Does the endoscopic keyhole technique have advantages over the microscopic keyhole technique for treating cervical radiculopathy?
Background: Both endoscopic keyhole and microscopic keyhole techniques are considered minimally invasive approaches. However, it is still unclear which is superior in treating cervical radiculopathy.
Aim: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of the two methods for cervical radiculopathy.
Methods: Seventy-one patients with cervical radiculopathy caused by single-level disc herniation were retrospectively reviewed. These patients were treated with the endoscopic keyhole technique (EKT) (34 cases, classified as EKT group) or the microscopic keyhole technique (37 cases, classified as MKT group). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), neck disability index (NDI), and visual analog scores (VAS) were employed to assess clinical outcomes. All patients were followed up for at least 24 months.
Results: The average operative time (71.0 ± 15.2 min vs. 63.7 ± 18.9 min, p=0.131), blood loss (56.1 ± 18.2 ml vs. 64.4±13.5 ml, p=0.068), and hospital stay (24.9 ± 5.6h vs. 28.3 ± 7.1 h, p = 0.061) between the EKT and MKT groups were not significantly different. Postoperative MRI demonstrated that effective neural decompression was obtained in all cases after surgery. The NDI in both groups was significantly decreased from pre- to postoperatively (EKT group: 32.8±9.4 vs. 9.2 ± 3.6, p < 0.001; MKT group: 36.2 ± 11.3 vs. 10.5 ± 4.1, p < 0.001), VAS (EKT group: 5.6 ± 2.3 vs. 1. 5± 1.0, p < 0.001; MKT group: 6.2 ± 2.1 vs. 1.9 ± 0.8, p < 0.001). Nine patients in the EKT group underwent revision surgery due to recurrent disc herniation compared with 2 patients in the MKT group (p=0.034). The interval time from primary surgery to revisional surgery was shorter in the EKT group than in the MKT group (21 ± 5.8 w vs. 29 ± 7.2 w, p < 0.001). There were 2 patients with temporary nerve root irritation and 1 patient with cerebrospinal fluid leak that occurred in the EKT group versus 1 patient who suffered nerve root irritation in the MKT group (p = 0.547).
Conclusions: Both EKT keyhole and microscopic keyhole techniques are effective in treating cervical radiculopathy. However, compared with the microscopic keyhole technique, the endoscopic keyhole technique brings about a higher revision surgery rate with a shorter interval time from index surgery to revision surgery.
Relevance for patients: These findings suggest that the microscopic keyhole technique seems to be a better way of treating cervical radiculopathy.
[1] Carette S, Fehlings MG. Clinical Practice. Cervical Radiculopathy. N Engl J Med 2005;353:392-9.
[2] Caridi JM, Pumberger M, Hughes AP. Cervical Radiculopathy: A Review. HSS J 2011;7:265-72.
[3] Skovrlj B, Gologorsky Y, Haque R, Fessler RG, Qureshi SA. Complications, Outcomes, and Need for Fusion after Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy and Microdiscectomy. Spine J 2014;14:2405-11.
[4] Ghori A, Konopka JF, Makanji H, Cha TD, Bono CM. Long Term Societal Costs of Anterior Discectomy and Fusion (acdf) Versus Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (cda) for Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy. Int J Spine Surg 2016;10:1.
[5] Gao Y, Liu M, Li T, Huang F, Tang T, Xiang Z. A MetaAnalysis Comparing the Results of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty with Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (acdf) for the Treatment of Symptomatic Cervical Disc Disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95:555-61.
[6] Chung SW, Kim HJ, Lee SH, Lee SY, Kang MS, Shin YH, et al. Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy for Cervical Radiculopathy: Should Cervical Alignment be Considered? J Spine Surg 2019;5:541-8.
[7] Song KJ, Choi BY. Current Concepts of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Review of Literature. Asian Spine J 2014;8:531-9.
[8] Shin JJ. Comparison of Adjacent Segment Degeneration, Cervical Alignment, and Clinical Outcomes After Oneand Multilevel Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion. Neurospine 2019;16:589-600.
[9] Hilton DL Jr. Minimally Invasive Tubular Access for Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy with Three-Dimensional Microscopic Visualization and Localization with Anterior/ Posterior Imaging. Spine J 2007;7:154-8.
[10] Kiely PD, Quinn JC, Du JY, Lebl DR. Posterior Surgical Treatment of Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Review Article. HSS J 2015;11:36-42.
[11] Saadeh YS, Sabbagh MA, Smith BW, Joseph JR, Buckingham MJ. Technique for Open Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy: 2-Dimensional Operative Video. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2020;18:E120.
[12] Ward SR, Kim CW, Eng CM, Gottschalk LJ 4th, Tomiya A, Garfin SR, et al. Architectural Analysis and Intraoperative Measurements Demonstrate the Unique Design of the Multifidus Muscle for Lumbar Spine Stability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:176-85.
[13] Aldrich F. Posterolateral Microdisectomy for Cervical Monoradiculopathy Caused by Posterolateral Soft Cervical Disc Sequestration. J Neurosurg 1990;72:370-7.
[14] Kunert P, Prokopienko M, Marchel A. Posterior Microlaminoforaminotomy for Cervical Disc Herniation. Neurol Neurochir Pol 2010;44:375-84.
[15] Yolas C, Ozdemir NG, Okay HO, Kanat A, Senol M, Atci IB, et al. Cervical disc hernia operations through posterior laminoforaminotomy. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine 2016;7:91-5.
[16] Oh JK, Hong JT, Kang DH, Kim SW, Kim SW, Kim YJ, et al. Epidemiology of c5 Palsy After Cervical Spine Surgery: A 21-center study. Neurospine 2019;16:558-62.
[17] Harel R, Stylianou P, Knoller N. Cervical Spine Surgery: Approach-Related Complications. World Neurosurg 2016;94:1-5.
[18] Adamson TE. Microendoscopic Posterior Cervical Laminoforaminotomy for Unilateral Radiculopathy: Results of a New Technique in 100 Cases. J Neurosurg 2001;95:51-7.
[19] Burke TG, Caputy A. Microendoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy: A Cadaveric Model and Clinical Application for Cervical Radiculopathy. J Neurosurg 2000;93:126-9.
[20] Xu J, Yu BF, Liu CH, Zheng W, Xiao YH, Lin Y. Microscopic Keyhole Technique for Surgical Removal of Thoracic Spinal Meningiomas. World Neurosurg 2019;124:e373-9.