surgical and nonsurgical treatment in two trials – including disc herniation and spondylosis, respectively, and to evaluate factors that contribute to better decision making. Methods/design Patients with disabling radicular arm pain and MRI-proven cervical disc herniation or spondylosis will be randomised to receive nonsurgical or surgical treatment. The follow-up period is one year and the sample size is estimated to be 50 for each arm in the two trials, giving a total of 200 patients. The primary outcomes are the Neck Disability Index and arm pain. Secondary outcomes include neck pain; EQ-5D and costs to evaluate cost-effectiveness; prognostic factors; CT and MRI scans, to estimate intervertebral foraminal area and nerve root compression; and the expected minimal improvement for willingness to undergo treatment. Discussion The outcomes of this study will contribute to better decision making in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy. Trial registration This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03674619 , on September 17, 2018.

Background:One of the most common surgical operations for treatment of cervical spondylosis is anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF). In order to achieve stable fusion after discectomy and avoid dysphagia the artificial stand-alone zero-profile cages with integrated screws were developed and introduced into clinical practice. Outcome and complications after ACDF with such cages were not adequately assessed yet.Methods:We analyzed 20 consecutive patients with cervical spondylosis treated in our institution with ACDF with stand-alone zero-profile cage Zero-P. Before and after surgery and then 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery we assessed the level of pain with VAS scale, severity of myelopathy with mJOA scale and dysphagia with four level scale. Treatment outcome was assessed after 2 years according to Odom's criteria.Results:No complications occurred during surgery or recovery after surgery. The VAS score after surgery and then after 6, 12 and 24 months was statistically significantly lower than before surgery (p<0.05). The mJOA scores were 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery statistically significantly higher than before surgery (p<0.05). Transient and mild dysphagia was present after surgery in 15% (3/20) of patients and 6, 12 or 24 months after surgery in none. Outcome after 2 years was excellent in 9 patients and good in 11 patients.Conclusions:Operative treatment of symptomatic cervical spondylosis with ACDF using stand-alone zero-profile cage with integrated screws is safe and efficient. Incidence of dysphagia after surgery is low and generally transient.

Background Cervical radiculopathy (CR) is a common condition, often associated with cervicogenic headache (CGH), a secondary headache arising from cervical spine disorders. Mechanical intermittent cervical traction (MICT) is frequently prescribed to treat CR symptoms. The purpose of the study was to make a preliminary estimate of efficacy of adding MICT to conventional rehabilitation on CGH in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Methods A total of 36 CR patients with CGH were randomly allocated to 3 equally sized groups (A, B and C). The treatment consisted of twelve sessions of conventional rehabilitation (4 weeks) combined with MICT (2 kg for group A, 8 kg for group B and 12 kg for group C). Primary outcomes were CGH intensity (visual analog scale) and frequency (days per week). Secondary outcomes were radicular pain intensity (visual analog scale), cervical range of motion (cervical range of motion instrument), proprioception (cervical range of motion instrument) and muscle strength (MicroFET2 dynamometer), handgrip strength (handheld dynamometer), function (Neck Disability Index), kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale for KInesiophobia), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depresion questionnaire), and quality of life (World Health Organization Quality of Life). Patients were assessed at baseline, one, three and six months after the beginning of treatment. The post hoc Dunn testing was used to determine which traction load had the better effect on CGH symptoms. Results At one, three and six months follow-ups, Group C exhibited the highest improvement in CGH intensity and frequency compared to the other groups ( p  = 0.021 and p  = 0.023; p  = 0.012 and p  = 0.01; p  = 0.005 and p  = 0.005). Both groups C and B showed a significant improvement in radicular pain compared to group A at one month follow-up ( p  = 0.05).The improvement in group C was significantly better in terms of function ( p  = 0.049) and anxiety ( p  = 0.011) at three months and quality of life at six months (Psychological p  = 0.046 and Environment p  = 0.006). Conclusions The blend of conventional rehabilitation alongside 12 kg MICT seems to be efficacious in diminishing both the intensity and frequency of CGH in patients with CR. These advantages appear to last for up to six months following the treatment period, potentially leading to decreased CGH severity and occurrence rates, heightened functionality, reduced anxiety levels, and an overall enhancement in quality of life. These findings are preliminary and require confirmation in larger trials. Trial registration The study protocol was retrospectively registered at the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR202401838955948). Date of registration is 16/01/2024.

Introduction Neck pain is one of the most common complaints in clinical practice and can be caused by a wide variety of conditions. While cervical spine surgery is a well-accepted option for radicular pain and myelopathy, surgery for isolated neck pain is controversial. The identification of the source of pain is challenging and subtle, and misdiagnosis can lead to inappropriate treatment. Materials and methods and results We conducted a thorough literature review to discuss and compare different causes of neck pain. We then supplemented the literature with our senior author’s expert analysis of treating cervical spine pathology. Conclusions This study provides an in-depth discussion of neck pain and its various presentations, as well as providing insight into treatment strategies and diagnostic pearls that may prevent mistreatment of cervical spine pathology.

PurposeCervical radiculopathy is a common disabling cervical spine condition. Open anterior and posterior approaches are the conventional surgical treatment approaches with good clinical outcomes. However, the soft tissue damage in these procedures can lead to increase perioperative morbidity. Endoscopic spine surgery provides more soft tissue preservation than conventional approaches. We investigate the radiological and clinical outcomes of posterior endoscopic cervical foraminotomy and discectomy.MethodsA prospective clinical and radiological study with retrospective evaluation were done for 25 patients with 29 levels of cervical radiculopathy who underwent posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy from November 2016 to December 2018. Clinical outcomes of Visual Analogue Scale, Neck Disability Index and MacNab’s score were evaluated at pre-operative, post-operative 1 week, 3 months and final follow-up. Preoperative and post-operative final follow-up flexion and extension roentgenogram were evaluated for cervical stability assessment. Pre-operative and post-operative computer tomography cervical spine evaluation of foraminal length in ventro-dorsal, cephalad-caudal dimensions, sagittal foraminal area and using 3D CT reconstruction coronal decompression area were done.ResultsTwenty-nine levels of cervical radiculopathy underwent posterior endoscopic cervical decompression. The mean follow-up was 29.6 months, and the most common levels affected were C5/6 and C6/7. There was a complication rate of 12% with 2 cases of neurapraxia and one case of recurrent of prolapsed disc. There was no revision surgery in our series. There was significant clinical improvement in Visual Analogue Scale and Neck Disability Index. Prospective comparative study between preoperative and final follow-up mean improvement in VAS score was 5.08 ± 1.75, and NDI was 45.1 ± 13.3. Ninety-two percent of the patients achieved good and excellent results as per MacNab’s criteria. Retrospective evaluation of the radiological data showed significant increments of foraminal dimensions: (1) sagittal area increased 21.4 ± 11.2 mm2, (2) CT Cranio Caudal length increased 1.21 ± 1.30 mm and (3) CT ventro-dorsal length increased 2.09 ± 1.35 mm and (4) 3D CT scan reconstruction coronal decompression area increased 536 ± 176 mm2, p < 0.05.ConclusionUniportal posterior endoscopic cervical foraminotomy and discectomy are safe, efficient and precise choreographed set of technique in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy. It significantly improved clinical outcomes and achieved the objective of increasing in the cervical foramen size in our cohort of patients.