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.
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: 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.