Patient effects of only anterior surgical approach and only posterior surgical approach in cervical spondylomyolopathy patients

Comparison of cervical anterior approach (Group 1) and cervical posterior approach (Group 2) methods, we aimed to evaluate the effects of both techniques on different patient groups. The patients who underwent cervical spondylomyelopathy surgery Decently between 2013-2023 at the brain and neurosurgery clinics of Pamukkale University hospital were retrospectively examined and included in the study. 742 patients who were diagnosed with SSM and used only the anterior and posterior approach were included in the study. Of these, 580 were treated using the anterior approach (Group 1) and 162 were treated using the posterior approach (Group 2). The obtained data were compared with Modified JOA Scoring, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), SF-36 (Short Form). 51.6% of the patients in Group 1, 68.5% of the patients in Group 2 and 55.3% of all patients were male. The average age of patients in Group 1 was 55.81, the average age of patients in Group 2 was 64.69, and the average age of all patients was 57.75. Patients in Group 1 were significantly younger than those in Group 2 (p=0.001). The preop and postop modified JOA A score was higher in Group 2. The preop and postop modified JOA B score was higher in Group 1. The preop and postop modified JOA C score was higher in Group 1 in preop, while the Group 2 score was higher in postop. In both groups, preop JOA scores A, B and C showed a significant increase in postop (p=000). There was no significant difference between the groups in the total score of Preop-modified Dec (p>0.05). The total score of postoperatively modified JOA was higher in Group 1 (p=0.000). In both groups (Group 1: p=0.000/ Group 2: p=0.011), the total preop JOA score showed a significant increase in postop. The Preop VAS score of Group 1 (anterior) (6.59) was lower in the patient groups than the VAS score of Group 2 (posterior) (7.87) (p=0.000). There was a significant difference in postoperative VAS score (p=0.013) and the VAS score of Group 2 (3.48) was lower compared to Group 1 (3.72). In both groups, VAS scores decreased significantly in postoperative (p=0.000). There was a significant difference in postoperative SF 36 Physical function in favor of Group 1 and postoperative SF 36 pain in favor of Group 2 (p=0.000). As a result, when pre- and postoperative scores were evaluated, it was found that both surgical methods were effective in pain control and improving physical function, but in the posterior group, preoperative JOA scores had a stronger relationship with postoperative recovery. While preoperative pain and functional status were a more limited determinant of predicting recovery in patients treated with the anterior approach, both methods similarly improved the overall health status of patients in the postoperative period.