4.4 Article

Operative treatment of cervical radiculopathy: anterior cervical decompression and fusion compared with posterior foraminotomy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Journal

TRIALS
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-021-05492-2

Keywords

Anterior cervical decompression; Anterior cervical discectomy; Posterior foraminotomy; Randomized control trial

Funding

  1. Cervical Spine Research Society

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) and posterior foraminotomy (PF) for cervical radiculopathy. The research seeks to compare the effectiveness of these two surgical treatments in order to determine the best option for patients with this condition.
Background; Cervical radiculopathy is the most common disease in the cervical spine, affecting patients around 50-55 year of age. An operative treatment is common clinical praxis when non-operative treatment fails. The controversy is in the choice of operative treatment, conducting either anterior cervical decompression and fusion or posterior foraminotomy. The study objective is to evaluate short- and long-term outcome of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) and posterior foraminotomy (PF) Methods: A multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial with 1:1 randomization, ACDF vs. PF including 110 patients. The primary aim is to evaluate if PF is non-inferior to ACDF using a non-inferiority design with ACDF as active control. The neck disability index (NDI) is the primary outcome measure, and duration of follow-up is 2 years. Discussion: Due to absence of high level of evidence, the authors believe that a RCT will improve the evidence for using the different surgical treatments for cervical radiculopathy and strengthen current surgical treatment recommendation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available