Percutaneous Nucleoplasty for the Treatment of a Contained Cervical Disk Herniation.

Cervical radiculopathy is characterized by compression of the roots of the nerve. When conservative treatment fails and symptoms persist or increase in severity, surgical treatment is considered. Anterior cervical discectomy with or without fusion is regarded as the standard treatment for cervical disk herniation. Recently, there is an evolving trend in spinal surgery towards less invasive techniques. Nucleoplasty is a minimally invasive technique in which radiofrequency technology is used for percutaneous decompression. During the last years nucleoplasty has been proven to be a safe and effective treatment to alleviate radiculopathy, caused by a contained disk herniation. Nucleoplasty is usually performed on an outpatient basis and is associated with a fast recovery time. This paper will describe the preoperative and postoperative management of cervical nucleoplasty as well as the surgical technique, accompanied by a video.

The long-term efficacy and safety of percutaneous cervical nucleoplasty in patients with a contained herniated disk.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous cervical nucleoplasty (PCN) is a safe and effective treatment in symptomatic patients with contained cervical herniated disks. It provides simple and efficient disk decompression, using a controlled and highly localized ablation, but evidence regarding long-term efficacy is limited. We conducted a retrospective study to investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of PCN, and the influence of ideal selection settings. METHODS: A total of 27 patients treated with PCN fulfilling ideal selection criteria (Group A) were studied and compared to 42 patients not meeting these criteria (Group B). Outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and a four-level Likert item for perceived pain and satisfaction, the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and the Short Form 36 (SF-36). Additional relevant outcomes were retrieved from medical records. RESULTS: The postoperative mean VAS pain for Group A was 29.9 (SD ± 32.6) at a mean follow-up of 24 months (range: 2-45). Only 10% of these patients reported mild transient adverse events. There was a trend, but no difference between both groups in pain scores; however, treatment satisfaction was higher for Group A (74.1 ± 27.2-55.5 ± 31.4, P = 0.02). Group A also reported better physical functioning based on the Physical Component Summary (43.6 ± 10.6-37.3 ± 12.0, P = 0.03) and showed a larger proportion of patients no longer using any medication postoperatively (63-26%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: These results show long-term effectiveness and safety of PCN in patients with a one-level contained cervical herniated disk, and the reliance of selecting patients meeting ideal criteria for successful PCN.

Subcutaneous stimulation as an additional therapy to spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of lower limb pain and/or back pain: a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy of subcutaneous stimulation (SubQ) as an additional therapy in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) with chronic refractory pain, for whom spinal cord stimulation (SCS) was unsuccessful in treating low back pain. STUDY DESIGN: Case series. MATERIALS AND METHODS: FBSS patients with chronic limb and/or low back pain whose conventional therapies had failed received a combination of SCS (8-contact Octad lead) and/or SubQ (4-contact Quad Plus lead(s)). Initially leads were placed in the epidural space for SCS for a trial stimulation to assess response to suppression of limb and low back pain. Where SCS alone was insufficient in treating lower back pain, leads were placed superficially in the subcutaneous tissue of the lower back, directly in the middle of the pain area. A pulse generator was implanted if patients reported more than 50% pain relief during the trial period. Pain intensity for limb and lower back pain was scored separately, using visual analog scale (VAS). Pain and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) after 12-month treatment were compared with pain and QBPDS at baseline. RESULTS: Eleven FBSS patients, five male and six female (age: 51 ± 8 years; mean ± SD), in whom SCS alone was insufficient in treating lower back pain, were included. In nine cases, SubQ was used in combination with SCS to treat chronic lower back and lower extremity pain. In two cases only SubQ was used to treat lower back pain. SCS significantly reduced limb pain after 12 months (VAS(bl) : 62 ± 14 vs. VAS(12m) : 20 ± 11; p= 0.001, N= 8). SubQ stimulation significantly reduced low back pain after 12 months (VAS(bl) : 62 ± 13.0 vs. VAS(12m) : 32 ± 16; p= 0.0002, N= 10). Overall pain medication was reduced by more than 70%. QBPDS improved from 61 ± 15 to 49 ± 12 (p= 0.046, N= 10). Furthermore, we observed that two patients returned to work. CONCLUSION: SubQ may be an effective additional treatment for chronic low back pain in patients with FBSS for whom SCS alone is insufficient in alleviating their pain symptoms.