Percutaneous microdiscectomy versus epidural injection for management of chronic spinal pain.

Judith Aronsohn, Kenneth Chapman, Magdy Soliman, Trusha Shah, Sherif Costandi, Rafik Michael, Adel R Abadir
{"title":"Percutaneous microdiscectomy versus epidural injection for management of chronic spinal pain.","authors":"Judith Aronsohn,&nbsp;Kenneth Chapman,&nbsp;Magdy Soliman,&nbsp;Trusha Shah,&nbsp;Sherif Costandi,&nbsp;Rafik Michael,&nbsp;Adel R Abadir","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this study we present the efficacy of aspiration of disc material employing the Stryker Disc Dekompressor during percutaneous microdiscectomy for the treatment of chronic spinal and radicular pain due to contained lumber disc herniation and compare the short-term outcome in such patients with those who received lumber epidural injection. A total of 50 patients with chronic lumber discogenic pain and radiculopathy were enrolled in this study and were randomized into two groups. Group 1 (n=26) underwent first time, single-level lumber discectomy at either L3-4, L4-5, or L5-S1 using the Stryker Disc Dekompressor for aspiration of disc material and Group 2 (n=24) received epidural steroid/local anesthetic injection. Data on patient demographics, operative time, length of hospitalization, incidence of postoperative complications, analgesic usage and postoperative complications were obtained. For short-term evaluation of the outcome in the two patient groups, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) from 0-10 for back pain and radicular pain were obtained preoperatively, 24 hr and 1-6 wk postoperatively. Also, the straight leg raising test (SLRT) was performed and recorded. A significant decrease in the radicular pain scores and an increase in SLRT degrees with a decrease in the back pain scores was seen in the disc Dekompressor group with minimal incidence of postoperative complications. In the epidural injection group, the back pain scores were significantly decreased postoperatively while the radicular pain and the SLRT degrees were insignificantly changed 24 hr postoperatively and at wk 6. We conclud that when standardized patient selection criteria are used, the disc DeKompressor is a safe and more effective treatment for radicular pain of discogenic origin than epidural injection with steroid/local anesthetic. Back pain of discogenic origin was more effectively treated with the epidural steroid/local anesthetic injection. Treatment of patients with radicular pain associated with contained disc herniation using the Dekompressor can be a safe and more effective procedure.</p>","PeriodicalId":20701,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Western Pharmacology Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Western Pharmacology Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this study we present the efficacy of aspiration of disc material employing the Stryker Disc Dekompressor during percutaneous microdiscectomy for the treatment of chronic spinal and radicular pain due to contained lumber disc herniation and compare the short-term outcome in such patients with those who received lumber epidural injection. A total of 50 patients with chronic lumber discogenic pain and radiculopathy were enrolled in this study and were randomized into two groups. Group 1 (n=26) underwent first time, single-level lumber discectomy at either L3-4, L4-5, or L5-S1 using the Stryker Disc Dekompressor for aspiration of disc material and Group 2 (n=24) received epidural steroid/local anesthetic injection. Data on patient demographics, operative time, length of hospitalization, incidence of postoperative complications, analgesic usage and postoperative complications were obtained. For short-term evaluation of the outcome in the two patient groups, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) from 0-10 for back pain and radicular pain were obtained preoperatively, 24 hr and 1-6 wk postoperatively. Also, the straight leg raising test (SLRT) was performed and recorded. A significant decrease in the radicular pain scores and an increase in SLRT degrees with a decrease in the back pain scores was seen in the disc Dekompressor group with minimal incidence of postoperative complications. In the epidural injection group, the back pain scores were significantly decreased postoperatively while the radicular pain and the SLRT degrees were insignificantly changed 24 hr postoperatively and at wk 6. We conclud that when standardized patient selection criteria are used, the disc DeKompressor is a safe and more effective treatment for radicular pain of discogenic origin than epidural injection with steroid/local anesthetic. Back pain of discogenic origin was more effectively treated with the epidural steroid/local anesthetic injection. Treatment of patients with radicular pain associated with contained disc herniation using the Dekompressor can be a safe and more effective procedure.

经皮显微椎间盘切除术与硬膜外注射治疗慢性脊柱疼痛。
在这项研究中,我们介绍了在经皮显微椎间盘切除术中使用Stryker椎间盘减压器抽吸椎间盘材料治疗由于腰椎间盘突出引起的慢性脊柱和神经根疼痛的疗效,并比较了这些患者与接受腰椎间盘硬膜外注射的患者的短期疗效。共有50名患有慢性腰椎间盘源性疼痛和神经根病的患者参加了这项研究,并随机分为两组。组1 (n=26)采用Stryker椎间盘减压器在L3-4、L4-5或L5-S1进行首次单节段腰椎间盘切除术,以吸出椎间盘材料;组2 (n=24)接受硬膜外类固醇/局麻注射。获得患者人口统计学、手术时间、住院时间、术后并发症发生率、镇痛药使用和术后并发症的数据。为了短期评价两组患者的预后,术前、术后24小时和术后1-6周分别对背痛和神经根痛进行0-10分的视觉模拟评分(VAS)。同时进行直腿抬高试验(SLRT)并记录。椎间盘减压组神经根疼痛评分显著降低,SLRT程度增加,背部疼痛评分降低,术后并发症发生率最低。硬膜外注射组术后腰痛评分明显降低,术后24小时和第6周时神经根痛和SLRT程度无明显变化。我们的结论是,当使用标准化的患者选择标准时,椎间盘减压器是一种安全有效的治疗椎间盘源性神经根性疼痛的方法,比硬膜外注射类固醇/局麻更有效。硬膜外类固醇/局麻注射治疗椎间盘源性背痛更有效。使用减压机治疗与椎间盘突出相关的神经根痛是一种安全有效的治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信