ReviewJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2020
Comparison of outcomes following minimally invasive and open posterior cervical foraminotomy: description of minimally invasive technique and review of literature.
Review in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Full-Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Decompression Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2026Review
- Arthroscopic-Assisted Uni-Portal Spinal Surgery Combined With Kirschner Wire Anchoring for Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy: A Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Results.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative Study on Clinical Outcomes of Posterior Endoscopic Cervical Foraminotomy under Local Anesthesia with Conscious Sedation and General Anesthesia.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2026Article
- Review
- Comparison of Open Microscopic and Biportal Endoscopic Approaches in Multi-Level Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy: Radiological and Clinical Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Preoperative Factors on Loss of Range of Motion after Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Evolution of Cervical Endoscopic Spine Surgery: Current Progress and Future Directions-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Multi-Level Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy Associated With Increased Post-operative Infection Rates and Overall Re-Operation Relative to Anterior Cervical Discectomy With Fusion or Cervical Disc Arthroplasty.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Foraminal Restenosis After Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy for the Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy.Global spine journal · 2023Article
- Microendoscopic Surgery for Degenerative Disorders of the Cervical and Lumbar Spine: The Influence of the Tubular Workspace on Instrument Angulation, Clinical Outcome, Complications, and Reoperation Rates.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy Versus Anterior Cervical Fusion and Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2022Article
- Anatomical Importance Between Neural Structure and Bony Landmark: Clinical Importance for Posterior Endoscopic Cervical Foraminotomy.Neurospine · 2021Article
- Minimally invasive cervical laminoforaminotomy - Technique and outcomes.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MIS-PCF) is frequently employed in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy, there are very few studies directly comparing outcomes between MIS-PCF and open posterior cervical foraminotomy and between MIS-PCF and percutaneous endoscopic (full-endoscopic) posterior cervical foraminotomy (FE-PCF). This study includes a description of technique and systematic review of literature and analysis of clinical studies comparing outcomes between MIS-PCF and open posterior cervical foraminotomy and between MIS-PCF and FE-PCF. Six comparative studies, including one randomized controlled trial were included in analysis. Average operative time ranged from 60.5 to 171 minutes in the open group and 77.65 to 115 minutes in the MIS group. Mean intraoperative blood loss ranged from 43.5 to 246 cc in the open group and 42 to 138 cc in the MIS group. Average postoperative length of stay ranged from 58.6 to 304.8 hours in the open group and 20 to 273.6 hours in the MIS group. Two studies reported significantly increased VAS-N (Neck) scores postoperatively in patients undergoing open cervical foraminotomies, however both studies reported that the differences lost statistical significance with longer follow-up. There were no significant differences in complications or reoperations between open and MIS groups. One retrospective cohort study was included in analysis that compared MIS-PCF and FE-PCF. Postoperatively at 24 months, mean NDI and VAS-N were significantly lower after FE-PCF than MIS-PCF. There was no significant change in VAS-A (Arm) between the two groups. Direct comparative studies between MIS-PCF and open cervical foraminotomy are limited in number. Although, there is a significant heterogeneity in studies comparing open and MIS-PCF there appears to be a trend of decreased hospital length of stay and postoperative analgesic usage in the minimally invasive cohort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.