Skip to main content
Medical Principles and Practice logoLink to Medical Principles and Practice
. 2013 Sep 27;23(1):70–73. doi: 10.1159/000351887

Long-Term Results of Anterior versus Posterior Operations for Herniated Cervical Discs: Analysis of 6,000 Patients

George J Dohrmann 1,*, Joseph C Hsieh 1
PMCID: PMC5586826  PMID: 24080595

Abstract

Objective

To analyze the long-term outcomes of anterior versus posterior approaches for cervical disc herniation.

Methods

The records of 6,000 patients who had operations for cervical disc herniation (radiating arm pain and/or motor symptoms involving the upper extremity) and who had been followed for at least 2 years (mean: 7.1 years) were culled from the world literature and included in this analysis. The outcome (good/excellent, according to the patient) of anterior versus posterior surgery was compared.

Results

Of the 6,000 patients, 2,888 (48.1%) had anterior operations (anterior cervical discectomies, with or without fusion) and 3,112 (51.9%) patients were operated on posteriorly (laminoforaminotomies/‘keyhole’ facetectomies). Although initially equal, in long-term follow-up, patients who had anterior operations had 80% good/excellent results, whereas patients with the posterior approach had 94% good/excellent results. The difference was significant (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The better long-term results with the posterior operation might be due to the more complete opening of the foramen for neural decompression at the time of the operation and thereafter.

Key Words: Cervical disc herniation, Cervical disc operations, Anterior cervical discectomy/fusion, Posterior cervical disc operations, Laminoforaminotomy, Keyhole facetectomy

Introduction

Operations for cervical disc herniation have been done for decades [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. The posterior approach was started by Spurling and Scoville in 1944 [22]. The anterior operation was begun in 1955 by Robinson and Smith [29] and a variation on the anterior approach was done by Cloward [3] 3 years later. Both operations were successful at relieving patients of radiating arm pain and motor and/or sensory symptoms. Most surgeons did either the anterior or the posterior approach and a few surgeons performed both operations. All surgeons reported that these operations were quite successful. There has not been a large study comparing the long-term results of anterior versus posterior operations. This study assessed long-term follow-up in patients operated anteriorly as well as those patients having posterior procedures.

Subjects and Methods

The records of 6,000 patients who had been operated upon for cervical disc herniation (radiating arm pain and sensory and/or motor symptoms involving the upper extremity) were culled from the world literature [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. To be included in this study, the patients had to have been followed for 2 years or more. The outcomes (good/excellent), as assessed by the patient and doctor, were tabulated relative to patients operated anteriorly (with or without fusion) and those operated posteriorly. Patients classified as ‘good/excellent’ had relief of symptoms and no recurrence of symptomatology. A statistical comparison was then made between the two groups (t test indicating p values).

Results

Of the 6,000 patients analyzed, 2,888 (48.1%) were operated on anteriorly with discectomy, with or without fusion. Laminoforaminotomies/keyhole facetectomies with removal of the nerve root compression were done on 3,112 (51.9%) patients.

Disc herniations were at multiple cervical levels; however, the majority occurred at C5-6 and C6-7. Specifically, the disc herniations occurred as follows: C3-4: 3%, C4-5: 9%, C5-6: 39%, C6-7: 46% and C7-T1: 3% (table 1).

Table 1.

Levels of disc herniation

C3 – 4 3%
C4 – 5 9%
C5 – 6 39%
C6 – 7 46%
C7–T1 3%

The 6,000 patients were followed for a mean of 7.1 years. Those operated on anteriorly were followed for 5.9 years, while the patients operated on posteriorly were followed for 8.5 years. In patients with anterior cervical discectomies, results were the same with or without fusion. The overall good/excellent results were rated 87%, while anterior operations were 80% and posterior procedures were 94%. The difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Discussion

Operations for cervical disc herniation are some of the most gratifying operations done by neurosurgeons. The posterior operation for cervical disc herniation was the first of the two general operations done as devised by Spurling and Scoville [22]. Decompression of the cervical nerve root, by removing the herniated portion of the disc, gave relief from the radiating arm pain as well as the motor and/or sensory symptomology. The procedure was refined by Scoville to the keyhole facetectomy [26]. Patients had immediate relief of the symptomology.

