Microscopic Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Posterior Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Keyhole Foraminotomy for Single-level Unilateral Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the safety of microscopic anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (MI-ACDF) and posterior percutaneous endoscopic keyhole foraminotomy (PPEKF) in patients diagnosed with single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

After conservative treatment, the symptoms will be relieved in about 90% of cervical radiculopathy patients. For the other one tenth of patients, surgical treatment is needed. The overall complication rate of MI-ACDF and PPEKF ranges from 0% to 25%, and the reoperation rate ranges from 0% to 20%.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic retrieval of studies from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library was performed to identify comparative or single-arm studies on MI-ACDF and PPEKF. A total of 24 studies were included in our meta-analysis by screening according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies, a meta-analysis was performed by using the R software. The pooled incidences of efficient rate, total complication rate, and reoperation rate were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies with 1345 patients (MI-ACDF: 644, PPEKF: 701) were identified. There was no significantly statistical difference in pooled patient effective rate (MI-ACDF: 94.3% vs. PPEKF: 93.3%, P =0.625), total complication rate (MI-ACDF: 7.1% vs. PPEKF: 4.7%, P =0.198), and reoperation rate (MI-ACDF: 1.8% vs. PPEKF: 1.1%, P =0.312). However, the common complications of the 2 procedures were different. The most common complications of MI-ACDF were dysphagia and vertebral body sinking, whereas the most common complication of PPEKF was nerve root palsy.

CONCLUSIONS

Both MI-ACDF and PPEKF can provide a relatively safe and reliable treatment for single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy. The 2 techniques are not significantly different in terms of effective rate, total complication rate, and reoperation rate.