Anterior or posterior approach in the surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy; neurosurgeons' preference in the Netherlands

Objectives: Several surgical techniques are available for the treatment of cervical degenerative disease. For resolving cervical nerve root compression, anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) can be applied. Amongst neurosurgeons, there seems to be a tendency to prefer ACDF, even though there are some advantages in favor of PCF. The objective of present study is to evaluate which factors determine the choice for an anterior or posterior surgical approach in patients with cervical radiculopathy based on foraminal pathology. Methods: A web-based survey was sent to all 133 neurosurgeons in the Netherlands. The study followed a mixed methods cross-sectional design. The first part of the survey focused on general perceived (dis)advantages of ACDF and PCF. The second part concerned questions about the choice between the two procedures. Furthermore, it was analyzed if exposure during training, amount of performed surgeries, assumed reoperation and complication rates influenced the choice of procedure by conducting Chi-square tests with post-hoc analysis. Results: A total of 56 neurosurgeons responded (42%). An overall preference for ACDF was observed, even when differentiating for a pure disc prolapse, a spondylotic or a combined stenosis of the neuroforamen. The most relative important factors for motivating the preference for either ACDF or PCF were: the assumed best decompression of the nerve root (18%), congruence with current literature (16%), exposure during residency (12%), personal comfort (11%) and experience (11%) with the technique. Conclusion: In this survey, there was an overall preference for ACDF above PCF for the surgical treatment of a foraminal cervical radiculopathy. In addition to subjective factors as "experience" and "comfort", the respondents often motivated their choice as "the best one according to literature". As there is currently no evidence about the superiority of any of the procedures in literature, this assumption is remarkable

Short-Term Neck Pain After Posterior Foraminotomy Compared with Anterior Discectomy with Fusion for Cervical Foraminal Radiculopathy: A Secondary Analysis of the FACET Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND Short-term neck pain after posterior cervical foraminotomy (posterior surgery) compared with anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (anterior surgery) treating cervical radiculopathy has only been assessed once, retrospectively, to our knowledge. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the course of neck pain for 6 weeks after both treatments. METHODS This is a secondary analysis of the multicenter Foraminotomy ACDF Cost-Effectiveness Trial (FACET), conducted from January 2016 to May 2020. Of 389 patients who had single-level, 1-sided cervical radiculopathy and were screened for eligibility, 265 were randomly assigned to undergo posterior surgery (n = 132) or anterior surgery (n = 133). The primary outcome of the present analysis was neck pain, assessed weekly for 6 weeks using the visual analog scale (VAS), on a scale of 0 to 100. The secondary outcomes were arm pain, neck disability, work ability, quality of life, treatment satisfaction, motor and sensory changes, and hospital length of stay. Data were analyzed with mixed model analysis in intention-to-treat samples using 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS In the first postoperative week, the mean VAS for neck pain was 56.2 mm (95% CI, 51.7 to 60.8 mm) after posterior surgery and 46.7 mm (95% CI, 42.2 to 51.2 mm) after anterior surgery. The mean between-group difference was 9.5 mm (95% CI, 3.3 to 15.7 mm), which gradually decreased to 2.3 mm (95% CI, -3.6 to 8.1 mm) at postoperative week 6. As of postoperative week 5, there was no significant difference between groups. Responder analyses confirmed this result. Secondary outcomes showed small differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS Insight into the course of neck pain during the first 6 weeks after posterior compared with anterior surgery is provided. Despite initially more neck pain after posterior surgery, patients swiftly improved and, as of postoperative week 5, results similar to those after anterior surgery were observed. Our findings should enable improved patient counseling and enhanced shared decision-making between physicians and patients with cervical radiculopathy, where more neck pain in the first postoperative weeks should be balanced against the benefits of posterior surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence

The Odom Criteria:Validated at Last: A Clinimetric Evaluation in Cervical Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND: The Odom criteria, established in 1958, are a widely used, 4-point rating scale for assessing the clinical outcome after cervical spine surgery. Surprisingly, the Odom criteria have never been validated, to our knowledge. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of the Odom criteria for the evaluation of surgical procedures of the cervical spine. METHODS: Patients with degenerative cervical spine disease were included in the study and divided into 2 subgroups on the basis of their most predominant symptom: myelopathy or radiculopathy. Reliability was assessed with interrater and test-retest design using quadratic weighted kappa coefficients. Construct validity was assessed by means of hypotheses testing. To evaluate whether the Odom criteria could act as a global perceived effect (GPE) scale, we assessed concurrent validity by comparing area under the curve (AUC) values of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for the set of questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients were included in the study; 19 were excluded, leaving 91 in our analysis. Reliability assessments showed κ = 0.77 for overall interrater reliability and κ = 0.93 for overall test-retest reliability. Interrater reliability was κ = 0.81 for the radiculopathy subgroup and κ = 0.68 for the myelopathy subgroup. At least 75% of the hypotheses were met. The AUCs showed similar characteristics between the Odom criteria and GPE scale. CONCLUSIONS: The Odom criteria met the predefined criteria for reliability and validity. Therefore, the Odom criteria may be used to assess surgical outcome after a cervical spine procedure, specifically for patients presenting with radicular symptoms. The results of previous studies that have been deemed less trustworthy because of the use of the Odom criteria should be reconsidered

