Endoscopic Cervical Discectomy with Laser or Radiofrequency

2012 ◽  
pp. 162-162
Author(s):  
Enrique Osorio-Fonseca ◽  
Nicolas Prada ◽  
Juan Sierra
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Discectomy

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 Comparison between selective caudal fixed screw construct and all variable screw construct in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jae Jun Yang ◽  
Sehan Park ◽  
Seongyun Park
Keyword(s):  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Disc Space ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Locking Mechanism ◽  
Adjacent Disc ◽  
One Year ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Retrospective Comparative Study ◽  
Caudal Level

AbstractThis retrospective comparative study aimed to compare the efficacy of selective caudal fixed screw constructs with all variable screw constructs in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Thirty-five patients who underwent surgery using selective caudal fixed screw construct (SF group) were compared with 44 patients who underwent surgery using all variable constructs (AV group). The fusion rate, subsidence, adjacent level ossification development (ALOD), adjacent segmental disease (ASD), and plate-adjacent disc space distance were assessed. The one-year fusion rates assessed by computed tomography bone bridging and interspinous motion as well as the significant subsidence rate did not differ significantly between the AV and SF groups. The ALOD and ASD rates and plate-adjacent disc space distances did not significantly differ between the two groups at both the cranial and caudal adjacent levels. The number of operated levels was significantly associated with pseudarthrosis in the logistic regression analysis. The stability provided by the locking mechanism of the fixed screw did not lead to an increased fusion rate at the caudal level. Therefore, the screw type should be selected based on individual patient’s anatomy and surgeon’s experience without concern for increased complications caused by screw type.

Post-Operative Dysphagia in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

2021 ◽  
pp. 000348942110155
Author(s):  
Leonard Haller ◽  
Khush Mehul Kharidia ◽  
Caitlin Bertelsen ◽  
Jeffrey Wang ◽  
Karla O’Dell
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

Objective: We sought to identify risk factors associated with long-term dysphagia, characterize changes in dysphagia over time, and evaluate the incidence of otolaryngology referrals for patients with long-term dysphagia following anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF). Methods: About 56 patients who underwent ACDF between May 2017 to February 2019 were included in the study. All patients were assessed for dysphagia using the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) survey preoperatively and late postoperatively (≥1 year). Additionally, 28 patients were assessed for dysphagia early postoperatively (2 weeks—3 months). Demographic data, medical comorbidities, intraoperative details, and post-operative otolaryngology referral rates were collected from electronic medical records. Results: Of the 56 patients enrolled, 21 patients (38%) had EAT-10 scores of 3 or more at long-term follow-up. None of the demographics, comorbidities, or surgical factors assessed were associated with long-term dysphagia. Patients who reported no long-term dysphagia had a mean EAT-10 score of 6.9 early postoperatively, while patients with long-term symptoms had a mean score of 18.1 ( P = .006). Of the 21 patients who reported persistent dysphagia symptoms, 3 (14%) received dysphagia testing or otolaryngology referrals post-operatively. Conclusion: Dysphagia is a notable side effect of ACDF surgery, but there are no significant demographics, comorbidities, or surgical risk factors that predict long-term dysphagia. Early postoperative characterization of dysphagia using the EAT-10 questionnaire can help predict long-term symptoms. There is inadequate screening and otolaryngology follow-up for patients with post-ACDF dysphagia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document