Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery Using Nucleoplasty and the Dekompressor Tool: A Comparison of two Methods in a One Year Follow-Up

Abstract

Object: The Disc Dekompressor and Nucleoplasty are 2 different, minimally invasive, percutaneous methods in the therapy for chronic discogenic low back pain. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of both methods concerning the outcome one year after surgery.

Methods: We included patients with MRI-proven disc protrusion suffering from low back pain and/or radiating pain in the lower extremities. The pain perception of the patients was documented using the visual analogue pain scale (VAS). Furthermore, the patients were queried about analgesic consumption, disability in daily life and ability to work. Percutaneous minimally invasive nucleotomy using the Nucleoplasty or the Disc Dekompressor was carried out under fluoroscopic and CT-guidance. We carried out a follow-up examination at 6 and 12 months after the operation.

Results: From April 2005 to November 2007 a total of 126 patients underwent percutaneous minimally invasive nucleotomy using Nucleoplasty (April 2005 – December 2006) or the Disk Dekompressor (February 2006 – November 2007) and were followed up after 6 and 12 months. In the Nucleoplasty group the mean age of the 27 females (39%) and 42 males (61%) was 42 years (range: 18–74). In the Disc Dekompressor group the mean age of the 22 females (39%) and 35 males (61%) was 44 years (range: 16–76). The mean duration of symptoms in the Nucleoplasty group was 30.5 months (range: 1–120), and in the Disc Dekompressor group 16.3 months (range: 1–72). Statistically significant postoperative improvement concerning the VAS score was evident in both groups. Whereas the VAS score slightly increased in the Nucleoplasty group comparing the early postoperative score and the score after 12 months, the VAS score stayed on a low level in the Disc Dekompressor group. A statistically significant reduction in analgesic consumption, disability and occupational incapacitation was observed in the Nuceloplasty group and the Disc Dekompressor group.

Conclusions: Both Nucleoplasty and Disc Dekompressor are effective therapies for chronic, discogenic back pain. Regardless of the different mechanism no significant differences in the outcomes were found. Both techniques result in significant reductions in levels of disability and incapacity for work as well as decreased analgesic consumption.

Key words

low back pain - nucleoplasty - disc dekompressor - visual analogue scale - outcome

