Percutaneous cervical nucleoplasty in the treatment of cervical disc herniation.

Percutaneous disc decompression procedures have been performed in the past. Various percutaneous techniques such as percutaneous discectomy, laser discectomy, and nucleoplasty have been successful. Our prospective study was directly to evaluate the results of percutaneous cervical nucleoplasty (PCN) surgery for cervical disc herniation, and illustrate the effectiveness of PCN in symptomatic patients who had cervical herniated discs. From July of 2002 to June of 2005, 126 consecutive patients with contained cervical disc herniations have presented at the authors' clinic and treated by PCN. The patients' gender distribution for PCN was 65 male, 61 female. The age of patients ranged from 34 to 66 years (mean 51.9 +/- 10.2 years). The levels of involvement were 21 cases at C3-4, 30 cases at C4-5, 40 cases at C5-6, and 35 cases at C6-7. The clinical outcomes, pain reduction and the segment stability were all recorded during this study. A clinical outcome was quantified by the Macnab standard and using VAS. The angular displacement (AD) > or =11 degrees or horizontal displacement (HD) > or =3 mm was considered to be radiographically unstable. In the results of this study, puncture of the needle into the disc space was accurately performed under X-ray guidance in all cases. There was one case where the Perc-D Spine Wand had broken in the disc space during the procedure. The partial Perc-D Spine Wand, which had broken in the disc space could not be removed by the percutaneous cervical discectomy and thus remained there. There were no recurrent cases or complications in our series. Macnab standard results were excellent in 62 cases, good in 41 cases and fair in 23 cases. The rate of excellent and good was 83.73%. The VAS scores demonstrated statistically significant improvement in PCN at the 2-week, 1, 3, 6, and 12-month follow-up visits when compared to preoperational values (P < 0.01). There were no cases of instability following the PCN procedure. There was no significant difference in stability either preoperatively or postoperatively (P > 0.05). Our findings confirm that PCN for the treatment of cervical disc herniation results in a good outcome without any tampering of the stability of the cervical spine. Hence, PCN as a procedure is safe, minimally invasive, less traumatic, requiring less time with an excellent clinical outcome. PCN should be performed for those patients who fail conservative medical management including medication, physical therapy, behavioral management, psychotherapy, and who are unwilling to undergo a more invasive technique such as spinal surgery.

[Comparative study on two different methods of lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of spondylolisthesis].

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcome of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with pedicle screw fixation on the treatment of spondylolisthesis. METHODS: One hundred and twenty patients with spondylolisthesis who were managed in our department were retrospectively evaluated. They were categorized into TLIF group and PLIF group according to the surgical methods, with 60 cases in each group. The slippage rate, the height of intervertebral space and intervertebral foramen were measured in each patient before and after operation and were compared between the two groups correspondingly. The interbody fusion rate, JOA score and complications after operation were also determined. RESULTS: All the 120 patients were followed up for an average of 23 months (range, 16 to 35 months). Interbody bony fusion was achieved in every case and cage excursion or subsidence occurred in not any case. JOA score was rated as good or excellent in 83.3% of the TLIF cases and in 81.7% of the PLIF cases. There were no difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). Postoperative slippage rate was significantly less than preoperative ones in both groups (P < 0.01). No difference in lost of reduction at the final follow-up was found between TLIF and PLIF groups (P > 0.05). Significant increases in the height of intervertebral space and intervertebral foramen after operation were approved in both groups (P < 0.01), but no difference in these increases was confirmed between the two groups (P > 0.05). The lost of the height of intervertebral space and intervertebral foramen at the final follow-up were also similar between the two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: TLIF and PLIF are good methods for the treatment of spondylolisthesis, both leading to satisfactory clinical outcomes. However, TLIF is relatively safer owing to its unilateral approach for interbody fusion.

Comparative study of PILF and TLIF treatment in adult degenerative spondylolisthesis.

