SynthesisNeurosurgical review2022
Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for cervical radiculopathy: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Delta large-channel endoscopy versus unilateral biportal endoscopy for cervicothoracic junction disc herniation: a prospective randomized controlled trial.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Trial
- Evaluating Three-Dimensional Navigation versus Conventional Fluoroscopy for Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy: An Exploratory Cohort Comparison.Journal of neurological surgery. Part A, Central European neurosurgery · 2026Article
- Full-Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Decompression Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2026Review
- High rates of spin bias in systematic reviews regarding anterior cervical discectomy and fusionJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Review
- Clinical efficacy and learning curve of percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy for symptomatic cervical spondylotic radiculopathy.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Article
- Channel-assisted cervical key hole technology combined with ultrasonic bone osteotome versus posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical foraminotomy: a clinical retrospective study.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical fusion and arthroplasty: Systematic review and updated meta-analysis.Brain & spine · 2024Review
- Perspective: Cervical laminoforaminotomy (CLF) is safer than anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) for lateral cervical disease.Surgical neurology international · 2024Review
- Biportal Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy.JBJS essential surgical techniquesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
With the recent development of minimally invasive techniques, minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MIS-PCF) has become increasingly popular as a minimally invasive method to treat cervical radiculopathy. However, there are still controversies about whether MIS-PCF is superior to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the therapeutic effects of MIS-PCF and ACDF on unilateral cervical radiculopathy without myelopathy. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus comprehensively using the terms related to MIS-PCF. Two reviewers independently evaluated the potential studies, and extracted and analyzed the data of operation time, hospital stay, neck disability index (NDI) score, visual analog scale for neck pain (VAS-neck) and arm pain (VAS-arm) scores, reoperation rate, and complications. Seven studies with 1175 patients were included. The study population was 53.5% male, with a mean age of 48.9. MIS-PCF presented a significantly shorter postoperative hospitalization time compared to ACDF, while the operation time, complication/reoperation rate, and VAS-arm, VAS-neck, and NDI scores were comparable between the two cohorts. In North America, the average cost of MIS-PCF is lower than ACDF. Thus, we suggest that MIS-PCF is an alternative to ACDF for selected patients.
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.