scholarly journals Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Cervical Epidurals in the Management of Chronic Neck Pain

2009 ◽  
Vol 1;12 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 137-157
Author(s):  
Ramsin Benyamin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Chronic Neck Pain ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Level Ii

Background: Chronic neck pain is a common problem in the adult population with a typical 12-month prevalence of 30% to 50%, and 14% of the patients reporting grade II to IV neck pain with high pain intensity and disability that has a substantial impact on health care and society. Cervical epidural injections for managing chronic neck pain are one of the commonly performed interventions in the United States. However, the literature supporting cervical epidural steroids in managing chronic pain problems has been scant and no systematic review dedicated to the evaluation of cervical interlaminar epidurals has been performed in the past. Study Design: A systematic review of cervical interlaminar epidural injections. Objective: To evaluate the effect of cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing various types of chronic neck and upper extremity pain emanating as a result of cervical spine pathology. Methods: The available literature of cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic neck and upper extremity pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as Level I, II, or III based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for therapeutic interventions. Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to November 2008, and manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Results: The indicated evidence is Level II-1 in managing chronic neck and upper extremity pain. Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include the paucity of literature and lack of randomized trials performed under fluoroscopy. Conclusion: The results of this systematic evaluation of cervical interlaminar epidural injection showed significant effect in relieving chronic intractable pain of cervical origin and also providing long-term relief with an indicated evidence level of Level II-1. Key words: Cervical disc herniation, cervical post surgery syndrome, cervical spinal stenosis, cervical radiculitis, cervical interlaminar epidural injections, local anesthetic steroids, chronic discogenic pain

scholarly journals Effectiveness of Cervical Epidural Injections in the Management of Chronic Neck and Upper Extremity Pain

2012 ◽  
Vol 4;15 (4;8) ◽  
pp. E405-E434
Author(s):  
Sudhir A. Diwan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Chronic Neck Pain ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Discogenic Pain ◽  
Epidural Injections

Background: Chronic persistent neck pain with or without upper extremity pain is common in the general adult population with prevalence of 48% for women and 38% for men, with persistent complaints in 22% of women and 16% of men. Multiple modalities of treatments are exploding in managing chronic neck pain along with increasing prevalence. However, there is a paucity of evidence for all modalities of treatments in managing chronic neck pain. Cervical epidural injections for managing chronic neck pain are one of the commonly performed interventions in the United States. However, the literature supporting cervical epidural steroids in managing chronic pain problems has been scant. Study Design: A systematic review of cervical interlaminar epidural injections for cervical disc herniation, cervical axial discogenic pain, cervical central stenosis, and cervical postsurgery syndrome. Objective: To evaluate the effect of cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing various types of chronic neck and upper extremity pain emanating as a result of cervical spine pathology. Methods: The available literature on cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic neck and upper extremity pain were reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2011, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Results: For this systematic review, 34 studies were identified. Of these, 24 studies were excluded and a total of 9 randomized trials, with 2 duplicate studies, met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment. For cervical disc herniation, the evidence is good for cervical epidural with local anesthetic and steroids; whereas, it is fair with local anesthetic only. For axial or discogenic pain, the evidence is fair for local anesthetic, with or without steroids. For spinal stenosis, the evidence is fair for local anesthetic, with or without steroids. For postsurgery syndrome, the evidence is fair for local anesthetic, with or without steroids. Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review continue to be the paucity of literature. Conclusion: The evidence is good for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetics and steroids, fair with local anesthetic only; whereas, it is fair for local anesthetics with or without steroids, for axial or discogenic pain, pain of central spinal stenosis, and pain of post surgery syndrome. Key words: Cervical disc herniation, cervical axial discogenic pain, cervical central spinal stenosis, cervical post surgery syndrome, cervical radiculitis, cervical interlaminar epidural injections, local anesthetic, steroids

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of Fluoroscopic Cervical Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Cervical Disc Herniation and Radiculitis: Preliminary Results of a Randomized, DoubleBlind, Controlled Trial

2010 ◽  
Vol 3;13 (3;5) ◽  
pp. 223-236
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Neck Pain ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Chronic Neck Pain ◽  
Cervical Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Group I ◽  
Group Ii

