Skip to main content

Percutaneous cervical nucleoplasty and percutaneous cervical discectomy treatments of the contained cervical disc herniation

Abstract

Background

There were no studies in literature to compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous nucleoplasty (PCN) and percutaneous cervical discectomy (PCD) in contained cervical disc herniation.

Methods

A retrospective of patients with symptomatic contained cervical disc herniated were operated on with PCN and PCD from June 2003 to July 2005. Two-hundred and four patients initially fulfilled the study criteria, and 28 patients were lost in follow-up. The patients were categorized into different groups depending on the procedure by PCN (81 cases) or PCD (95 cases).

Results

The clinical outcomes, pain reduction, and segment stability were recorded during this study. Puncture of the needle into the disc space was accurately performed under C-arm fluoroscopy guidance in all cases and no intraoperative deaths were reported in our study. At the end, 176 cases had follow-up and 28 cases were lost, and the follow-up rate was 88.0% (81/92) in the PCN group and 84.8% (95/112) in the PCD group. The follow-up time ranged from 16 to 48 months (average 29 months), and on an average of 28.86 ± 4.52 months on PCN and 8.42 ± 3.21 months on PCD (t = −0.24, P = 0.81, >0.05). The operation time averages of PCN and PCD are 4.67 ± 1.16 and 11.95 ± 1.80, respectively (P < 0.01). The pain index improved from 7.12 ± 1.13 to 2.74 ± 0.89 (t = 27.03, P = 0.0000, <0.001) in PCN patients and from 7.18 ± 1.09 to 2.71 ± 0.91 (t = 29.57, P = 0.0000, <0.001) in PCD patients. Clinical results of PCN were excellent in 31 cases, good 32 cases, fair 13 cases, and poor 5 cases; for PCD, the results were 33, 42, 12, and 7 cases, respectively, and 1 in discitis. Good and excellent was 78.4% (77.8% in PCN and 79.5% in PCD, P > 0.05). There was one case of PCN that had the partial Perc-D SpineWand broken in the disc space, cannot be moved by the percutaneous cervical discectomy, and remained there itself. One of the cases had discitis in this study after PCD. Patient presented with neck pain and associated radicular pain and numbness in the left upper-limb after 8 days of PCD. There were no instable cases after procedures of PCN and PCD. There were no significant difference in stability of preoperatively and postoperatively between PCN and PCD (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

PCN and PCD treatments of contained cervical disc herniation show good outcomes and there was no difference in the stability of cervical spine. PCN and PCD are safe, minimally invasive, and no differences were observed between the methods in clinical outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Stookey B (1928) Compression of the spinal cord due to ventral extradural cervical chondromas. Arch Neurol Psych 20:275–278

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mixter WJ, Barr JS (1934) Rupture of the intervertebral disc with involvement of the spinal canal. N Engl J Med 211:210–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bailey RW, Badgley CE (1960) Stabilization of the cervical spine by anterior fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 42A:565–569

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cloward RB (1983) The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. J Neurosurg 10:15–19

    Google Scholar 

  5. Robinson RA, Smith GW (1955) Anterolateral cervical disc removal and interbody fusion for cervical disc syndrome. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 96:223–224

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hirsch D (1960) Cervical disc rupture: diagnosis and therapy. Acta Orthop Scand 30:172–176

    Google Scholar 

  7. Robertson YR (1973) Anterior removal of cervical disc without fusion. Clin Neurosurg 20:259–262

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fukushima T, Ishijima B, Hirakawa K (1973) Ventriculofiberscope: a new technique for endoscopic diagnosis and operation. J Neurosurg 38:251–256

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kahanovitz N, Viola K, Goldstein T, Dawson E (1990) A multicenter analysis of percutaneous discectomy. Spine 15:713–715

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Smith L (1964) Enzyme dissolution of the nucleus pulposus in humans. JAMA 187:137–140

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Smith L, Garvin PJ, Jennings RB (1963) Enzyme dissolution of the nucleus pulposus. Nature 198:1311–1312

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hijikata S (1989) Percutaneous nucleotomy. A new concept technique and 12 years’ experience. Clin Orthop 238:9–23

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ascher PW (1986) Application of the laser in neurosurgery. Lasers Surg Med 2:91–97

    Google Scholar 

  14. Case RB, Choy DS, Altman P (1985) Intervertebral disc pressure as a function of fluid volume infused. J Clin Laser Med Surg 13:143–147

    Google Scholar 

  15. Macnab I (1971) Negative disc exploration: an analysis of the causes of nerve-root involvement in 68 patient. J Bone Joint Surg Br 53:891–903

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical discs. J Neurosurg 15:602–605

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. O’Neill CW, Kurgansky ME, Derby R, Ryan DP (2002) Disc stimulation and patterns of referred pain. Spine 27:2776–2781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ellenberg MR, Honet JC, Treanor WJ (1994) Cervical radiculopathy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75:342–352

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Maroon JC (2002) Current concepts in minimally invasive discectomy. Neurosurgery 51:S137–S145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee SH, Derby R, Chen Y, Seo KS, Kim MJ (2004) In vitro measurement of pressure in intervertebral discs and annulus fibrous with and without annular tears during discography. Spine 4:614–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Castro WH, Halm H, Rondhuis J (2002) The influence of automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD) on the biomechanics of the lumbar intervertebral disc. An experimental study. Acta Orthop Belg 58:400–405

    Google Scholar 

  22. Chen YC, Lee SH, Chen D (2003) Intradiscal pressure study of percutaneous disc decompression with nucleoplasty in human cadavers. Spine 28:661–665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen YC, Lee SH, Saenz Y, Lehman NL (2003) Histologic findings of disc, end plate and neural elements after coblation of nucleus pulposus: an experimental nucleoplasty study. Spine 3:466–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nau WH, Diederich CJ (2004) Evaluation of temperature distributions in cadaveric lumbar spine during nucleoplasty. Phys Med Biol 49:1583–1594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Slipman C, Frey M, Bhargava A, et al. (2004) P86. Outcomes and side effects following percutaneous cervical disc decompression using coblation technology: a pilot study. Spine J 4(5 Suppl 1):S71–S72

    Google Scholar 

  26. Li J, Yan DL, Zhang ZH (2008) Percutaneous cervical nucleoplasty in the treatment of cervical disc herniation. Eur Spine J 17(12):1664–1669

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Knight K, Woods DM, McHaourab A (2009) Nucleoplasty for disc protrusion: a novel percutaneous decompression technique. Tech Reg Anesth Pain Manag 13(2):93–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denglu Yan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yan, D., Li, J., Zhu, H. et al. Percutaneous cervical nucleoplasty and percutaneous cervical discectomy treatments of the contained cervical disc herniation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130, 1371–1376 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-009-1041-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-009-1041-3

Keywords

  • Nucleoplasty
  • Disc herniation
  • Coblation
  • Cervical
  • Diskectomy