scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of Keyhole Technique and Delta Technique for Cervical Disc Herniation: a retrospective comparative cohort study.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tong Yu ◽  
Jiu-Ping Wu ◽  
Jun Zhang ◽  
Hai-Chi Yu ◽  
Qinyi Liu
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Cervical Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Tissue Removal ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cord Injury ◽  
Cervical Diseases

Abstract Background p-PECD is an effective strategy for cervical diseases which working cannula ranges from 3.7 mm to 6.9 mm. However, no studies were performed to compare the clinical outcomes of keyhole technique (diameter of 3.7 mm) and delta technique (diameter of 6.9 mm) in CDH patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of unilateral cervical disc herniation (CDH) patients treated with posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy (p-PECD) applying the keyhole technique with those treated with the delta technique.Methods From January 2016 to June 2018, totally 28 consecutive patients presented with single-level CDH who received p-PECD using the keyhole technique or the delta technique were enrolled in this study. Patients were evaluated neurologically pre- and postoperatively. The clinical outcomes, including the operation time, the hospitalization, the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the modified MacNab criteria, were evaluated. Cervical fluoroscopy, CT, and MRI were performed during follow up.Results In both groups, faster “V” point identification, more quickly overlying soft tissue removal and laminoforaminotomy, and shorter operative time, were found in the delta group. Postoperatively, the VAS and MacNab scores of the two techniques were improved significantly. Nevertheless, the differences between the two groups were not significant (P>0.05). One case suffered nerve root outer membrane torn in delta group.Conclusion Both keyhole technique and delta technique are effective methods for CDH in selected patients, and there is no significant difference in clinical outcomes. Delta technology is superior to keyhole technology in the efficiency of “V” point identification, overlying soft tissue removal and spinal cord injury prevention. Furthermore, delta technology is inferior to keyhole technology in anterior decompression of the intervertebral foramen.

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of Posterior Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Discectomy Using 3.7mm Endoscopic and 6.9mm Endoscopic for Cervical Disc Herniation: a retrospective comparative cohort study.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tong Yu ◽  
Jiu-Ping Wu ◽  
Jun Zhang ◽  
Hai-Chi Yu ◽  
Qinyi Liu
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Cervical Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Foraminal Stenosis ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cord Injury

Abstract Background. Posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy (p-PECD) is an effective strategy for cervical diseases which working cannula ranges from 3.7 mm to 6.9 mm. However, no studies were performed to compare the clinical outcomes of endoscopes with different diameters in cervical disc herniation (CDH) patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of unilateral CDH patients treated with p-PECD applying the 3.7mm endoscopic with those treated with the 6.9mm endoscopic. Methods. From January 2016 to June 2018, totally 28 consecutive patients presented with single-level CDH who received p-PECD using the 3.7mm endoscopic or the 6.9mm endoscopic were enrolled. The indications for this study were as follows: (1) Unilateral cervical spondylotic radiculopathy with pain irradiated to upper extremity, (2) MRI and CT scan show that foraminal CDH located lateral to the edge of spinal cord, from C4–C5 to C7–T1, (3) Unilateral symptoms caused by foraminal stenosis, (4) Failure after conservative treatment for at least 6 weeks or neurological symptoms aggravated. Patients were evaluated neurologically pre- and postoperatively. The clinical outcomes, including the operation time, the hospitalization, the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the modified MacNab criteria, were evaluated. Cervical fluoroscopy, CT, and MRI were performed during follow up.Results. The mean surgical duration of the 3.7mm endoscopic was 76.5 minutes compared with 61.5 minutes for 6.9mm endoscopic (P<0.05). Moreover, there was significant difference with regard to average identification time of “V” point (18.608±3.7607min vs. 11.256±2.7161min, p＜0.001) and mean removal time of overlying tissue (16.650±4.1730 min vs. 12.712±3.3079 min, p＜0.05) between 3.7mm endoscopic and 6.9mm endoscopic. The VAS and MacNab scores postoperatively of the two endoscopies were significantly improved compared with that before operation (p＜0.05).Conclusion. Both 3.7mm endoscopic and 6.9mm endoscopic are effective methods for CDH in selected patients, and there is no significant difference in clinical outcomes. 6.9mm endoscopic is superior to 3.7mm endoscopic in the efficiency of “V” point identification, overlying soft tissue removal and spinal cord injury prevention. Furthermore, 6.9mm endoscopic is inferior to 3.7mm endoscopic in anterior decompression of the intervertebral foramen.

scholarly journals Comparative evaluation of posterior percutaneous endoscopy cervical discectomy using a 3.7 mm endoscope and a 6.9 mm endoscope for cervical disc herniation: a retrospective comparative cohort study

