Laser-Assisted Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy and Discectomy for Lateral and Foraminal Cervical Disc Herniation

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (9) ◽  
pp. 510-515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong Ahn ◽  
Kang Seok Moon ◽  
Byung-Uk Kang ◽  
Sung Min Hur ◽  
Jin Duck Kim
Keyword(s):  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy ◽  
Cervical Foraminotomy

Seminars in cervical disc herniation: Posterior cervical foraminotomy—Indications, technical nuances, and a review of outcomes

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-79
Author(s):  
George M. Ghobrial ◽  
Thana N. Theofanis ◽  
Hareindra Jeyamohan ◽  
Shiveindra Jeyamohan ◽  
James S. Harrop
Keyword(s):  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy ◽  
Cervical Foraminotomy

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.

Cervical disc herniation: Is the regression flawed by age? A case report

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. 612-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuele Di Ciaccio ◽  
Massimiliano Polastri ◽  
Alessandro Gasbarrini
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc

Cervical Interlaminar Epidural Injections In The Treatment Of Cervical Disc Herniation, Post Surgery Syndrome, Or Discogenic Pain: Cost Utility Analysis From Randomized Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (22;5) ◽  
pp. 421-431
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Neck Pain ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Cervical Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Discogenic Pain ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Post Surgery

Background: Neck pain is one of the major conditions attributing to overall disability in the United States. There have been multiple publications assessing clinical and cost effectiveness of multiple modalities of interventions in managing chronic neck pain. Even then, the literature has been considered sparse in relation to cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic neck pain. In contrast, cost utility studies of lumbar interlaminar injections, caudal epidural injections, cervical and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, percutaneous adhesiolysis demonstrated costs of less than $3,500 for quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Objectives: To assess the cost utility of cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic neck and/or upper extremity pain secondary to cervical disc herniation, post-surgery syndrome in neck, and axial or discogenic neck pain. Study Design: Analysis based on 3 previously published randomized trials of the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections assessing their role in disc herniation, cervical post-surgery syndrome, and axial or discogenic pain. Setting: A contemporary, private, specialty referral interventional pain management center in the United States. Methods: Cost utility of cervical interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing cervical disc herniation, cervical post-surgery syndrome, and cervical discogenic or axial neck back pain was conducted with data derived from 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included a 2-year follow-up, with inclusion of 356 patients. The primary outcome was significant improvement defined as at least 50% in pain reduction and disability status. Direct payment data from all carriers from 2018 was utilized for the assessment of procedural costs. Overall costs, including drug costs, were determined by multiplication of direct procedural payment data by a factor of 1.67 to accommodate for indirect payments respectively for disc herniation, discogenic pain, and cervical post-surgery syndrome. Results: The results of the 3 RCTs showed direct cost utility for one year of QALY of $2,412.31 for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, $2,081.07 for disc herniation, and $2,309.20 for post surgery syndrome, with an average cost per one year QALY of $2,267.57, with total estimated overall costs with addition of indirect costs of $3,475.38, $4,028.55, $3,856.36, and $3,785.89 respectively. Limitations: The limitation of this cost utility analysis includes that it is a single center evaluation. Indirect costs were extrapolated. Conclusion: This cost utility analysis of cervical interlaminar epidural injections in patients nonresponsive to conservative management in the treatment of disc herniation, post surgery syndrome and axial or discogenic neck pain shows $2,267.57 for direct costs with a total cost of $3,785.89 per QALY. Key words: Cervical interlaminar epidural injections, chronic neck pain, cervical disc herniation, cervical discogenic pain, post surgery syndrome, cost utility analysis, cost effectiveness analysis, quality-adjusted life years

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document