Comparison of the Outcomes of Microendoscopic Cervical Foraminotomy versus Full-endoscopic Cervical Foraminotomy for the Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of microendoscopic cervical foraminotomy (MECF) versus full-endoscopic cervical foraminotomy (FECF) for treating cervical radiculopathy (CR). A retrospective study was performed on patients with CR treated using MECF (n = 35) or FECF (n = 89). A 16-mm tubular retractor and endoscope was used for MECF, while a 4.1-mm working channel endoscope was used for FECF. Patient background and operative data were collected. The numerical rating scale (NRS) and the Neck Disability Index scores were recorded preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively. Postoperative subjective satisfaction was also assessed. Although the NRS, and NDI scores, as well as postoperative satisfaction at 1 year considerably improved in both groups, one of the background data (number of operated vertebral level) was significantly different. Therefore, we separately analyzed single- and two-level CR. In single-level CR, operation time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative stay, NDI after 1 year, and reoperation rate were statistically superior in FECF group. In two-level CR, the postoperative stay was statistically superior in FECF group. Three postoperative hematomas were observed in the MECF group, while none was observed in the FECF group. Operative outcomes did not significantly differ between groups. We did not observe postoperative hematoma in FECF even without placement of a postoperative drain. Therefore, we recommend FECF as the first option for the treatment of CR as it has a better safety profile and is minimally invasive.

Keywords

• cervical radiculopathy
• full-endoscopic cervical foraminotomy
• minimally invasive
• microendoscopic cervical foraminotomy