The Odom Criteria: Validated at Last: A Clinimetric Evaluation in Cervical Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND: The Odom criteria, established in 1958, are a widely used, 4-point rating scale for assessing the clinical outcome after cervical spine surgery. Surprisingly, the Odom criteria have never been validated, to our knowledge. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of the Odom criteria for the evaluation of surgical procedures of the cervical spine. METHODS: Patients with degenerative cervical spine disease were included in the study and divided into 2 subgroups on the basis of their most predominant symptom: myelopathy or radiculopathy. Reliability was assessed with interrater and test-retest design using quadratic weighted kappa coefficients. Construct validity was assessed by means of hypotheses testing. To evaluate whether the Odom criteria could act as a global perceived effect (GPE) scale, we assessed concurrent validity by comparing area under the curve (AUC) values of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for the set of questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients were included in the study; 19 were excluded, leaving 91 in our analysis. Reliability assessments showed κ = 0.77 for overall interrater reliability and κ = 0.93 for overall test-retest reliability. Interrater reliability was κ = 0.81 for the radiculopathy subgroup and κ = 0.68 for the myelopathy subgroup. At least 75% of the hypotheses were met. The AUCs showed similar characteristics between the Odom criteria and GPE scale. CONCLUSIONS: The Odom criteria met the predefined criteria for reliability and validity. Therefore, the Odom criteria may be used to assess surgical outcome after a cervical spine procedure, specifically for patients presenting with radicular symptoms. The results of previous studies that have been deemed less trustworthy because of the use of the Odom criteria should be reconsidered

Short-Term Neck Pain After Posterior Foraminotomy Compared with Anterior Discectomy with Fusion for Cervical Foraminal Radiculopathy: A Secondary Analysis of the FACET Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: Short-term neck pain after posterior cervical foraminotomy (posterior surgery) compared with anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (anterior surgery) treating cervical radiculopathy has only been assessed once, retrospectively, to our knowledge. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the course of neck pain for 6 weeks after both treatments. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of the multicenter Foraminotomy ACDF Cost-Effectiveness Trial (FACET), conducted from January 2016 to May 2020. Of 389 patients who had single-level, 1-sided cervical radiculopathy and were screened for eligibility, 265 were randomly assigned to undergo posterior surgery (n = 132) or anterior surgery (n = 133). The primary outcome of the present analysis was neck pain, assessed weekly for 6 weeks using the visual analog scale (VAS), on a scale of 0 to 100. The secondary outcomes were arm pain, neck disability, work ability, quality of life, treatment satisfaction, motor and sensory changes, and hospital length of stay. Data were analyzed with mixed model analysis in intention-to-treat samples using 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: In the first postoperative week, the mean VAS for neck pain was 56.2 mm (95% CI, 51.7 to 60.8 mm) after posterior surgery and 46.7 mm (95% CI, 42.2 to 51.2 mm) after anterior surgery. The mean between-group difference was 9.5 mm (95% CI, 3.3 to 15.7 mm), which gradually decreased to 2.3 mm (95% CI, -3.6 to 8.1 mm) at postoperative week 6. As of postoperative week 5, there was no significant difference between groups. Responder analyses confirmed this result. Secondary outcomes showed small differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Insight into the course of neck pain during the first 6 weeks after posterior compared with anterior surgery is provided. Despite initially more neck pain after posterior surgery, patients swiftly improved and, as of postoperative week 5, results similar to those after anterior surgery were observed. Our findings should enable improved patient counseling and enhanced shared decision-making between physicians and patients with cervical radiculopathy, where more neck pain in the first postoperative weeks should be balanced against the benefits of posterior surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence

Noninferiority of Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy vs Anterior Cervical Discectomy With Fusion for Procedural Success and Reduction in Arm Pain Among Patients With Cervical Radiculopathy at 1 Year: The FACET Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: The choice between posterior cervical foraminotomy (posterior surgery) and anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (anterior surgery) for cervical foraminal radiculopathy remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the noninferiority of posterior vs anterior surgery in patients with cervical foraminal radiculopathy with regard to clinical outcomes after 1 year. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicenter investigator-blinded noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted from January 2016 to May 2020 with a total follow-up of 2 years. Patients were included from 9 hospitals in the Netherlands. Of 389 adult patients with 1-sided single-level cervical foraminal radiculopathy screened for eligibility, 124 declined to participate or did not meet eligibility criteria. Patients with pure axial neck pain without radicular pain were not eligible. Of 265 patients randomized (132 to posterior and 133 to anterior), 15 were lost to follow-up and 228 were included in the 1-year analysis (110 in posterior and 118 in anterior). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to posterior foraminotomy or anterior cervical discectomy with fusion. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes were proportion of success using Odom criteria and decrease in arm pain using a visual analogue scale from 0 to 100 with a noninferiority margin of 10% (assuming advantages with posterior surgery over anterior surgery that would justify a tolerable loss of efficacy of 10%). Secondary outcomes were neck pain, disability, quality of life, work status, treatment satisfaction, reoperations, and complications. Analyses were performed with 2-proportion z tests at 1-sided .05 significance levels with Bonferroni corrections. RESULTS: Among 265 included patients, the mean (SD) age was 51.2 (8.3) years; 133 patients (50%) were female and 132 (50%) were male. Patients were randomly assigned to posterior (132) or anterior (133) surgery. The proportion of success was 0.88 (86 of 98) in the posterior surgery group and 0.76 (81 of 106) in the anterior surgery group (difference, -0.11 percentage points; 1-sided 95% CI, -0.01) and the between-group difference in arm pain was -2.8 (1-sided 95% CI, -9.4) at 1-year follow-up, indicating noninferiority of posterior surgery. Decrease in arm pain had a between-group difference of 3.4 (1-sided 95% CI, 11.8), crossing the noninferiority margin with 1.8 points. All secondary outcomes had 2-sided 95% CIs clustered around 0 with small between-group differences. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, posterior surgery was noninferior to anterior surgery for patients with cervical radiculopathy regarding success rate and arm pain at 1 year. Decrease in arm pain and secondary outcomes had small between-group differences. These results may be used to enhance shared decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register Identifier: NTR5536