Background: Chronic neck pain is a common problem in the adult population with a typical 12- month prevalence of 30% to 50%. Cervical disc herniation and radiculitis is one of the common conditions described responsible for chronic neck and upper extremity pain. Cervical epidural injections for managing chronic neck pain with disc herniation are one of the commonly performed non-surgical interventions in the United States. However, the literature supporting cervical interlaminar epidural steroids in managing chronic neck pain is scant. Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Setting: A private interventional pain management practice and specialty referral center in the United States. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids in providing effective and long-lasting relief in the management of chronic neck pain and upper extremity pain in patients with disc herniation and radiculitis, and to evaluate the differences between local anesthetic with or without steroids. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups: Group I patients received cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%, 5 mL); Group II patients received cervical interlaminar epidural injections with 0.5% lidocaine, 4 mL, mixed with 1 mL of nonparticulate betamethasone. Outcomes Assessment: Multiple outcome measures were utilized. They included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Neck Disability Index (NDI), employment status, and opioid intake. Assessments were done at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief was defined as 50% or more; significant improvement in disability score was defined as a reduction of 50% or more. Results: Significant pain relief (≥ 50%) was demonstrated in 77% of patients in both groups. Functional status improvement was demonstrated by a reduction (> 50%) in the NDI scores in 74% of Group I and 71% of Group II at 12 months. The overall average procedures per year were 3.7 ± 1.1 in Group I and 4.0 ± 0.91 in Group II; the average total relief per year was 39.45 ± 11.59 weeks in Group I and 41.06 ± 11.56 weeks in Group II over the 52 week study period in the patients defined as successful. The initial therapy was considered to be successful if a patient obtained consistent relief with 2 initial injections lasting at least 4 weeks. All others were considered failures. Limitations: The study results are limited by the lack of a placebo group and a preliminary report of 70 patients, 35 in each group. Conclusion: Cervical interlaminar epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids might be effective in 77% of patients with chronic function-limiting neck pain and upper extremity pain secondary to cervical disc herniation and radiculitis. Key words: Chronic neck pain, cervical disc herniation, upper extremity pain, cervical epidural injections, epidural steroids, local anesthetics

scholarly journals https://painphysicianjournal.com/current

2020 ◽  
Vol 4;23 (7;4) ◽  
pp. 335-348
Author(s):  
Nicholas Van Halm-Lutterodt
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Functional Status ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chronic Neck Pain ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Chronic neck pain is reportedly considered the fourth leading cause of disability. Cervical interlaminar epidural injections are among the commonly administered nonsurgical interventions for managing chronic neck pain, secondary to disc herniation and radiculitis, spinal stenosis, or chronic neck pain of discogenic origin. Objectives: To systematically review the differences in the effectiveness of cervical epidural injections with local anesthetics with or without steroids for the management of chronic neck pain. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids was performed, including a search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for all years up to May 2019. Meta-analysis was done for pain relief based on the Numeric Rating Scale, functional status based on the Neck Disability Index, and opioid intake dosage. Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 370 patients were divided into 2 groups: the experimental group received cervical epidural injection with steroid and local anesthetic, and the control group received injection with local anesthetic only. Regrading pain relief, no significant difference was observed between both groups (weighted mean difference [WMD], –0.006; 95% confidence interval (CI), –0.275 to 0.263; P = 0.963; I2 = 0.0% at 12 months). There was also no significant difference in the improvement of the functional status (WMD, 0.159; 95% CI, –1.231 to 1.549; P = 0.823; I2 = 9.8% at 12 months). Similarly, there was no significant difference in opioid dosage (WMD, –0.093; 95% CI, –5.952 to 5.766; P = 0.975; I2 = 0.0% at 12 months). Limitations: Only a few studies on this premise were found in the literature. There was also a lack of heterogeneity of the included RCT studies. Conclusions: The addition of steroids to anesthetic injectates was not associated with better pain and functional score outcomes compared with anesthetic injectate alone in patients with chronic neck pain. Key words: Chronic neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, cervical disc disease, spinal stenosis, facet joint pathology, cervical epidural injections, steroid injections, local anesthetic injections, systematic review, meta-analysis, randomized control trial

A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials on the Effectiveness of Opioids for Cancer Pain

2012 ◽  
Vol 3S;15 (3S;7) ◽  
pp. ES39-ES58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lakshmi Koyyalagunta
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Transdermal Fentanyl

