ABSTRACT
Objective@#: To compare the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical fusion (PCF) with wide facetectomy in the treatment of parallel-shaped bony foraminal stenosis (FS). @*Methods@#: Thirty-six patients underwent surgery due to one-or-two levels of parallel-shaped cervical FS. ACDF was performed in 16 patients, and PCF using CPS was performed in 20 patients. All patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Standardized outcome measures such as Numeric rating scale (NRS) score for armeck pain and Neck disability index (NDI) were evaluated. Cervical radiographs were used to compare the C2–7 Cobb’s angle, segmental angle, and fusion rates. @*Results@#: There was an improvement in NRS scores after both approaches for radicular arm pain (mean change -6.78 vs. -8.14, p=0.012), neck pain (mean change -1.67 vs. -4.36, p=0.038), and NDI score (-19.69 vs. -18.15, p=0.794). The segmental angle improvement was greater in the ACDF group than in the posterior group (9.4°±2.7° vs. 3.3°±5.1°, p=0.004). However, there was no significant difference in C2–7 Cobb angle between groups (16.2°±7.9° vs. 14.8°±8.5°, p=0.142). As a complication, dysphagia was observed in one case of the ACDF group. @*Conclusion@#: In the treatment of parallel-shaped bony FS up to two surgical levels, segmental angle improvement was more favorable in patients who underwent ACDF. However, PCF with wide facetectomy using CPS should be considered as an alternative treatment option in cases where the anterior approach is burdensome.
ABSTRACT
Objective@#: To compare the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical fusion (PCF) with wide facetectomy in the treatment of parallel-shaped bony foraminal stenosis (FS). @*Methods@#: Thirty-six patients underwent surgery due to one-or-two levels of parallel-shaped cervical FS. ACDF was performed in 16 patients, and PCF using CPS was performed in 20 patients. All patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Standardized outcome measures such as Numeric rating scale (NRS) score for armeck pain and Neck disability index (NDI) were evaluated. Cervical radiographs were used to compare the C2–7 Cobb’s angle, segmental angle, and fusion rates. @*Results@#: There was an improvement in NRS scores after both approaches for radicular arm pain (mean change -6.78 vs. -8.14, p=0.012), neck pain (mean change -1.67 vs. -4.36, p=0.038), and NDI score (-19.69 vs. -18.15, p=0.794). The segmental angle improvement was greater in the ACDF group than in the posterior group (9.4°±2.7° vs. 3.3°±5.1°, p=0.004). However, there was no significant difference in C2–7 Cobb angle between groups (16.2°±7.9° vs. 14.8°±8.5°, p=0.142). As a complication, dysphagia was observed in one case of the ACDF group. @*Conclusion@#: In the treatment of parallel-shaped bony FS up to two surgical levels, segmental angle improvement was more favorable in patients who underwent ACDF. However, PCF with wide facetectomy using CPS should be considered as an alternative treatment option in cases where the anterior approach is burdensome.