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tong Yu ◽  
Jiu-Ping Wu ◽  
Jun Zhang ◽  
Hai-Chi Yu ◽  
Qin-Yi Liu
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Large Diameter ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Cervical Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cord Injury ◽  
Percutaneous Endoscopy

Abstract Background Posterior percutaneous endoscopy cervical discectomy (p-PECD) is an effective strategy for the treatment of cervical diseases, with a working cannula ranging from 3.7 mm to 6.9 mm in diameter. However, to date, no studies have been performed to compare the clinical outcomes of the use of endoscopes with different diameters in cervical disc herniation (CDH) patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with unilateral CDH treated with p-PECD using a 3.7 mm endoscope and a 6.9 mm endoscope. Methods From January 2016 to June 2018, a total of 28 consecutive patients with single-level CDH who received p-PECD using either the 3.7 mm or the 6.9 mm endoscope were enrolled. The clinical results, including the surgical duration, hospitalization, visual analog scale (VAS) score and modified MacNab criteria, were evaluated. Cervical fluoroscopy, CT, and MRI were also performed during follow-up. Results Tthere was a significant difference in regard to the average identification time of the “V” point (18.608 ± 3.7607 min vs. 11.256 ± 2.7161 min, p < 0.001) and the mean removal time of the overlying tissue (16.650 ± 4.1730 min vs. 12.712 ± 3.3079 min, p < 0.05) for the use of the 3.7 mm endoscope and the 6.9 mm endoscope, respectively. The postoperative VAS and MacNab scores of the two endoscopes were significantly improved compared with those the preoperative scores (p < 0.05). Conclusion The application of both the 3.7 mm endoscope and 6.9 mm endoscope represent an effective method for the treatment of CDH in selected patients, and no significant difference can be observed in the clinical outcomes of the endoscopes. The 6.9 mm endoscope shows superiority to the 3.7 mm endoscope in terms of the efficiency of “V” point identification, the removal of overlying soft tissue and the prevention of spinal cord injury. However, the 6.9 mm endoscope may be inferior to the 3.7 mm endoscope in regards to anterior foraminal decompression due to its large diameter; this result needs to be further evaluated with the support of a large number of randomized controlled trials.

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of Posterior Percutaneous Endoscopy Cervical Discectomy Using 3.7 mm Endoscope and 6.9 mm Endoscope for Cervical Disc Herniation: a retrospective comparative cohort study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tong Yu ◽  
Jiu-Ping Wu ◽  
Jun Zhang ◽  
Hai-Chi Yu ◽  
Qinyi Liu
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Large Diameter ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Cervical Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cord Injury ◽  
Percutaneous Endoscopy

Abstract Background. Posterior percutaneous endoscopy cervical discectomy (p-PECD) is an effective strategy for the treatment of cervical diseases, with a working cannula ranging from 3.7 mm to 6.9 mm in diameter. However, to date, no studies have been performed to compare the clinical outcomes of the use of endoscopes with different diameters in cervical disc herniation (CDH) patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with unilateral CDH treated with p-PECD using a 3.7 mm endoscope and a 6.9 mm endoscope.Methods. From January 2016 to June 2018, a total of 28 consecutive patients with single-level CDH who received p-PECD using either the 3.7 mm or the 6.9 mm endoscope were enrolled. The clinical results, including the surgical duration, hospitalization, visual analog scale (VAS) score and modified MacNab criteria, were evaluated. Cervical fluoroscopy, CT, and MRI were also performed during follow-up.Results. Tthere was a significant difference in regard to the average identification time of the “V” point (18.608±3.7607 min vs. 11.256±2.7161 min, p<0.001) and the mean removal time of the overlying tissue (16.650±4.1730 min vs. 12.712±3.3079 min, p<0.05) for the use of the 3.7 mm endoscope and the 6.9 mm endoscope, respectively. The postoperative VAS and MacNab scores of the two endoscopes were significantly improved compared with those the preoperative scores (p<0.05).Conclusion. The application of both the 3.7 mm endoscope and 6.9 mm endoscope represent an effective method for the treatment of CDH in selected patients, and no significant difference can be observed in the clinical outcomes of the endoscopes. The 6.9 mm endoscope shows superiority to the 3.7 mm endoscope in terms of the efficiency of “V” point identification, the removal of overlying soft tissue and the prevention of spinal cord injury. However, the 6.9 mm endoscope may be inferior to the 3.7 mm endoscope in regards to anterior foraminal decompression due to its large diameter; this result needs to be further evaluated with the support of a large number of randomized controlled trials.

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of Posterior Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Discectomy Using 3.7mm Endoscopic and 6.9mm Endoscopic for Cervical Disc Herniation: a retrospective comparative cohort study. 