Background: In all recommended guidelines put forth for the treatment of cancer pain, opioids continue to be an important part of a physician’s armamentarium. Though opioids are used regularly for cancer pain, there is a paucity of literature proving efficacy for long-term use. Cancer is no longer considered a “terminal disease”; 50% to 65% of patients survive for at least 2 years, and there are about 12 million cancer survivors in the United States. There is a concern about side effects, tolerance, abuse and addiction with long-term opioid use and a need to evaluate the effectiveness of opioids for cancer pain. Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to look at the effectiveness of opioids for cancer pain. Study Design: A systematic review of randomized trials of opioids for cancer pain. Methods: A comprehensive review of the current literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of opioids for cancer pain was done. The literature search was done using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, clinical trials, national clearing house, Web of Science, previous narrative systematic reviews, and cross references. The studies were assessed using the modified Cochrane and Jadad criteria. Analysis of evidence was done utilizing the modified quality of evidence developed by United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Outcome Measures: Pain relief was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures are quality of life (QoL) and side effects including tolerance and addiction. Results: The level of evidence for pain relief based on the USPSTF criteria was fair for transdermal fentanyl and poor for morphine, tramadol, oxycodone, methadone, and codeine. Limitations: Randomized trials in a cancer setting are difficult to perform and justify. There is a paucity of long-term trials and this review included a follow-up period of only 4 weeks. Conclusion: This systematic review of RCTs of opioids for cancer pain showed fair evidence for the efficacy of transdermal fentanyl and poor evidence for morphine, tramadol, oxycodone, methadone, and codeine. Key words: Opioids, pain relief, cancer pain, morphine, hydromorphone, methadone, fentanyl, oxymorphone, hydrocodone, oxycodone, buprenorphine.

scholarly journals Fluoroscopic Cervical Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Pain of Cervical Postsurgery Syndrome: Preliminary Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Active Control Trial

2012 ◽  
Vol 1;15 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 13-26
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Relief ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Chronic Neck Pain ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Group I ◽  
Group Ii ◽  
Neck Disability

Background: Cervical postsurgery syndrome is common with increasing cervical surgical interventions. Cervical spine surgery may fail in a certain proportion of patients with continued pain secondary to pseudoarthrosis, adjacent segment degeneration, inadequate decompression, iatrogenic instability, facet joint arthritis, deformity, and spinal stenosis. Among the various treatments available for managing cervical postsurgery syndrome, epidural steroid injections are one of the most common nonsurgical interventions. However there have not been any systematic evaluations regarding the effectiveness of cervical epidural injections in cervical postsurgery syndrome. Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, active control trial. Setting: A specialty referral, private interventional pain management practice in the United States. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids in providing effective and long-lasting relief in the management of chronic neck pain and upper extremity pain in patients with cervical postsurgery syndrome, and to evaluate the differences between local anesthetic with or without steroids. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups: Group I patients received cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%, 5 mL); Group II patients received cervical interlaminar epidural injections with 0.5% lidocaine, 4 mL, mixed with 1 mL of nonparticulate betamethasone. The study was designed to include 120 patients with 60 patients in each group. This analysis includes 56 patients. Randomization was performed by computer-generated, random allocation sequence by simple randomization. Outcomes Assessment: Outcome measures included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Neck Disability Index (NDI), employment status, and opioid intake. Assessments at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months posttreatment. Significant pain relief was defined as 50% or more; significant improvement in NDI was defined as a reduction of 50% or more. Results: Significant pain relief (≥ 50%) was demonstrated in 71% of patients in Group I and 68% of patients in Group II. Functional status improvement was demonstrated by a reduction (> 50%) in the NDI scores in 71% of Group I and 64% of Group II at 12 months. The overall average procedures per year were 4.0 ± 0.7 in Group I and 4.1 ± 1.0 in Group II; the average total relief per year was 39.6 ± 11.8 weeks in Group I and 41.2 ± 15.8 weeks in Group II over the 52 week study period in the patients defined as successful. In the successful group, the combined pain relief and neck disability improvement was seen in 87% in Group I and 72% of the patients in Group II. Limitations: The study results are limited by the lack of a placebo group and a preliminary report of 56 patients, 28 in each group. Conclusion: Cervical interlaminar epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids were effective in 67% of patients overall and 87% in Group I and 72% in Group II, in successful group patients with chronic function-limiting neck pain and upper extremity pain secondary to cervical postsurgery syndrome. Key words: Chronic neck pain, upper extremity pain, cervical disc herniation, cervical spinal stenosis, cervical postsurgery syndrome, cervical epidural injections, epidural steroids, local anesthetics.

scholarly journals Intrathecal Infusion Systems for Long-Term Management of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: An Update of Assessment of Evidence

2013 ◽  
Vol 2s;16 (2s;4) ◽  
pp. SE185-SE216
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Infusion Systems ◽  
Term Management ◽  
Intrathecal Infusion

Background: Intrathecal infusion systems are often used for patients with intractable pain when all else fails, including surgery. There is, however, some concern as to the effectiveness and safety of this treatment. Study Design: A systematic review of intrathecal infusion systems for long-term management of chronic non-cancer pain. Objective: To evaluate and update the effect of intrathecal infusion systems in managing chronic non-cancer pain. Methods: The available literature on intrathecal infusion systems in managing chronic pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief with short-term relief < 12 months and long-term relief ≥ 12 months. Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Results: There were 28 studies identified for this systematic review. Of these, 21 were excluded from further review. A total of 7 non-randomized studies met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment. No randomized trials met the inclusion requirements. The evidence is limited based on observational studies. Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include the paucity of literature. Conclusion: The evidence is limited for intrathecal infusion systems. Key words: Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, intrathecal infusion, intrathecal infusion systems, intrathecal drug delivery systems, intrathecal pumps, chronic non-cancer pain, chronic non-malignant pain, morphine, bupivacaine, ziconotide

scholarly journals Efficacy of Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Spinal Pain: A Best Evidence Synthesis