In 1955, Robinson and Smith [29] introduced the anterior approach to cervical disc herniation, which involved discectomy with interbody fusion. In 1958, Cloward [3] published his anterior approach, including his method of fusion. Many series of such anterior operations have been published, and all authors have noted gratifying results (table 2).

Table 2.

Anterior approach

Authors Number of patients Mean follow-up, years Good/excellent results, %
Dan [4], 1998 476 3.6 89
Ruetten et al. [23], 2008 100 2 94
Dowd and Wirth [5], 1999 84 4.5 981
Gore and Sepic [6], 1984 146 3.3 78
Gore and Sepic [7], 1998 50 21 84
Hamburger et al. [8], 2001 249 12.2 78
Klaiber et al. [13], 1992 61 6.7 87
Hubach [11], 1994 179 10.4 84
Lunsford et al. [15], 1980 253 4 67
Martin et al. [16], 1999 317 2.8 not given
Rao et al. [20], 2008 34 4 76
Wirth et al. [33], 2000 50 4.4 96
Watters and Levinthal [32], 1994 62 6 95
Nandoe Tewarie et al. [18], 2007 456 7 68
Schlosser et al. [25], 2006 219 6.4 not given
van den Bent et al. [31], 1996 81 2 73
Yue et al. [34], 2005 71 7.2 82
Overall 2,888 5.9 80
1

‘Helped’ by the procedure (phone interview).

Over the ensuing years the popularity of the anterior operation, with or without fusion, has greatly increased. Instrumentation further increased the popularity of anterior discectomy as the fusion procedure became simplified. Fewer surgeons performed the posterior operation for cervical disc herniation; however, surgeons still noted how successful that procedure was as well (table 3).

Table 3.

Posterior approach

Authors Number of patients Mean follow-up, years Good/excellent results, %
Scoville et al. [26], 1976 175 211 95
Henderson et al. [9], 1983 736 8 92
Clarke et al. [2], 2007 303 7 96
Jagannathan et al. [12], 2009 162 6.4 95
Korinth et al. [14], 2006 292 6 97
Zeidman and Ducker [35], 1993 172 2 97
Tomaras et al. [30], 1997 200 2 93
Ruetten et al. [23], 2008 100 2 97
Wirth et al. [33], 2000 22 5.3 100
Hilton [10], 2007 222 2.2 95
Caglar et al. [1], 2007 84 7.8 96
Murphey et al. [17], 1973 644 up to 28 91
Overall 3,112 8.5 94
1

5 – 33 years.

Our analysis showed that most surgeons considered both operative procedures – anterior and posterior – to give good results in treating cervical disc herniation/cervical radiculopathy. However, the question for which we wished to find the answer was how similar are the long-term results of the two methods, and if there was any significant difference between the two.

Unlike previous series (anterior or posterior), which for the most part comprised a range of less than 100 patients to hundreds of patients, the present analysis of 6,000 patients operated on for cervical disc herniation/cervical radiculopathy had many more numbers of operations, Equally, the follow-up was long, averaging almost 6 years in the anterior group and 8 years in the posterior group, thereby yielding a greater percentage of good/excellent results with the posterior technique (94%) than the anterior one (80%).

The findings were unexpected because initially we assumed that good/excellent results would be similar in both methods. The difference cannot be ascribed to small sample size, as this series had 6,000 patients. Mean follow-up times were significant in both groups. Initially, over 4,000 patients were studied and, because of the unexpected results, the study was expanded to 6,000 patients. The results were the same. It is inconceivable that one group of patients/surgeons graded the outcome of ‘anterior patients’ differently relative to ‘posterior patients’. Any variations would have been insignificant because of the large number of patients in each group; therefore, the difference is real.