References

• 1 Boswell MV, Trescot AM, Datta S. et al . Interventional techniques: evidence-based practice guidelines in the management of chronic spinal pain.  Pain Physician. 2007;  10 7-111
• 2 Bressler HB, Keyes WJ, Rochon PA. et al . The prevalence of low back pain in the elderly. A systematic review of the literature.  Spine. 1999;  24 1813-1819
• 3 Verhaak PF, Kerssens JJ, Dekker J. et al . Prevalence of chronic benign pain disorder among adults: a review of the literature.  Pain. 1998;  77 231-239
• 4 Gureje O, Von KM, Simon GE. et al . Persistent pain and well-being: a World Health Organization Study in Primary Care.  JAMA. 1998;  280 147-151
• 5 Ricci JA, Stewart WF, Chee E. et al . Back pain exacerbations and lost productive time costs in United States workers.  Spine. 2006;  31 3052-3060
• 6 Birnbaum HG, White AG, Reynolds JL. et al . Estimated costs of prescription opioid analgesic abuse in the United States in 2001: a societal perspective.  Clin J Pain. 2006;  22 667-676
• 7 Hawkey CJ, Cullen DJ, Greenwood DC. et al . Prescribing of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in general practice: determinants and consequences.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1997;  11 293-298
• 8 Manchikanti L, Pampati V, Beyer C. et al . Evaluation of psychological status in chronic low back pain: comparison with general population.  Pain Physician. 2002;  5 149-155
• 9 Rush AJ, Polatin P, Gatchel RJ. Depression and chronic low back pain: establishing priorities in treatment.  Spine. 2000;  25 2566-2571
• 10 Choy DS. Percutaneous laser disc decompression: a 17-year experience.  Photomed Laser Surg. 2004;  22 407-410
• 11 Jhawar BS, Fuchs CS, Colditz GA. et al . Cardiovascular risk factors for physician-diagnosed lumbar disc herniation.  Spine J. 2006;  6 684-691
• 12 Luo X, Pietrobon R, Sun SX. et al . Estimates and patterns of direct health care expenditures among individuals with back pain in the United States.  Spine. 2004;  29 79-86
• 13 Kuslich SD, Ulstrom CL, Michael CJ. The tissue origin of low back pain and sciatica: a report of pain response to tissue stimulation during operations on the lumbar spine using local anesthesia.  Orthop Clin North Am. 1991;  22 181-187
• 14 Schwarzer AC, Aprill CN, Derby R. et al . The prevalence and clinical features of internal disc disruption in patients with chronic low back pain.  Spine. 1995;  20 1878-1883
• 15 Adams MA, Freeman BJ, Morrison HP. et al . Mechanical initiation of intervertebral disc degeneration.  Spine. 2000;  25 1625-1636
• 16 Peng B, Hao J, Hou S. et al . Possible pathogenesis of painful intervertebral disc degeneration.  Spine. 2006;  31 560-566
• 17 Freemont AJ, Peacock TE, Goupille P. et al . Nerve ingrowth into diseased intervertebral disc in chronic back pain.  Lancet. 1997;  350 (9072) 178-181
• 18 Hurri H, Karppinen J. Discogenic pain.  Pain. 2004;  112 225-228
• 19 Singh V, Derby R. Percutaneous lumbar disc decompression.  Pain Physician. 2006;  9 139-146
• 20 Helms CA, Onik G, Davis GW. Automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy.  Skeletal Radiol. 1989;  18 579-583
• 21 Smith L. Enzyme dissolution of the nucleus pulposus in humans.  JAMA. 1964;  187 137-140
• 22 Singh V, Piryani C, Liao K. et al . Percutaneous disc decompression using coblation (nucleoplasty) in the treatment of chronic discogenic pain.  Pain Physician. 2002;  5 250-259
• 23 Chen YC, Lee SH, Chen D. Intradiscal pressure study of percutaneous disc decompression with nucleoplasty in human cadavers.  Spine. 2003;  28 661-665
• 24 Lee SH, Derby R, Chen Y. et al . In vitro measurement of pressure in intervertebral discs and annulus fibrosus with and without annular tears during discography.  Spine J. 2004;  4 614-618
• 25 Maroon JC. Current concepts in minimally invasive discectomy.  Neurosurgery. 2002;  51 (5 Suppl) S137-S145
• 26 Colhoun E, McCall IW, Williams L. et al . Provocation discography as a guide to planning operations on the spine.  J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1988;  70 267-271
• 27 Nau WH, Diederich CJ. Evaluation of temperature distributions in cadaveric lumbar spine during nucleoplasty.  Phys Med Biol. 2004;  49 1583-1594
• 28 Saal JA, Saal JS. Intradiscal electrothermal treatment for chronic discogenic low back pain: a prospective outcome study with minimum 1-year follow-up.  Spine. 2000;  25 2622-2627
• 29 Hecht P, Hayashi K, Cooley AJ. et al . The thermal effect of monopolar radiofrequency energy on the properties of joint capsule. An in vivo histologic study using a sheep model.  Am J Sports Med. 1998;  26 808-814
• 30 Lee MS, Cooper G, Lutz GE. et al . Histologic characterization of coblation nucleoplasty performed on sheep intervertebral discs.  Pain Physician. 2003;  6 439-442
• 31 Amoretti N, Huchot F, Flory P. et al . Percutaneous nucleotomy: preliminary communication on a decompression probe (Dekompressor) in percutaneous discectomy Ten case reports.  Clin Imaging. 2005;  29 98-101
• 32 Amoretti N, David P, Grimaud A. et al . Clinical follow-up of 50 patients treated by percutaneous lumbar discectomy.  Clin Imaging. 2006;  30 242-244
• 33 Yakovlev A, Tamimi MA, Liang H. et al . Outcomes of percutaneous disc decompression utilizing nucleoplasty for the treatment of chronic discogenic pain.  Pain Physician. 2007;  10 319-328
• 34 Sharps LS, Issac Z. Percutaneous disc decompression using nucleoplasty.  Pain Physician. 2002;  5(2) 121-126

Correspondence