Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy Via Full-Endoscopic Versus Microendoscopic Approach for Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recently posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) performed using a minimally-invasive surgery (MIS) approach for cervical radiculopathy due to lateral disc herniation or osseous foraminal stenosis has gained popularity. As 2 dominating MIS techniques, whether FE-PCF or MI-PCF provides superior clinical outcomes remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical success rate, overall incidence of complications and reoperation rate between full-endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy (FE-PCF) and microendoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) for cervical radiculopathy.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS: A literature search of Pubmed, Embase and Web of Science was conducted to identify comparative or single-arm studies concerning FE-PCF or MI-PCF. The pooled results were performed by calculating the effect size based on the logit event rate and reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS: A total of 26 articles with 2003 patients (FE-PCF, 377; MI-PCF, 1626) were included. The pooled clinical success rate was 93.6% (CI: 90.0%-95.9%) for the FE group and 89.9% (CI: 86.6%-92.5%) for the MI group, which was not statistically significant (P = 0.908). Overall complication rates were 6.1% (CI: 3.2%-11.3%) and 3.5% (CI: 2.7%-4.6%) for the FE group and the MI group, respectively, with no significant difference (P = 0.128). Nevertheless, the specific constituents showed apparent disparity, with transient nerve root palsy in the FE group (12/16, 75.0%) and dural tear in the MI group (20/47, 42.6%) being the most commonly reported. the pooled reoperation rate, the FE group (4.8%, CI: 2.9%-7.8%) and the MI group (5.3%, CI: 3.4%-8.2%), also demonstrated no statistical difference (P = 0.741).

LIMITATIONS: The indirect comparison eroded the reliability of results inevitably due to the paucity of randomized clinical trials or high quality prospective cohort studies.

CONCLUSIONS: Both FE-PCF and MI-PCF can offer an effective and relatively secure treatment for cervical radiculopathy. There was no significant difference in the pooled outcomes of clinical success rate, complication rate and reoperation rate between the 2 approaches.

KEY WORDS: Cervical radiculopathy, full-endoscopic, microendoscopic, posterior cervical foraminotomy, clinical outcome, complication, reoperation, meta-analysis.