A difference of 14% in 6,000 patients is significant (p < 0.05). Certainly, with a series of this size, the difference is due to something other than chance. The probable explanations for such a difference may be that the posterior operation visualizes the cervical nerve root more completely; however, good visualization of the nerve root is obtained with the anterior operation as well; therefore, this explanation does not satisfactorily account for the statistically significant difference. Another explanation may be that the nerve root in the foramen is decompressed over a greater distance. Perhaps the extensive opening of the bony foramen, converting it from a bony ‘tunnel’ into a bony ‘trough’, decreased the possibility of nerve root compression from future disc material or future compression from osteophytic growth, narrowing the foramen. Further studies should focus on this to help elucidate the reason(s) for the difference.

Conclusion

In the 6,000 patients with long-term follow-up (mean: 7.1 years), those patients operated on posteriorly had a higher percentage of good/excellent results than those who had been operated on anteriorly.

Disclosure Statement

None.

Acknowledgments

One of the authors, Professor George J. Dohrmann, during his neurosurgical residency rotation had the opportunity to observe Dr. W.B. Scoville's technique and has also had the opportunity to study his long-term patient follow-up. Dr. Scoville's results, obtained prior to the advent of MRI and CT scanning, are an impressive 95% good/excellent results in patients followed up from 5 to 33 years.