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tong Yu ◽  
Jiu-Ping Wu ◽  
Jun Zhang ◽  
Hai-Chi Yu ◽  
Qinyi Liu
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Large Diameter ◽  
Cervical Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Foraminal Stenosis ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cord Injury

Abstract Background. Posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy (p-PECD) is an effective strategy for cervical diseases which working cannula ranges from 3.7 mm to 6.9 mm. However, no studies were performed to compare the clinical outcomes of endoscopes with different diameters in cervical disc herniation (CDH) patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of unilateral CDH patients treated with p-PECD applying the 3.7mm endoscopic with those treated with the 6.9mm endoscopic. Methods. From January 2016 to June 2018, totally 28 consecutive patients presented with single-level CDH who received p-PECD using the 3.7mm or the 6.9mm endoscopic were enrolled. The indications for this study were as follows: (1) Unilateral cervical spondylotic radiculopathy with pain irradiated to upper extremity, (2) MRI and CT scan show that foraminal CDH located lateral to the edge of spinal cord, from C4–C5 to C7–T1, (3) Unilateral symptoms caused by foraminal stenosis, (4) Failure after conservative treatment for at least 6 weeks or neurological symptoms aggravated. The clinical outcomes, including the operation time, the hospitalization, the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the modified MacNab criteria, were evaluated. Cervical fluoroscopy, CT, and MRI were performed during follow up.Results. The mean surgical duration of the 3.7mm endoscopic was 76.5 minutes compared with 61.5 minutes for 6.9mm endoscopic (P<0.05). Moreover, there was significant difference with regard to average identification time of “V” point (18.608±3.7607min vs. 11.256±2.7161min, p＜0.001) and mean removal time of overlying tissue (16.650±4.1730 min vs. 12.712±3.3079 min, p＜0.05) between 3.7mm endoscopic and 6.9mm endoscopic. The VAS and MacNab scores postoperatively of the two endoscopies were significantly improved compared with that before operation (p＜0.05).Conclusion. Both 3.7mm endoscopic and 6.9mm endoscopic are effective methods for CDH in selected patients, and there is no significant difference in clinical outcomes. 6.9mm endoscopic is superior to 3.7mm endoscopic in the efficiency of “V” point identification, overlying soft tissue removal and spinal cord injury prevention. Furthermore, 6.9mm endoscopy may be inferior to 3.7mm endoscopy in anterior decompression of foramina due to its large diameter, which needs to be further evaluated by a large number of randomized controlled trials.

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of Posterior Percutaneous Endoscopy Cervical Discectomy Using 3.7 mm Endoscope and 6.9 mm Endoscope for Cervical Disc Herniation: a retrospective comparative cohort study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tong Yu ◽  
Jiu-Ping Wu ◽  
Jun Zhang ◽  
Hai-Chi Yu ◽  
Qinyi Liu
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Large Diameter ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Cervical Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cord Injury ◽  
Percutaneous Endoscopy

Abstract Background. Posterior percutaneous endoscopy cervical discectomy (p-PECD) is an effective strategy for the treatment of cervical diseases, with a working cannula ranging from 3.7 mm to 6.9 mm in diameter. However, to date, no studies have been performed to compare the clinical outcomes of the use of endoscopes with different diameters in cervical disc herniation (CDH) patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with unilateral CDH treated with p-PECD using a 3.7 mm endoscope and a 6.9 mm endoscope.Methods. From January 2016 to June 2018, a total of 28 consecutive patients with single-level CDH who received p-PECD using either the 3.7 mm or the 6.9 mm endoscope were enrolled. The clinical results, including the surgical duration, hospitalization, visual analog scale (VAS) score and modified MacNab criteria, were evaluated. Cervical fluoroscopy, CT, and MRI were also performed during follow-up.Results. Tthere was a significant difference in regard to the average identification time of the “V” point (18.608±3.7607 min vs. 11.256±2.7161 min, p<0.001) and the mean removal time of the overlying tissue (16.650±4.1730 min vs. 12.712±3.3079 min, p<0.05) for the use of the 3.7 mm endoscope and the 6.9 mm endoscope, respectively. The postoperative VAS and MacNab scores of the two endoscopes were significantly improved compared with those the preoperative scores (p<0.05).Conclusion. The application of both the 3.7 mm endoscope and 6.9 mm endoscope represent an effective method for the treatment of CDH in selected patients, and no significant difference can be observed in the clinical outcomes of the endoscopes. The 6.9 mm endoscope shows superiority to the 3.7 mm endoscope in terms of the efficiency of “V” point identification, the removal of overlying soft tissue and the prevention of spinal cord injury. However, the 6.9 mm endoscope may be inferior to the 3.7 mm endoscope in regards to anterior foraminal decompression due to its large diameter; this result needs to be further evaluated with the support of a large number of randomized controlled trials.

