Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 19, 2025
Author Spotlight: Unveiling the Potential of TUBE Technique in Spinal Surgery
Published on: November 17, 2023
Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy: An Outcome Comparison With the Full-endoscopic
Zhuolin Zhong1, Qingfeng Hu1, Leyi Huang1
1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Yiwu, Zhejiang, China.
Study Design:
Retrospective control study.
Objective:
To compare the curative effects of unilateral biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy (UBE-PCF) with full-endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy (FPCF).
Summary Of Background Data:
There are few studies directly comparing outcomes between UBE-PCF and FPCF. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes between UBE-PCF and FPCF.
Methods:
A retrospective control study was conducted for 69 patients of cervical radiculopathy from July 2019 to December 2021. Clinical outcomes scores, including neck disability index, visual analog scale (VAS)-arm, and VAS-neck were evaluated. Serum creatine kinase levels and the size of the operating hole were measured.
Results:
Postoperative neck disability index, VAS-neck, and VAS-arm scores showed statistically significant improvement over preoperative scores ( P <0.01). The operating time was significantly shorter in the UBE-PCF group ( P <0.001). No significant differences were found in serum creatine kinase levels between the 2 groups ( P >0.05). The mean area of the operating hole was 1.47+0.05 cm 2 in the FPCF group and 1.79+0.11 cm 2 in the UBE-PCF group. The difference was statistically significant ( P <0.001).
Conclusions:
Both UBE-PCF and FPCF are safe and effective procedures for cervical radiculopathy. Predictable and sufficient decompression could be achieved by UBE-PCF in a shorter operation time.
Level Of Evidence:
Treatment Benefits Level III.