References

  • 1.Caglar YS, Bozkurt M, Kahilogullari G et al Keyhole approach for posterior cervical discectomy: experience on 84 patients. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2007;50:7–11. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-970138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Clarke MJ, Ecker RD, Krauss WE, et al. Same segment and adjacent-segment disease following posterior cervical foraminotomy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6:5–9. doi: 10.3171/spi.2007.6.1.2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cloward RB. The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg. 1958;15:602–617. doi: 10.3171/jns.1958.15.6.0602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Dan NG. Anterior cervical graftless fusion for soft disc protrusion. A review of 509 disc excisions in 476 patients. J Clin Neurosci. 1998;5:172–177. doi: 10.1016/s0967-5868(98)90033-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dowd GC, Wirth FP. Anterior cervical discectomy: is fusion necessary? J Neurosurg. 1999;90(suppl 1):8–12. doi: 10.3171/spi.1999.90.1.0008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gore DR, Sepic SB. Anterior cervical fusion for degenerated or protruded discs. A review of one hundred forty-six patients. Spine. 1984;9:667–671. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198410000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gore DR, Sepic SB. Anterior discectomy and fusion for painful cervical disc disease. A report of 50 patients with an average follow-up of 21 years. Spine. 1998;23:2047–2051. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199810010-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hamburger C, Festenberg FV, Uhle E. Ventral discectomy with PMMA interbody fusion for cervical disc disease. Long-term results in 249 patients. Spine. 2001;26:249–255. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200102010-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Henderson CM, Hennessy RG, Shuey HM, et al. Posterior-lateral foraminotomy as an exclusive operative technique for cervical radiculopathy: a review of 846 consecutively operated cases. Neurosurgery. 1983;13:504–512. doi: 10.1227/00006123-198311000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hilton DL., Jr Minimally invasive tubular access for posterior cervical foraminotomy with three-dimensional microscopic visualization and localization with anterior/posterior imaging. Spine J. 2007;7:154–158. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2006.03.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hubach PC. A prospective study of anterior cervical spondylosis in intervertebral disc disorders. Eur Spine J. 1994;3:209–213. doi: 10.1007/BF02221594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Jagannathan J, Sherman JH, Szabo T, et al. The posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical disc/osteophyte disease: a single-surgeon experience with a minimum of 5 years clinical and radiographic follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;10:347–356. doi: 10.3171/2008.12.SPINE08576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Klaiber RD, von Ammon K, Sarioglu AC. Anterior microsurgical approach for degenerative cervical disc disease. Acta Neurochir. 1992;114:36–42. doi: 10.1007/BF01401112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Korinth MC, Kruger A, Oertel MF, et al. Posterior foraminotomy or anterior discectomy with polymethyl methacrylate interbody stabilization for cervical soft disc disease: results in 292 patients with monoradiculopathy. Spine. 2006;31:1207–1214. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000217604.02663.59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lunsford LD, Bissonette DJ, Jannetta PJ, et al. Anterior surgery for cervical disc disease. Part 1.Treatment of lateral cervical disc herniation in 253 cases. J Neurosurg. 1980;53:1–11. doi: 10.3171/jns.1980.53.1.0001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Martin GJ, Haid RW, Jr, MacMillan M, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy with freeze-dried fibula allograft. Overview of 317 cases and literature review. Spine. 1999;24:852–859. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199905010-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Murphey F, Simmons JC, Brunson B. Ruptured cervical discs, 1939 to 1972. Clin Neurosurg. 1973;20:9–17. doi: 10.1093/neurosurgery/20.cn_suppl_1.9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Nandoe Tewarie RD, Bartels RH, Peul WC. Long-term outcome after anterior cervical discectomy without fusion. Eur Spine J. 2007;16:1411–1416. doi: 10.1007/s00586-007-0309-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Radhakrishnan K, Litchy WJ, O'Fallon WM, et al. Epidemiology of cervical radiculopathy. A population-based study from Rochester, Minnesota, 1976 through 1990. Brain. 1994;117:325–335. doi: 10.1093/brain/117.2.325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Rao PJ, Christie JG, Ghahreman A, et al. Clinical and functional outcomes of anterior cervical discectomy without fusion. J Clin Neurosci. 2008;15:1354–1359. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2007.12.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Riew KD, Cheng I, Pimenta L, et al. Posterior cervical spine surgery for radiculopathy. Neurosurgery. 2007;60:S57–S63. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000215409.64026.E2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Spurling RG, Scoville WB. Lateral rupture of the cervical intervertebral discs. A common cause of shoulder and arm pain. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1944;78:350–358. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, et al. Full-endoscopic cervical foraminotomy for operation of lateral disc herniations using 5.9-mm endoscopes. A prospective, randomized, controlled study. Spine. 2008;33:940–948. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816c8b67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Russell SM, Benjamin V. Posterior surgical approach to the cervical neural foramen for intervertebral disc disease. Neurosurgery. 2004;54:662–666. doi: 10.1227/01.neu.0000108781.07294.13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Schlosser MJ, Schwarz JP, Awad JN, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with allograft and anterior plating. A report on 219 patients/469 levels with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Neurosurg Quart. 2006;16:183–186. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Scoville WB, Dohrmann GJ, Corkill G. Late results of cervical disc surgery. J Neurosurg. 1976;45:203–210. doi: 10.3171/jns.1976.45.2.0203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Scoville WB, Whitcomb BB. Lateral rupture of cervical intervertebral discs. Postgrad Med. 1966;39:174–180. doi: 10.1080/00325481.1966.11696921. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Smith GW, Robinson RA. The treatment of cervical spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg. 1958;40A:607–623. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Robinson RA, Smith GW. Antero-lateral disc removal and interbody fusion for cervical disc syndrome. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1955;96:223–224. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Tomaras CR, Blacklock JB, Parker WD, et al. Outpatient surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy. J Neurosurg. 1997;87:41–43. doi: 10.3171/jns.1997.87.1.0041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.van den Bent MJ, Oosting J, Wouda EJ, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy with or without fusion with acrylate. A randomized trial. Spine. 1996;21:834–839. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199604010-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Watters WC, Levinthal R. Anterior cervical discectomy with and without fusion: results, complications and long-term follow-up. Spine. 1994;19:2343–2347. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199410150-00016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wirth FP, Dowd GC, Sanders HF, et al. Cervical discectomy. A prospective analysis of three operative techniques. Surg Neurol. 2000;53:340–348. doi: 10.1016/s0090-3019(00)00201-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Yue W-M, Brodner W, Highland TR. Long-term results after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with allograft and plating. A 5- to 11-year radiologic and clinical follow-up study. Spine. 2005;30:2138–2144. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000180479.63092.17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Zeidman SM, Ducker TB. Posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy for radiculopathy: review of 172 cases. Neurosurgery. 1993;33:356–362. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medical Principles and Practice are provided here courtesy of Karger Publishers

RESOURCES