OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the efficacy of PR in reducing radicular pain among lumbar disc herniation patients compared with conservative treatment.
METHODS: This study was conducted using the before-andafter quasi experimental design. There were 50 subjects that fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria and they were divided into an intervention group (n=25) and control group (n=25). The intervention group was given once PR in the dorsal root ganglion. All subjects were assessed for Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) before treatment, at 1- , 2- and 4-week after treatment.
RESULTS: At1-, 2- and 4-week, the VAS reduction in the intervention group was statistically significant compared to the control group. Four weeks after the intervention, the VAS score decreased in the intervention group (mean VAS -78.5, SD 16.8) more significantly compared to the control group (p<0.001). The ODI score decreased in the intervention group (mean ODI -61.8, SD 20.1) more significantly than in the control group (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: Finding showed that at1- , 2- and 4-weekPR was more efficacious in reducing radicular pain among lumbar disc herniation patients compared to the conservative therapy.
METHODS: Forty-eight patients were recruited. Inclusion criteria were AIS patients who have had PSF surgery more than 10 years ago. Patients were divided into G1: LIV L3 or higher and G2: LIV L4 or lower. MRI evaluation was classified using Pfirrmann grades. Pfirrmann scores were average of Pfirrmann grades for all unfused discs below LIV. SRS-22r, SF-36, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Modified Cincinnati Sports Activity Scale (MCSAS) were used.
RESULTS: There were 19 patients in G1 and 29 patients in G2. Demographic parameters showed no significant differences. We found no significant differences in Pfirrmann grades or scores between G1 and G2. There was significant correlation between age and mean Pfirrmann scores (r = 0.546, p disc + 1 below LIV (r = 0.475, p = 0.001) and adjacent disc below LIV (r = 0.365, p = 0.011). G2 had significantly lower scores for SRS-22r pain (G1: 4.3 ± 0.5, G2: 4.0 ± 0.6, p = 0.044) and the SF-36 bodily pain (G1: 88.7 ± 12.3, G2: 77.8 ± 18.7, p = 0.018) domains. There were no significant differences in ODI and MCSAS between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with fusion to L4 or lower had more significant back pain. However, both groups had similar physical function, self-image, satisfaction with treatment, mental health, and functional sports activity. We did not find any significant association between lumbar discs degeneration and the selection of LIV.
METHODS: Four electronic full-text databases were systematically searched through September 2017. Data including outcomes of annular closure device/annular repair were extracted. All results were pooled utilising meta-analysis with weighted mean difference and odds ratio as summary statistics.
RESULTS: Four studies met inclusion criteria. Three studies reported the use of Barricaid (ACD) while one study reported the use of Anulex (AR). A total of 24 symptomatic reherniation were reported among 811 discectomies with ACD/AR as compared to 51 out of 645 in the control group (OR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.20,0.56; I2 = 0%; P disc reherniation with low post-operative complication rates. Long-term studies are required to further investigate the efficacy of such devices.
METHODS: Patients diagnosed with a single lumbar herniated intervertebral disc (HIVD) refractory to conservative management but not willing for immediate surgery were selected for a prospective nonrandomized comparative study. An SNRB was administered as a therapeutic alternative using the AP subpedicular approach in one group (n = 25; mean age, 45 ± 5.4 years) and the oblique Scotty dog subpedicular approach in the other group (n = 22; mean age, 43.8 ± 4.7 years). Results were compared in terms of the duration of the procedure, the number of C-arm exposures, accuracy, pain relief, functional outcome and the duration of relief.
RESULTS: Our results suggest that the oblique Scotty dog subpedicular approach took a significantly longer duration (p = 0.02) and a greater number of C-arm exposures (p = 0.001). But, its accuracy of needle placement was 95.5% compared to only 72% using the AP subpedicular approach (p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in terms of clinical outcomes between these approaches.
CONCLUSIONS: The AP subpedicular approach was simple and facile, but the oblique Scotty dog subpedicular approach was more accurate. However, a brief window period of pain relief was achieved irrespective of the approaching technique used.