Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Cervical Disc Replacement Versus Posterior Endoscopic Cervical Decompression: A
Vit Kotheeranurak1,2,3, Khanathip Jitpakdee3, Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski4
1Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Neurospine
|October 4, 2024
Summary
Posterior endoscopic cervical decompression (PECD) offers comparable clinical and radiographic results to cervical disc replacement (CDR) for radiculopathy. PECD shows benefits in blood loss, hospital stay, and return to work, while CDR excels in disc height restoration.
Area of Science:
- Neurosurgery
- Orthopedic Surgery
- Spine Surgery
Background:
- Unilateral cervical radiculopathy presents a significant clinical challenge.
- Motion preservation surgeries aim to maintain spinal function while alleviating symptoms.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement (CDR) versus posterior endoscopic cervical decompression (PECD) for unilateral cervical radiculopathy.
Main Methods:
- A retrospective matched-pair analysis of 60 patients (30 in each group) undergoing CDR or PECD between February 2018 and December 2020.
- Clinical outcomes assessed via Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain and Neck Disability Index (NDI).
- Radiographic assessment focused on index level motion; intraoperative data and complications were also recorded.
Main Results:
- Both CDR and PECD significantly improved NDI and VAS scores with no inter-group differences.
- CDR showed shorter operative times and superior disc height restoration.
- PECD demonstrated less blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and faster return-to-work times.
Conclusions:
- PECD provides equivalent clinical and radiographic outcomes to CDR for selected unilateral cervical radiculopathy patients.
- Both techniques effectively preserve index level motion.
- PECD offers advantages in reduced blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and quicker return to work.
