Surgical neurology international · 2024
Perspective: Cervical laminoforaminotomy (CLF) is safer than anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) for lateral cervical disease.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Epstein Nancy E, Agulnick Marc A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The literature documents that laminoforaminotomy (CLF), whether performed open, minimally invasively, or microendoscopically, is safer than anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) for lateral cervical disease.
METHODS: ACDF for lateral cervical disc disease and/or spondylosis exposes patients to multiple major surgical risk factors not encountered with CLF. These include; carotid artery or jugular vein injuries, esophageal tears, dysphagia, recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries, tracheal injuries, and dysphagia. CLF also exposes patients to lower rates of vertebral artery injury, dural tears (DT)/cerebrospinal fluid fistulas, instability warranting fusion, adjacent segment disease (ASD), plus cord and/or nerve root injuries.
RESULTS: Further, CLF vs. ACDF for lateral cervical pathology offer reduced tissue damage, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), and cost.
CONCLUSION: CLFs', whether performed open, minimally invasively, or microendoscopically, offer greater safety, major pros with few cons, and decreased costs vs. ACDF for lateral cervical disease.
METHODS: ACDF for lateral cervical disc disease and/or spondylosis exposes patients to multiple major surgical risk factors not encountered with CLF. These include; carotid artery or jugular vein injuries, esophageal tears, dysphagia, recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries, tracheal injuries, and dysphagia. CLF also exposes patients to lower rates of vertebral artery injury, dural tears (DT)/cerebrospinal fluid fistulas, instability warranting fusion, adjacent segment disease (ASD), plus cord and/or nerve root injuries.
RESULTS: Further, CLF vs. ACDF for lateral cervical pathology offer reduced tissue damage, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), and cost.
CONCLUSION: CLFs', whether performed open, minimally invasively, or microendoscopically, offer greater safety, major pros with few cons, and decreased costs vs. ACDF for lateral cervical disease.