2015 ◽  
Vol 6;18 (6;11) ◽  
pp. E939-E1004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan David Kaye
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Interlaminar Approach ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Chronic Spinal Pain

Background: Epidural injections have been used since 1901 in managing low back pain and sciatica. Spinal pain, disability, health, and economic impact continue to increase, despite numerous modalities of interventions available in managing chronic spinal pain. Thus far, systematic reviews performed to assess the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain have yielded conflicting results. Objective: To evaluate and update the clinical utility of the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain. Study Design: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain. Methods: In this systematic review, randomized trials with a placebo control or an active-control design were included. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. The quality of each individual article was assessed by Cochrane review criteria, as well as the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Best evidence synthesis was conducted based on the qualitative level of evidence (Level I to V). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed for a period starting in 1966 through August 2015; Cochrane reviews; and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Results: A total of 52 trials met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not feasible. The evidence in managing lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis is Level II for long-term improvement either with caudal, interlaminar, or transforaminal epidural injections with no significant difference among the approaches. The evidence is Level II for long-term management of cervical disc herniation with interlaminar epidural injections. The evidence is Level II to III in managing thoracic disc herniation with an interlaminar approach. The evidence is Level II for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with Level III evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for lumbar spinal stenosis. The evidence is Level II for cervical spinal stenosis management with an interlaminar approach The evidence is Level II for axial or discogenic pain without facet arthropathy or disc herniation treated with caudal or lumbar interlaminar injections in the lumbar region; whereas it is Level II in the cervical region treated with cervical interlaminar epidural injections. The evidence for post lumbar surgery syndrome is Level II with caudal epidural injections and for post cervical surgery syndrome it is Level II with cervical interlaminar epidural injections. Limitations: Even though this is a large systematic review with inclusion of a large number of randomized controlled trials, the paucity of high quality randomized trials literature continues to confound the evidence. Conclusion: This systematic review, with an assessment of the quality of manuscripts and outcome parameters, shows the efficacy of epidural injections in managing a multitude of chronic spinal conditions. Key words: Chronic pain, spinal pain, epidural injections, local anesthetic, steroids, interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural injections, transforaminal epidural injections

scholarly journals Percutaneous Lumbar Laser Disc Decompression: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence

2009 ◽  
Vol 3;12 (3;5) ◽  
pp. 573-588
Author(s):  
Vijay Singh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intervertebral Disc ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Laser Disc ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
One Year

Background: Since the descriptions by Mixter and Barr of open surgical treatment for rupture of the intervertebral disc in 1934, open surgical procedures have become a common practice. Disc herniations have been reported as being contained and non-contained. The results of open surgical discectomy for contained disc herniation have been poor. Consequently, several alternative techniques have been developed which are minimally invasive including percutaneous laser disc decompression. Study Design: A systematic review of the literature. Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of percutaneous laser discectomy in managing radicular pain secondary to contained disc herniation. Methods: A comprehensive evaluation of the literature relating to mechanical disc decompression was performed. The literature was evaluated according to Cochrane review criteria for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria was utilized for observational studies. A literature search was conducted by using only the English language literature through PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, systematic reviews, and cross references from reviews and systematic reviews. The level of evidence was classified as Level I, II, or III with 3 subcategories in Level II based on the quality of evidence developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Outcome Measures: Pain relief was the primary outcome measure. Other outcome measures were functional improvement, improvement of psychological status, opioid intake, and return to work. Short-term effectiveness was defined as one year or less, whereas, long-term effectiveness was defined as greater than one year. Results: Based on USPSTF criteria the indicated level of evidence for percutaneous lumbar laser discectomy (PLLD) is II-2 for short- and long-term relief. Limitations: Even though laser discectomy has been in utilization for a number of years and numerous procedures have been performed there continues to be a paucity of literature of randomized clinical trials. Conclusion: This systematic review illustrates Level II-2 evidence for percutaneous laser disc decompression which is equivalent to automated percutaneous lumbar disc decompression. Key words: Intervertebral disc disease, chronic low back pain, disc herniation, disc protrusion, radiculitis, contained disc herniation, mechanical disc decompression, percutaneous lumbar laser discectomy, laser assisted spinal endoscopy

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document