This work was produced by Thomson et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This is an Open Access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. For attribution the title, original author(s), the publication source – NIHR Journals Library, and the DOI of the publication must be cited.
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Abstract
Background:
Posterior cervical foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy are routinely used operations to treat cervical brachialgia, although definitive evidence supporting superiority of either is lacking.
Objective:
The primary objective was to investigate whether or not posterior cervical foraminotomy is superior to anterior cervical discectomy in improving clinical outcome.
Design:
This was a Phase III, unblinded, prospective, United Kingdom multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled superiority trial comparing posterior cervical foraminotomy with anterior cervical discectomy. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during the close-down phase, involving remote semistructured interviews with trial participants and health-care professionals.
Setting:
National Health Service trusts.
Participants:
Patients with symptomatic unilateral cervical brachialgia for at least 6 weeks.
Interventions:
Participants were randomised to receive posterior cervical foraminotomy or anterior cervical discectomy. Allocation was not blinded to participants, medical staff or trial staff. Health-care use from providing the initial surgical intervention to hospital discharge was measured and valued using national cost data.
Main outcome measures:
The primary outcome measure was clinical outcome, as measured by patient-reported Neck Disability Index score 52 weeks post operation. Secondary outcome measures included complications, reoperations and restricted American Spinal Injury Association score over 6 weeks post operation, and patient-reported Eating Assessment Tool-10 items, Glasgow–Edinburgh Throat Scale, Voice Handicap Index-10 items, PainDETECT and Numerical Rating Scales for neck and upper-limb pain over 52 weeks post operation.
Results:
The target recruitment was 252 participants. Owing to slow accrual, the trial closed after randomising 23 participants from 11 hospitals. The qualitative substudy found that there was support and enthusiasm for the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial and randomised clinical trials in this area. However, clinical equipoise appears to have been an issue for sites and individual surgeons. Randomisation on the day of surgery and processes for screening and approaching participants were also crucial factors in some centres. The median Neck Disability Index scores at baseline (pre surgery) and at 52 weeks was 44.0 (interquartile range 36.0–62.0 weeks) and 25.3 weeks (interquartile range 20.0–42.0 weeks), respectively, in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group (n = 14), and 35.6 weeks (interquartile range 34.0–44.0 weeks) and 45.0 weeks (interquartile range 20.0–57.0 weeks), respectively, in the anterior cervical discectomy group (n = 9). Scores appeared to reduce (i.e. improve) in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group, but not in the anterior cervical discectomy group. The median Eating Assessment Tool-10 items score for swallowing was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (13.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (0) on day 1, but not at other time points, whereas the median Glasgow–Edinburgh Throat Scale score for globus was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (15, 7, 6, 6, 2, 2.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (3, 0, 0, 0.5, 0, 0) at all postoperative time points. Five postoperative complications occurred within 6 weeks of surgery, all after anterior cervical discectomy. Neck pain was more severe on day 1 following posterior cervical foraminotomy (Numerical Rating Scale – Neck Pain score 8.5) than at the same time point after anterior cervical discectomy (Numerical Rating Scale – Neck Pain score 7.0). The median health-care costs of providing initial surgical intervention were £2610 for posterior cervical foraminotomy and £4411 for anterior cervical discectomy.
Conclusions:
The data suggest that posterior cervical foraminotomy is associated with better outcomes, fewer complications and lower costs, but the trial recruited slowly and closed early. Consequently, the trial is underpowered and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Recruitment was impaired by lack of individual equipoise and by concern about randomising on the day of surgery. A large prospective multicentre trial comparing anterior cervical discectomy and posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia is still required.
Trial registration:
This trial is registered as ISRCTN10133661.
Funding:
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Plain language summary
Cervical brachialgia is pain that starts in the neck and passes down into the arm. Although most people with cervical brachialgia recover quickly, in some patients pain persists, and in 15% of patients pain is so severe that they are unable to work. In the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial, we investigated two neck surgeries used to treat this problem: posterior cervical foraminotomy (surgery from the back of the neck) and anterior cervical discectomy (surgery from the front of the neck). This trial aimed to find out if one of them is better than the other at relieving pain and more cost-effective for the National Health Service. We assessed patients’ quality of life 1 year after their surgery and how their pain changed over the course of the year. We also measured the number of complications patients had in the first 6 weeks after their operation.
Recruitment was slow and so the trial was stopped early, after only 23 patients from 11 hospitals had been randomly allocated to the two surgery groups. We had planned to recruit 252 participants to the trial; the number of participants we were able to recruit in practice was too small to enable us to determine which surgery is better at relieving pain. To find out why the trial had struggled to recruit, we asked hospital staff and participants about their experiences. We found that hospital staff sometimes struggled to organise everything needed to randomise patients on the day of surgery. Some staff also found it difficult to randomise patients as they had an opinion on which surgery they thought the patient should receive.
