Microsurgery or open cervical foraminotomy for cervical radiculopathy? A systematic review

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this article was to systematically review the clinical outcomes of microendoscopic foraminotomy compared with the traditional open cervical foraminotomy. Methods: A literature search of two databases was performed to identify investigations performed in the treatment of cervical foraminotomy with microsurgery or an open approach. Data including blood loss, surgical time, hospital stay, complications, clinical success rate, reduction of arm and neck pain, improvement of neurological function, and repeated surgery rate were summarized, calculated and compared. Results of clinical success were performed by calculattng effect indicators and standard errors based on a single rate to assess heterogeneity in the two groups. Results: The initial literature search resulted in 713 articles, of which, 26 were determined as relevant on abstract review. An open foraminotomy approach was performed in 16 and a microsurgery approach in ten studies. The open group demonstrated minimal to moderate heterogeneity, with I2 value of 27 %; and microsurgery group demonstrated minimal heterogeneity, with I2 value of 1 %. Aggregated data found that patients treated by microsurgery foraminotomy have lower blood loss by 100.1 ml (open: 149.5 ml, microsurgery: 49.4 ml, n = 1257), shorter surgical time by 24.9 minutes (open 88.7 minutes, microsurgery 63.8 minutes, n = 1423),and shorter hospital stay by 3.0 days (open 4.1 days, microsurgery 1.1 days, n = 1350), compared with patients treated by open cervical foraminotomy. The pooled clinical success rate was 89.7 % [confidence interval (CI) 87.7–91.6) in the open group versus 92.5 % (CI 89.9–95.1) in the microsurgery group, with no statistical difference (p = 0.095). Overall complication rates were not statistically significant between groups (p = 0.757). The incidence of dural tears was 1.07 %(12/1121) in patients undergoing microsurgery versus 0.27 % (2/745) for open surgery (p = 0.091). The incidence of infection was 0.54 % (6/1121) in patients undergoing microsurgery versus 0.40 % (3/745) for open surgery (p = 0.949). The incidence of root injury was 0.80 % (9/1121) in patients undergoing microsurgery versus 1.48 % (11/745) for open surgery (p = 0.166). Revision surgery occurred in 2.32 % (27/1163) in the microsurgery group versus 3.35 % (28/835) for traditional surgery, with no statistical difference (p = 0.164). Pooled reduction in visual analogue scale for the arm (VASA) was 75.0 % (CI 66.0–84.0) in the open group and 87.1 % (CI:76.7, 97.5) in the microsurgery group, with no statistical difference (p = 0.065). Pooled reduction in VAS of the neck (VASN) was 66.2 % (CI:52.2, 80.2) in the open group and 68.1 % (CI:36.4, 99.8) in the microsurgery group, with no statistical difference(p = 0.894). Pooled improvement in neurological function was 55.3 % (CI:18.6, 91.9) in the open group and 64.9 % (CI:34.6, 95.2) in the microsurgery group, with no statistical difference (p = 0.576). Conclusions: Although advantages of cervical microsurgery are less blood loss and shorter surgical time and hospital stay over the standard open technique, there is no significant difference in clinical success rate, complication rate, reduction of arm and neck pain and improvement of neurological function between microsurgery and open cervical foraminotomy.