Perspective: Cervical laminoforaminotomy (CLF) is safer than anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) for lateral cervical disease.
Anterior Cervical Diskectomy/Fusion (ACDF)
Cervical Laminoforaminotomy (CLF)
Disc Disease
Lack of Fusion
Lateral Recess Stenosis
Preservation Stability
Reduced Cost
Reduced Morbidity
Safety
Spondylosis
Journal
Surgical neurology international
ISSN: 2229-5097
Titre abrégé: Surg Neurol Int
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101535836
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2024
2024
Historique:
received:
25
01
2024
accepted:
25
01
2024
medline:
12
3
2024
pubmed:
12
3
2024
entrez:
12
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The literature documents that laminoforaminotomy (CLF), whether performed open, minimally invasively, or microendoscopically, is safer than anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) for lateral cervical disease. ACDF for lateral cervical disc disease and/or spondylosis exposes patients to multiple major surgical risk factors not encountered with CLF. These include; carotid artery or jugular vein injuries, esophageal tears, dysphagia, recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries, tracheal injuries, and dysphagia. CLF also exposes patients to lower rates of vertebral artery injury, dural tears (DT)/cerebrospinal fluid fistulas, instability warranting fusion, adjacent segment disease (ASD), plus cord and/or nerve root injuries. Further, CLF vs. ACDF for lateral cervical pathology offer reduced tissue damage, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), and cost. CLFs', whether performed open, minimally invasively, or microendoscopically, offer greater safety, major pros with few cons, and decreased costs vs. ACDF for lateral cervical disease.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The literature documents that laminoforaminotomy (CLF), whether performed open, minimally invasively, or microendoscopically, is safer than anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) for lateral cervical disease.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
ACDF for lateral cervical disc disease and/or spondylosis exposes patients to multiple major surgical risk factors not encountered with CLF. These include; carotid artery or jugular vein injuries, esophageal tears, dysphagia, recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries, tracheal injuries, and dysphagia. CLF also exposes patients to lower rates of vertebral artery injury, dural tears (DT)/cerebrospinal fluid fistulas, instability warranting fusion, adjacent segment disease (ASD), plus cord and/or nerve root injuries.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Further, CLF vs. ACDF for lateral cervical pathology offer reduced tissue damage, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), and cost.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
CLFs', whether performed open, minimally invasively, or microendoscopically, offer greater safety, major pros with few cons, and decreased costs vs. ACDF for lateral cervical disease.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38468654
doi: 10.25259/SNI_61_2024
pii: 10.25259/SNI_61_2024
pmc: PMC10927205
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
50Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2024 Surgical Neurology International.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
There are no conflicts of interest.