Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

The Korean Neurosurgical Society (대한신경외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Preservation of Motion at the Surgical Level after Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy

  • Lee, Young-Seok (Department of Neurological Surgery, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Young-Baeg (Department of Neurosurgery, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Seung-Won (Department of Neurosurgery, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kang, Dong-Ho (Department of Neurological Surgery, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2015.09.09
  • Accepted : 2015.12.16
  • Published : 2017.07.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective : Although minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) is an established approach for motion preservation, the outcomes are variable among patients. The objective of this study was to identify significant factors that influence motion preservation after MI-PCF. Methods : Forty-eight patients who had undergone MI-PCF between 2004 and 2012 on a total of 70 levels were studied. Cervical parameters measured using plain radiography included C2-7 plumb line, C2-7 Cobb angle, T1 slope, thoracic outlet angle, neck tilt, and disc height before and 24 months after surgery. The ratios of the remaining facet joints after MI-PCF were calculated postoperatively using computed tomography. Changes in the distance between interspinous processes (DISP) and the segmental angle (SA) before and after surgery were also measured. We determined successful motion preservation with changes in DISP of ${\leq}3mm$ and in SA of ${\leq}2^{\circ}$. Results : The differences in preoperative and postoperative DISP and SA after MI-PCF were $0.03{\pm}3.95mm$ and $0.34{\pm}4.46^{\circ}$, respectively, fulfilling the criteria for successful motion preservation. However, the appropriate level of motion preservation is achieved in cases in which changes in preoperative and postoperative DISP and SA motions are 55.7 and 57.1%, respectively. Based on preoperative and postoperative DISP, patients were divided into three groups, and the characteristics of each group were compared. Among these, the only statistically significant factor in motion preservation was preoperative disc height (Pearson's correlation coefficient=0.658, p<0.001). The optimal disc height for motion preservation in regard to DISP ranges from 4.18 to 7.08 mm. Conclusion : MI-PCF is a widely accepted approach for motion preservation, although desirable radiographic outcomes were only achieved in approximately half of the patients who had undergone the procedure. Since disc height appears to be a significant factor in motion preservation, surgeons should consider disc height before performing MI-PCF.

Keywords

References

  1. Adamson TE : Microendoscopic posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy for unilateral radiculopathy: results of a new technique in 100 cases. J Neurosurg 95(1 Suppl): 51-57, 2001 https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.2001.95.1.0051
  2. Albert TJ, Vacarro A : Postlaminectomy kyphosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23 : 2738-2745, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199812150-00014
  3. Bydon M, Mathios D, Macki M, de la Garza-Ramos R, Sciubba DM, Witham TF, et al. : Long-term patient outcomes after posterior cervical foraminotomy: an analysis of 151 cases. J Neurosurg Spine 21 : 727-731, 2014 https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.7.SPINE131110
  4. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH, Jeong ST, Kim JG, Hodges SD, et al. : Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacentlevel intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27 : 2431-2434, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200211150-00003
  5. Fessler RG, Khoo LT : Minimally invasive cervical microendoscopic foraminotomy: an initial clinical experience. Neurosurgery 51(5 Suppl) : S37-S45, 2002
  6. Hyun SJ, Riew KD, Rhim SC : Range of motion loss after cervical laminoplasty: a prospective study with minimum 5-year follow-up data. Spine J 13 : 384-390, 2013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2012.10.037
  7. Jacobs W, Willems PC, Kruyt M, van Limbeek J, Anderson PG, Pavlov P, et al. : Systematic review of anterior interbody fusion techniques for single-and double-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36 : E950-E960, 2011 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31821cbba5
  8. Jagannathan J, Sherman JH, Szabo T, Shaffrey CI, Jane JA : The posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical disc/osteophyte disease: a single-surgeon experience with a minimum of 5 years' clinical and radiographic follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 10 : 347-356, 2009 https://doi.org/10.3171/2008.12.SPINE08576
  9. Kim KT, Kim YB : Comparison between open procedure and tubular retractor assisted procedure for cervical radiculopathy: results of a randomized controlled study. J Korean Med Sci 24 : 649-653, 2009 https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2009.24.4.649
  10. Lawrence BD, Hilibrand AS, Brodt ED, Dettori JR, Brodke DS : Predicting the risk of adjacent segment pathology in the cervical spine: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(22 Suppl) : S52-S64, 2012 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826d60fb
  11. Lee SH, Kim KT, Seo EM, Suk KS, Kwack YH, Son ES : The influence of thoracic inlet alignment on the craniocervical sagittal balance in asymptomatic adults. J Spinal Disord Tech 25 : E41-E47, 2012 https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182396301
  12. Lubelski D, Healy AT, Silverstein MP, Abdullah KG, Thompson NR, Riew KD, et al. : Reoperation rates after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus posterior cervical foraminotomy: a propensity-matched analysis. Spine J 15 : 1277-1283, 2015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.02.026
  13. Maiman DJ, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA : Biomechanical effect of anterior cervical spine fusion on adjacent segments. Biomed Mater Eng 9 : 27-38, 1999
  14. Mansfield HE, Canar WJ, Gerard CS, O'Toole JE : Single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy for patients with cervical radiculopathy: a cost analysis. Neurosurg Focus 37 : E9, 2014
  15. Matsumoto M, Okada E, Ichihara D, Watanabe K, Chiba K, Toyama Y, et al. : Anterior cervical decompression and fusion accelerates adjacent segment degeneration: comparison with asymptomatic volunteers in a ten-year magnetic resonance imaging follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35 : 36-43, 2010 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b8a80d
  16. McAnany SJ, Kim JS, Overley SC, Baird EO, Anderson PA, Qureshi SA : A meta-analysis of cervical foraminotomy: open versus minimally-invasive techniques. Spine J 15 : 849-856, 2015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.01.021
  17. Scheer JK, Tang JA, Smith JS, Acosta FL Jr, Protopsaltis TS, Blondel B, et al. : Cervical spine alignment, sagittal deformity, and clinical implications: a review. J Neurosurg Spine 19 : 141-159, 2013 https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.4.SPINE12838
  18. Scoville WB : Types of cervical disk lesions and their surgical approaches. JAMA 196 : 479-481, 1966 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1966.03100190063017
  19. 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 14 : 2405-2411, 2014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2014.01.048
  20. Wang TY, Lubelski D, Abdullah KG, Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC, Mroz TE : Rates of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion after initial posterior cervical foraminotomy. Spine J 15 : 971-976, 2015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.05.042
  21. Zdeblick TA, Zou D, Warden KE, McCabe R, Kunz D, Vanderby R : Cervical stability after foraminotomy. A biomechanical in vitro analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74 : 22-27, 1992 https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199274010-00004

Cited by

  1. Comparison of Anterior Cervical Foraminotomy and Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy for Treating Single Level Unilateral Cervical Radiculopathy vol.44, pp.19, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000003081
  2. Overview of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery vol.142, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.06.043
  3. Feasibility of Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy for Adjacent Segmental Disease after Anterior Cervical Fusion vol.63, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2020.0033