Comparison of clinical efficacy of posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy versus unilateral biportal endoscopy key-hole techniques for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: a retrospective study with 2 years.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical efficacy of posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy (PECD) with unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) key-hole techniques for treating cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR).

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed for patients with CSR treated by PECD (n = 40) and UBE (n = 30). Patients background, operative data, and radiographic measurements were obtained. The visual analog scale (VAS) and neck disability index (NDI) were recorded preoperatively and 3 months and 2 years postoperatively, and modified Macnab criteria was recorded at 2 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

The background data of the two treatment groups were similar. There was no significant difference in hospitalization or fluoroscopy times (P > 0.05), whereas, the UBE group had shorter operative time and longer incision length than those of the PECD group (p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference in the postoperative cervical sagittal vertical axis compared to preoperative measurement (PECD: p = 0.009; UBE: p = 0.010). The VAS and NDI significantly improved in each time period in both groups (p < 0.001). The excellent/good rates were 87.5% in the PECD group and 90.0% in the UBE group. One case of postoperative nerve root irritation symptoms occurred in the PECD group and one case of mild spinal cord injury occurred in the UBE group.

CONCLUSION

UBE, as well as PECD, was recommended as an option for CSR because of easy operation, minimal invasiveness, high safety profiles, and satisfactory clinical efficacy.