This study is to compare the therapeutic effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with pedicle screw fixation on treatment in adult degenerative spondylolisthesis. A retrospective analysis of 187 patients to compare the complications and associated predictive factors of the two techniques of one level lumbar fusion. Ninety-one had PLIF with two cages and pedicle fixation (group 1), and ninety-six had TLIF with one cage and pedicle fixation (group 2). The two groups had similar age and sex distribution, and level of pain. Inclusion criteria and outcome measurements were identical in both groups. The two groups were operated on with autograft and cage with pedicle fixation. Before surgery and at the 2-year follow-up, pain (VAS) and functional disability (JOA) were quantified. The results showed there were no intraoperative deaths in our study. In the end 176 cases had 2-year follow-up while 11 cases were lost to follow-up. The follow-up rate was 93.4% (85/91) in the PLIF group and 94.8% (91/96) in the TLIF group. All patients had bone fusion, and there were no cases of cage extrusion. The pain index improved from 7.08 +/- 1.13 to 2.84 +/- 0.89 in PLIF patients and improved from 7.18 +/- 1.09 to 2.84 +/- 0.91 in TLIF patients (P < 0.001). There were 42 cases of excellent, 29 cases of good, 11 cases of general, and 3 cases of poor results in PLIF group. There were 46 cases of excellent, 31 case of good, 12 case of general, and 2 cases of poor results in TLIF group. The JOA score in all patients was 84.1% of good or excellent (83.5% in PLIF and 84.6% in TLIF, P > 0.05). The average preoperative slip was 30.1 +/- 7.2% in PLIF group while in the TLIF it was 31.4 +/- 8.3%. Immediately post operatively it was reduced to 7.3 +/- 2.1% and 7.4 +/- 2.7% and at last F/U it was 8.1 +/- 2.8% and 8.2 +/- 2.6%, respectively. The average of reduction rate was 75.2 +/- 6.4% in PLIF and 75.4 +/- 6.2 in TLIF on the initial post operatively X-ray, and 72.6 +/- 5.2% and 72.4 +/- 5.4% on the follow-up. The percentage rate, reduction rate and lost of reduction rate between the two groups was similar (P > 0.05). The average pre operative disk and foramen height in the PLIF group improved from 6.8 +/- 2.3 and 14.2 +/- 1.7 preoperatively to 11.6 +/- 1.5 and 18.7 +/- 1.8 post operatively, respectively. At last follow up there was minimal lost of correction down to 11.24 +/- 1.2 and 18.1 +/- 1.8, respectively. Similarly in the TLIF group, pre operative disk and foramen height were improved from 6.7 +/- 1.7 and 14.1 +/- 1.8 to 11.4 +/- 1.6 and 18.5 +/- 1.6 immediately post operative. At last follow up minimal lost of correction was noted with average disc height of 11.3 +/- 1.4 and 18.2 +/- 1.7. Both techniques achieve statistical significance in restoration of disc and foraminal (P < 0.01); however, there was no statistical difference between the two techniques. In conclusion, interbody fusion with either a PLIF technique or a TLIF technique provides good outcomes in the treatment of adult degenerative spondylolisthesis. The TLIF procedure is simpler and is as safe and effective as the PLIF technique.

[Comparison percutaneous cervical disc nucleoplasty and cervical discectomy for the treatment of cervical disc herniation].

OBJECTIVE: To compare the therapeutic effect of percutaneous cervical disc nucleoplasty (PCN group) and percutaneous cervical discectomy (PCD group) for the treatment of cervical disc herniation. METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out from July of 2002 to December of 2004, and there were 80 cervical disc herniation cases who were operated by PCN (42 cases) or PCD (38 cases). The time of operation, clinical result and the stability of cervical spine after operation were evaluated and compared between 2 groups. RESULTS: All cases had been followed up from 6 months to 26 months, average (12 +/- 5) months on the PCN group and (12 +/- 4) months on the PCD group, and there was no significant difference on 2 groups (t = -0.06, P = 0.953). All cases had been successfully operated. There was significant difference in the operation time between 2 groups (t = -21.70, P = 0.000). There was significant difference in the pre- and post-operation scores of each group (PCN group: t = 14.05, P = 0.000; PCD group: t = -14.79, P = 0.000). There was no significant difference in 2 groups of the clinical outcomes (z = -0.377, P = 0.706, > 0.05). There was no instability of cervical spine cases in 2 groups after operation (P > 0.05), and the cervical spine stability was no significant difference in pre- and-operation in each group. CONCLUSIONS: PCN and PCD for the treatment of cervical disc herniation achieves good outcomes and no difference on the stability of cervical spine. PCN and PCD is a safe, minimally invasive, short time of operation, less traumatic operation and excellent clinical outcome.