Anterior Cervical Foraminotomy for Unilateral Radicular Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A clinical series of patients with unilateral radiculopathy treated with the anterior cervical foraminotomy procedure. OBJECTIVE: To establish procedural techniques and clinical and radiologic outcomes for the anterior cervical foraminotomy procedure. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical radiculopathy is typically caused by unilateral disc herniation or uncovertebral osteophytes that compress the ventral aspect of the nerve. Direct removal of a cervical lesion causing radicular symptoms without concomitant fusion seems to be an ideal treatment in selected patients. The indications for an anterior cervical neural foraminotomy are limited to unilateral radicular symptoms at one or two levels, with minimal neck pain. METHODS: Twenty-one patients were treated with the anterior cervical neural foraminotomy procedure during a 3-year period with follow-up from 6 to 36 months. There were 13 men and 8 women (age range, 27-58 years). Fourteen patients had symptomatic soft disc herniation, and 7 had uncovertebral osteophytes confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging and/or myelogram and computed tomography. Sixteen patients had a single anterior cervical neural foraminotomy, and 5 had procedures at adjacent levels. RESULTS: Nineteen patients (91%) had improved or resolved radicular symptoms, and 2 (9%) had persistent radicular symptoms necessitating further surgery (one two-level anterior cervical neural discectomy and fusion and one posterior foraminal decompression). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with the anterior cervical neural foraminotomy procedure have equivalent or better outcomes than those who undergo current cervical procedures. It appears to be a good alternative procedure for carefully selected patients with unilateral cervical radiculopathy and avoids a fusion of the disc space.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".