The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2026
Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion versus Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy for the Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy: A Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Boutros Marc, Awad Guy, Asmar Christèle, Asmar Raphael, Lovecchio Francis C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cervical radiculopathy can be managed surgically with anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) or minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MIS-PCF). ACDF is widely used and provides indirect decompression and stabilization, while MIS-PCF preserves motion, avoids fusion-related complications, and may offer advantages in perioperative recovery. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare surgical, patient-reported, and safety outcomes of MIS-PCF versus ACDF to guide clinical decision making.
METHODS: A systematic literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was conducted through October 2025 to identify comparative studies of MIS-PCF and ACDF for cervical radiculopathy. Data from 12 studies involving 3,185 patients were pooled. Outcomes included surgical time, length of stay, hospital cost, pain scores (VAS arm and neck), functional scores (NDI and EQ-5D), revision surgery rates, and complication rates.
RESULTS: MIS-PCF was associated with significantly shorter surgical time (MD = -14.72 min, P < 0.001), reduced length of stay (MD = -0.99 days, P < 0.001), and lower hospital costs (MD = -$9,131.93, P < 0.001) compared with ACDF. Arm pain outcomes showed no significant differences between groups, either immediately postoperatively (P = 0.35) or at 1 to 2 years (P = 0.71). By contrast, MIS-PCF demonstrated significantly greater neck pain reduction immediately after surgery (MD = 0.42, P < 0.001) and at 1 to 2 years (MD = -0.22, P = 0.001). Functional outcomes (NDI and EQ-5D) were comparable between techniques (P ≥ 0.89). Revision surgery and overall complication rates did not differ significantly (P = 0.39 and P = 0.51, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Both MIS-PCF and ACDF are effective surgical options for cervical radiculopathy, with comparable reported safety and functional outcomes. MIS-PCF may offer perioperative advantages and better neck pain outcomes, supporting its role as a motion-preserving and cost-efficient alternative to ACDF in appropriately selected patients.
METHODS: A systematic literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was conducted through October 2025 to identify comparative studies of MIS-PCF and ACDF for cervical radiculopathy. Data from 12 studies involving 3,185 patients were pooled. Outcomes included surgical time, length of stay, hospital cost, pain scores (VAS arm and neck), functional scores (NDI and EQ-5D), revision surgery rates, and complication rates.
RESULTS: MIS-PCF was associated with significantly shorter surgical time (MD = -14.72 min, P < 0.001), reduced length of stay (MD = -0.99 days, P < 0.001), and lower hospital costs (MD = -$9,131.93, P < 0.001) compared with ACDF. Arm pain outcomes showed no significant differences between groups, either immediately postoperatively (P = 0.35) or at 1 to 2 years (P = 0.71). By contrast, MIS-PCF demonstrated significantly greater neck pain reduction immediately after surgery (MD = 0.42, P < 0.001) and at 1 to 2 years (MD = -0.22, P = 0.001). Functional outcomes (NDI and EQ-5D) were comparable between techniques (P ≥ 0.89). Revision surgery and overall complication rates did not differ significantly (P = 0.39 and P = 0.51, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Both MIS-PCF and ACDF are effective surgical options for cervical radiculopathy, with comparable reported safety and functional outcomes. MIS-PCF may offer perioperative advantages and better neck pain outcomes, supporting its role as a motion-preserving and cost-efficient alternative to ACDF in appropriately selected patients.