OBJECTIVES This study was conducted to assess the clinical outcomes of using the posterior full-endoscopic cervical discectomy (PECD) in comparison with the conventional anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) in treating patients with cervical radiculopathy. PATIENTS AND METHODS From May 2015 to January 2018, patients with single cervical radiculopathy were enrolled in this study. The operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, and perioperative complications were recorded. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain, the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and the modified MacNab criteria were used to quantify the postoperative outcomes. RESULTS A total of 84 patients were initially enrolled in this study, while three patients were lost during the follow-up. The remaining 81 patients were divided into two groups. Thirty-eight patients underwent conventional ACDF, and the rest 43 patients were treated by PECD procedure. The patients in the ACDF group were slightly older than those in the PECD group (51.4 ± 8.2 VS 46.6 ± 8.8 years old, p = 0.012*). The blood loss and hospital stay were significantly less in patients treated with PECD compared with those undergoing ACDF (p < 0.05*). There were no significant differences in the VAS scores, the NDI, and the modified MacNab criteria between the two groups. The patients in the ACDF group obtained a better Cobb angle and had less operative time compared with those in the PECD group (p < 0.05*). Only mild complications were observed in both groups, with no significant difference (p = 0.28). CONCLUSION PECD could significantly relieve pain and disability with no severe complication, and the majority of patients were satisfied with this technique. Thus, it is safe and effective to use this procedure in managing patients with cervical radiculopathy as an alternative procedure to ACDF.

中文翻译：

---

后路全内窥镜颈椎间盘切除术治疗神经根型颈椎病：一项前瞻性队列研究

目的 本研究旨在评估使用后路全内窥镜颈椎间盘切除术 (PECD) 与传统前路颈椎减压融合术 (ACDF) 治疗神经根型颈椎病患者的临床结果。患者与方法 2015 年 5 月至 2018 年 1 月，单发神经根型颈椎病患者入组本研究。记录手术时间、失血量、住院时间和围手术期并发症。颈部和手臂疼痛的视觉模拟量表 (VAS)、颈部残疾指数 (NDI) 和改良的 MacNab 标准用于量化术后结果。结果 最初共有 84 名患者参加了这项研究，而在随访期间有 3 名患者失访。其余 81 名患者分为两组。38 名患者接受了传统 ACDF，其余 43 名患者接受了 PECD 手术。ACDF 组的患者年龄略大于 PECD 组的患者（51.4 ± 8.2 VS 46.6 ± 8.8 岁，p = 0.012*）。与接受 ACDF 的患者相比，接受 PECD 治疗的患者的失血量和住院时间显着减少（p < 0.05*）。两组之间的 VAS 评分、NDI 和改良 MacNab 标准没有显着差异。与 PECD 组相比，ACDF 组的患者获得了更好的 Cobb 角，手术时间更短（p < 0.05*）。两组仅观察到轻度并发症，无显着差异（p = 0.28）。结论 PECD 可显着减轻疼痛和残疾，无严重并发症，大多数患者对这项技术感到满意。因此，使用该程序作为 ACDF 的替代程序来治疗神经根型颈椎病患者是安全有效的。