The data collected in the trial will still be useful to help design future research. Finding out which surgery is better at relieving pain remains important, and the data we have collected will support answering this question in future.
Contents
- Scientific summary
- Chapter 1. Introduction
- Chapter 2. Trial design and methods
- Chapter 3. Trial results
- Chapter 4. Health economic evaluation
- Chapter 5. Qualitative study
- Chapter 6. Discussion
- Chapter 7. Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- References
- Appendix 1. Internal pilot phase document
- Appendix 2. Hoarse voice assessment script
- Appendix 3. Reasons for non-eligibility
- Appendix 4. Additional results tables for the Neck Disability Index outcome
- Appendix 5. Additional results tables for secondary outcomes
- Appendix 6. Additional tables and figures for the health economic evaluation
- List of abbreviations
About the Series
Full disclosure of interests: Completed ICMJE forms for all authors, including all related interests, are available in the toolkit on the NIHR Journals Library report publication page at https://doi
Primary conflicts of interest: Peter Hutchinson declares participation in the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Intellectual Property Panel (2016–8) and in HTA Prioritisation Committee B (in hospital, 2016–22). Deborah Stocken declares membership of the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Funding Committee (2020–present).
Article history
The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 16/31/53. The contractual start date was in January 2018. The draft report began editorial review in July 2021 and was accepted for publication in March 2022. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.
Last reviewed: July 2021; Accepted: March 2022.
- NLM CatalogRelated NLM Catalog Entries
- Rapid qualitative analysis of recruitment obstacles in the FORVAD (Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy surgery versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy surgery in the treatment of cervical brachialgia) randomised, controlled trial.[Trials. 2024]Rapid qualitative analysis of recruitment obstacles in the FORVAD (Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy surgery versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy surgery in the treatment of cervical brachialgia) randomised, controlled trial.Talbot R, Higham R, Croft J, Ainsworth G, Brown S, Kelly R, Stocken D, Thomson S, Rousseau N. Trials. 2024 Aug 17; 25(1):546. Epub 2024 Aug 17.
- Clinical and cost-effectiveness of PCF versus ACD in the treatment of cervical brachialgia (FORVAD trial).[Br J Neurosurg. 2024]Clinical and cost-effectiveness of PCF versus ACD in the treatment of cervical brachialgia (FORVAD trial).Thomson S, Ainsworth G, Selvanathan S, Brown S, Croft J, Kelly R, Mujica-Mota R, Rousseau N, Higham R, Stocken D. Br J Neurosurg. 2024 Feb; 38(1):141-148. Epub 2024 Jan 27.
- Surgical versus non-surgical management of lateral compression type-1 pelvic fracture in adults 60 years and older: the L1FE RCT.[Health Technol Assess. 2024]Surgical versus non-surgical management of lateral compression type-1 pelvic fracture in adults 60 years and older: the L1FE RCT.Cook E, Laycock J, Sivapathasuntharam D, Maturana C, Hilton C, Doherty L, Hewitt C, McDaid C, Torgerson D, Bates P. Health Technol Assess. 2024 Mar; 28(15):1-67.
- Review Electronic self-reporting of adverse events for patients undergoing cancer treatment: the eRAPID research programme including two RCTs[ 2022]Review Electronic self-reporting of adverse events for patients undergoing cancer treatment: the eRAPID research programme including two RCTsVelikova G, Absolom K, Hewison J, Holch P, Warrington L, Avery K, Richards H, Blazeby J, Dawkins B, Hulme C, et al. 2022 Feb
- Review Developing decision support tools incorporating personalised predictions of likely visual benefit versus harm for cataract surgery: research programme[ 2022]Review Developing decision support tools incorporating personalised predictions of likely visual benefit versus harm for cataract surgery: research programmeSparrow JM, Grzeda M, Frost A, Liu C, Johnston RL, Scanlon P, Pithara C, Elliott D, Donovan J, Joseph-Williams N, et al. 2022 Oct
- Posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy for Cervical...Posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy for Cervical Brachialgia: the FORVAD RCT
- Stratified versus usual care for the management of primary care patients with sc...Stratified versus usual care for the management of primary care patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC RCT
- START (STrAtegies for RelaTives) study: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial ...START (STrAtegies for RelaTives) study: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a manual-based coping strategy programme in promoting the mental health of carers of people with dementia
- Deprescribing medicines in older people living with multimorbidity and polypharm...Deprescribing medicines in older people living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: the TAILOR evidence synthesis
- Real-time modelling of a pandemic influenza outbreakReal-time modelling of a pandemic influenza outbreak
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...