scholarly journals Cervical Transdural Discectomy with Laminoplasty for the Treatment of Multi‐segment Cervical Spinal Stenosis Accompanied with Cervical Disc Herniation: Technical Note and Clinical Outcome

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Zhang ◽  
Ruixiang Xu ◽  
Guanghui Li ◽  
Dong Liu ◽  
Hongfei Xiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Technical Note ◽  
Cervical Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Cervical Spinal Stenosis

scholarly journals Self Manipulated Cervical Spine Leads to Posterior Disc Herniation and Spinal Stenosis

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wyatt McGilvery ◽  
Marc Eastin ◽  
Anish Sen ◽  
Maciej Witkos
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Spinal Manipulation ◽  
Cervical Spinal Cord ◽  
Cervical Vertebrae ◽  
Cervical Disc Herniation ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Manipulation Therapy

The authors report a case in which a 38-year-old male who presented himself to the emergency department with a chief complaint of cervical neck pain and paresthesia radiating from the right pectoral region down his distal right arm following self-manipulation of the patient’s own cervical vertebrae. Initial emergency department imaging via cervical x-ray and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) without contrast revealed no cervical fractures; however, there was evidence of an acute cervical disc herniation (C3–C7) with severe herniation and spinal stenosis located at C5–C6. Immediate discectomy at C5–C6 and anterior arthrodesis was conducted in order to decompress the cervical spinal cord. Acute traumatic cervical disc herniation is rare in comparison to disc herniation due to the chronic degradation of the posterior annulus fibrosus and nucleus pulposus. Traumatic cervical hernias usually arise due to a very large external force causing hyperflexion or hyperextension of the cervical vertebrae. However, there have been reports of cervical injury arising from cervical spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) where a licensed professional applies a rotary force component. This can be concerning, considering that 12 million Americans receive SMT annually (Powell, F.C.; Hanigan, W.C.; Olivero, W.C. A risk/benefit analysis of spinal manipulation therapy for relief of lumbar or cervical pain. Neurosurgery 1993, 33, 73–79.). This case study involved an individual who was able to apply enough rotary force to his own cervical vertebrae, causing severe neurological damage requiring surgical intervention. Individuals with neck pain should be advised of the complications of SMT, and provided with alternative treatment methods, especially if one is willing to self manipulate.

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