3.9 Article

Minimally Invasive Microscopic Posterior Cervical Decompression: Simple, Safe, and Effective

出版社

THIEME MEDICAL PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1598051

关键词

minimally invasive; cervical; myelopathy; decompression; laminectomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Study Aims Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is the most common cause of spinal cord dysfunction in the elderly population. Surgery is usually successful in preventing any deterioration, as well as improving functional status and quality of life. This study assesses the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive microscopic posterior cervical decompression for the treatment of CSM. Materials and Methods A retrospective review of patients with myelopathy from cervical stenosis treated with minimally invasive posterior cervical decompression was performed. The operation was performed through a nonexpandable tubular retractor and operating microscope. Results Twelve patients were identified. There were no early or late complications. Average age was 74.5 years. Three patients were>80 years of age and tolerated the operation extremely well. Three cases were two-level decompressions; nine were single level. Eight patients were operated on as elective cases, with average postoperative length of stay of 0.9 days. Average surgical time was 77.5 minutes per level. Postoperative neck pain was minimal (1.5/10). All patients improved postoperatively, particularly those who started with severe deficits. In fact, five patients were unable to walk preoperatively and were wheelchair- or bed-bound, and they returned to walking within weeks. The modified Japanese Orthopedic Association score improved from 8.4 (range: 4-14) to 13.5 (range: 10-15); the Nurick score changed from 3.8 (range: 2-5) to 2.3 (range: 1-4). Conclusions Minimally invasive microscopic posterior cervical decompression is a safe and effective treatment for CSM in selected cases. Our initial experience highlights the potential benefits of this relatively new technique.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据