Clinical Improvement of Cervical Disc Herniation 24 hours after a Single Oxygen-Ozone Injection

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (9) ◽  
pp. 01-02
Author(s):  
Hazem Kafrouni
Keyword(s):  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Symptomatic Patient ◽  
Biochemical Properties ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Invasive Treatment ◽  
Nerve Roots ◽  
Discal Herniation ◽  
Neuro Imaging ◽  
Single Oxygen ◽  
Ozone Injection

Oxygen-ozone therapy is a minimally invasive treatment for disc herniation, compared to surgery, which uses the beneficial biochemical properties of a gas mixture of ozone and oxygen. A satisfactory efficacy is usually obtained within one month after the injection. We assessed the therapeutic outcome of a single injection of oxygen-ozone in a symptomatic patient with C5-C6 cervical discal herniation with compression of the nerve roots. He experienced immediate pain relief seconds after the injection, and neuro-imaging improvement 24 hours afterwards. To our knowledge this is the fastest improvement ever reported in literature.

Diffusion Tensor Imaging of Symptomatic Nerve Roots in Patients with Cervical Disc Herniation

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yue-Yao Chen ◽  
Xiao-Feng Lin ◽  
Fang Zhang ◽  
Xiang Zhang ◽  
Hui-Jun Hu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diffusion Tensor Imaging ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Diffusion Tensor ◽  
Cervical Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Nerve Roots

Cervical brucellar spondylodiscitis mimicking a cervical disc herniation with epidural abscess: a case report

2014 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmet Aslan ◽  
Ünal Kurtoğlu ◽  
Mustafa Özgür Akça ◽  
Sinan Tan ◽  
Uğur Soylu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Epidural Abscess ◽  
Cervical Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document