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of Posterior Percutaneous Endoscopy Cervical Discectomy Using 3.7 mm Endoscope and 6.9 mm Endoscope for Cervical Disc Herniation: a retrospective comparative cohort study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tong Yu ◽  
Jiu-Ping Wu ◽  
Jun Zhang ◽  
Hai-Chi Yu ◽  
Qinyi Liu
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Large Diameter ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Cervical Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cord Injury ◽  
Percutaneous Endoscopy

Abstract Background. Posterior percutaneous endoscopy cervical discectomy (p-PECD) is an effective strategy for the treatment of cervical diseases, with a working cannula ranging from 3.7 mm to 6.9 mm in diameter. However, to date, no studies have been performed to compare the clinical outcomes of the use of endoscopes with different diameters in cervical disc herniation (CDH) patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with unilateral CDH treated with p-PECD using a 3.7 mm endoscope and a 6.9 mm endoscope.Methods. From January 2016 to June 2018, a total of 28 consecutive patients with single-level CDH who received p-PECD using either the 3.7 mm or the 6.9 mm endoscope were enrolled. The clinical results, including the surgical duration, hospitalization, visual analog scale (VAS) score and modified MacNab criteria, were evaluated. Cervical fluoroscopy, CT, and MRI were also performed during follow-up.Results. Tthere was a significant difference in regard to the average identification time of the “V” point (18.608±3.7607 min vs. 11.256±2.7161 min, p<0.001) and the mean removal time of the overlying tissue (16.650±4.1730 min vs. 12.712±3.3079 min, p<0.05) for the use of the 3.7 mm endoscope and the 6.9 mm endoscope, respectively. The postoperative VAS and MacNab scores of the two endoscopes were significantly improved compared with those the preoperative scores (p<0.05).Conclusion. The application of both the 3.7 mm endoscope and 6.9 mm endoscope represent an effective method for the treatment of CDH in selected patients, and no significant difference can be observed in the clinical outcomes of the endoscopes. The 6.9 mm endoscope shows superiority to the 3.7 mm endoscope in terms of the efficiency of “V” point identification, the removal of overlying soft tissue and the prevention of spinal cord injury. However, the 6.9 mm endoscope may be inferior to the 3.7 mm endoscope in regards to anterior foraminal decompression due to its large diameter; this result needs to be further evaluated with the support of a large number of randomized controlled trials.

scholarly journals TRANSFORAMINAL CERVICAL NERVE ROOT BLOCK: OUTCOMES AND COMPLICATIONS

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 219-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
EMILIANO NEVES VIALLE ◽  
LUIZ ROBERTO GOMES VIALLE ◽  
JOANA BRETAS CABRAL RONDON GUASQUE
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Radiculopathy ◽  
Lateral Approach ◽  
Cervical Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Cervical Nerve Root ◽  
Cervical Nerve ◽  
Transient Improvement ◽  
Cervical Nerve Root Block

ABSTRACT Objectives: To investigate the effect and complications after transforaminal injection for cervicobrachialgia caused by cervical disc herniation. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing fluoroscopy-guided transforaminal injection for radiculopathy caused by cervical disc herniation. During the last seven years, 57 patients (39 female, 18 male, mean age 45.6 years) experiencing cervical radiculopathy underwent cervical foraminal block guided by fluoroscopy by postero-lateral approach. The position of the needle was verified after injection of a small amount of contrast. A glucocorticosteroid was injected after 0.5 ml of 2% lidocaine. Results: The local with the highest prevalence of procedures was C6 root (31 procedures); 14 patients underwent C7 block, 7 had C5 block, and 5 in C4. Eight patients (14%) had complications (3 syncopes, 3 transient hoarseness, one patient had worsening of symptoms and one patient had soft tissue hematoma). In total, 42.1% were asymptomatic after the procedure and therefore did not require surgery after the procedure. Other 57.9% had transient improvement, became asymptomatic for at least 2 months but required surgery due to the recurrence of symptoms. Conclusion: Cervical foraminal block for cervical disc herniation is a safe way to avoid surgery. Some patients still need surgery after the procedure, but the temporary improvement in symptoms gives the patient some relief while awaiting surgery.

scholarly journals Transforaminal Epidural Injection for Cervical Disc Herniation: Clinical Outcomes

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. s-0035-1554275-s-0035-1554275
Author(s):  
Emiliano Vialle ◽  
Joana Guasque ◽  
Luiz Roberto Vialle
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Epidural Injection ◽  
Cervical Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Transforaminal Epidural Injection

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes of Epidural Neuroplasty for Cervical Disc Herniation

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eun Jung Park ◽  
Sun Young Park ◽  
Se Jin Lee ◽  
Nan Seol Kim ◽  
Do Yle Koh
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc

Central Cord Injury Complicating Acute Cervical Disc Herniation in Trauma

Spine ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liyang Dai ◽  
Lianshun Jia
Keyword(s):  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Cord Injury
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document