Anterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy
Randomized controlled trials
Ahn et al. compared the surgical results of PECD and ACDF. Data from patients treated with single-level PECD (n = 51) or ACDF (n = 64) were analyzed. Patients were prospectively entered into the clinical database and their records were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative data and clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and modified Macnab criteria. VAS and NDI results significantly improved in both groups. The rates of excellent or good results were 88.24% and 90.63% in the PECD and ACDF group, respectively. The revision rates were 3.92% and 1.56% in the PECD and ACDF group, respectively. Operative time, hospital stay, and time to return to work were reduced in the PECD group compared to the ACDF group (p < 0.001). The five-year outcomes of PECD were comparable to those of conventional ACDF. PECD provided the typical benefits of minimally invasive surgery and may be an effective alternative for treating soft cervical disc herniation 9).
A total of 103 patients with ACDF or FACD were followed up for two years. In addition to general parameters specific measuring instruments were used. Postoperatively 85.9% of the patients no longer had arm pain, and 10.1% had occasional pain. There were no significant clinical differences between the decompression with or without fusion. The full-endoscopic technique afforded advantages in operation technique, rehabilitation and soft tissue injury. The recorded results show that FACD is a sufficient and safe alternative to conventional procedures when the indication criteria are fulfilled. At the same time, it offers the advantages of a minimally invasive intervention 10).