BMC anesthesiology · 2025
The effect of posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy vs. percutaneous nucleoplasty in patients with cervical radicular pain due to a single-level contained soft-disc herniation: a retrospective cohort study.
Название и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hu J, Wang Z, Guo Y, Han L, Chen L, Wang L
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Cervical radicular pain (CRP) is a common disorder among adults. Minimally invasive surgical techniques, such as posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy (PPECD) and percutaneous cervical nucleoplasty (PCN) are considered when conservative treatment fails to contain severe persistent pain. Our retrospective study evaluated the clinical outcomes of CRP in patients treated with PPECD and PCN.
METHODS: Between May 2019 and June 2021, 67 patients with CRP, due to single-level contained soft-disc herniation, were treated with either PPECD or PCN. Clinical outcomes were assessed by the numerical rating scale (NRS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and modified Macnab criteria. Pre- and postoperative clinical parameters were also compared.
RESULTS: Compared with the preoperative values, the mean NRS scores for radicular arm pain and NDI score improved significantly with both treatments. According to the Macnab criteria, patients with PPECD (82.9%) had a higher clinical success rate than patients with PCN (75.0%), however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.5508). No major complications were observed in any patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Both PPECD and PCN are effective and safe options for CRP patients with persistent, and severe pain. Given the absence of superiority in pain relief and clinical outcomes with PPECD, we suggest that the shorter operation time and the less invasive features of PCN is an alternative to PPECD in patients with single-level contained soft-disc herniation.
CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
METHODS: Between May 2019 and June 2021, 67 patients with CRP, due to single-level contained soft-disc herniation, were treated with either PPECD or PCN. Clinical outcomes were assessed by the numerical rating scale (NRS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and modified Macnab criteria. Pre- and postoperative clinical parameters were also compared.
RESULTS: Compared with the preoperative values, the mean NRS scores for radicular arm pain and NDI score improved significantly with both treatments. According to the Macnab criteria, patients with PPECD (82.9%) had a higher clinical success rate than patients with PCN (75.0%), however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.5508). No major complications were observed in any patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Both PPECD and PCN are effective and safe options for CRP patients with persistent, and severe pain. Given the absence of superiority in pain relief and clinical outcomes with PPECD, we suggest that the shorter operation time and the less invasive features of PCN is an alternative to PPECD in patients with single-level contained soft-disc herniation.
CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.