Automated Percutaneous Lumbar Discectomy Research Articles

Percutaneous discectomy under CT and fluoroscopy guidance: an international multicentric study.

To evaluate the technical efficacy, safety, and reproducibility of automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD) under CT and fluoroscopic guidance, for treating radiculopathy caused by lumbar disc herniation in patients impervious to conservative treatment. A total of 77 patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniation were treated with APLD in a prospective multicentric study performed in four centers across three countries. Magnetic resonance imaging and/or computed tomography was used to evaluate the disc herniation before and after the procedure. Only local anesthesia was used during these procedures. Clinical outcomes were measured with the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain at one and 6 months after the procedure. Technical success rate was 100% with a mean intervention duration of 30min (15-45min). No complications occurred during the procedure. Post-lumbar puncture syndrome occurred in three patients who were successfully treated with blood patches. VAS decreased from a mean of 8 before the intervention to 3 1 month after (p value = 0.001). The requirement for analgesia decreased from 100 to 27%. No statistically significant differences in outcomes were found between the centers. APLD with dual imaging guidance under local anesthesia is a safe, feasible, and reproducible technique to treat symptomatic lumbar disc herniation.

Efficacy of automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy for lumbar disc herniation in young male soldiers.

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) often results in back pain and radicular pain and is frequently treated with minimally invasive non-surgical methods in Korean Armed Forces Hospitals. Automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD) has been reported to have good clinical outcomes with low complication rates; however, the clinical efficacy of APLD performed in young male soldiers is uncertain. In order to clarify the efficacy of APLD for the treatment of LDH in young male soldiers, we designed a retrospective case–control study to compare patients who received APLD with patients treated with epidural steroid injection (ESI) alone.A total of 181 patients were enrolled and divided into the APLD (n = 92) and ESI (n = 89) groups according to the treatment modality. A simple logistic regression analysis was conducted to clarify the difference between the two. To optimize patient selection, APLD group was additionally divided for subgroup analysis into favorable (n = 59) and unfavorable (n = 33) groups based on satisfaction scales. A simple logistic analysis was also performed.The differences between pre- and postoperative numerical rating scale of pain (P = .0027) and hospital-own satisfaction scale (P = .0045) of the APLD group were significantly better compared to those of the ESI group. In terms of subgroup analysis, single-level pathology (P = 0.244) and protruded disc (P = .0443) were associated with favorable outcomes, whereas dual pathology and extruded disc were related with unfavorable outcomes.APLD using Dekompressor, performed in young male soldiers with back and radicular pain owing to LDH, showed better clinical outcomes compared to the ESI only therapy. Additionally, a single-level pathology with protruded disc was associated with favorable outcomes and may be indicated for treatment.

Automated Percutaneous Lumbar Discectomy for Symptomatic C ontained Disc Herniation: An Updated Review

Purpose: The aim of this article is to provide an updated review of the literatures and give a summary of the evidences supporting the technical mechanism, indications, results and influential factors associated with automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD) for the treatment of symptomatic contained disc herniation. Keywords: Automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy, interventional technique, contained disc herniation, mechanical disc decompression, review.

Percutaneous Disc Decompression for Lumbar Radicular Pain: A Review Article

Open discectomy remains the standard of treatment for patients with lumbar radicular pain secondary to a prolapsed intervertebral disc. Open discectomy performed in patients with small, contained herniations may result in poor outcomes. The various techniques of percutaneous disc decompression (PDD) have been developed to address this population. A literature search was conducted on articles, which address PDD for lumbar radicular pain. Published techniques include chymopapain chemonucleolysis, percutaneous laser disc decompression (PLDD), automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), Dekompressor, nucleoplasty, and targeted disc decompression (TDD). In addition, the rationale of provocative discography, selective nerve root injections, and intra-op discograms before performing PDD is discussed in detail. Dekompressor and nucleoplasty have the best level of evidence with a score of 2B+. The chymopapain chemonucleolysis has the most publications, but it is also accompanied by the most significant adverse complications and so it is scored as a 2B+/-. The other techniques are supported mainly by observational studies and thus their scores range between 0 and 2B+/-. There is no supporting evidence for provocative discography in patients with lumbar radicular pain. The evidence for a positive selective nerve root injection as an inclusion criteria or the need for an intra-op discogram shows mixed results. Nucleoplasty and Dekompressor have a weak positive recommendation for the treatment of patients with lumbar radicular pain. There is no role for provocative discography in this group of patients, although the evidence for a selective nerve root injection or an intra-op discogram is inconclusive.

An Update of Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Interventional Techniques in Chronic Spinal Pain. Part II: Guidance and Recommendations

Objective: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. Methodology: Systematic assessment of the literature. Evidence: I. Lumbar Spine • The evidence for accuracy of diagnostic selective nerve root blocks is limited; whereas for lumbar provocation discography, it is fair. • The evidence for diagnostic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and diagnostic sacroiliac intraarticular injections is good with 75% to 100% pain relief as criterion standard with controlled local anesthetic or placebo blocks. • The evidence is good in managing disc herniation or radiculitis for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; fair for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, radiculitis or facet joint pain with caudal, and interlaminar epidural injections, and limited for transforaminal epidural injections; fair for spinal stenosis with caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; and fair for post surgery syndrome with caudal epidural injections and limited with transforaminal epidural injections. • The evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is good for conventional radiofrequency, limited for pulsed radiofrequency, fair to good for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, and limited for intraarticular injections. • For sacroiliac joint interventions, the evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy is fair; limited for intraarticular injections and periarticular injections; and limited for both pulsed radiofrequency and conventional radiofrequency neurotomy. • For lumbar percutaneous adhesiolysis, the evidence is fair in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome and spinal stenosis. • For intradiscal procedures, the evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) and biaculoplasty is limited to fair and is limited for discTRODE. • For percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is limited for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression, and Dekompressor; and limited to fair for nucleoplasty for which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a noncoverage decision. II. Cervical Spine • The evidence for cervical provocation discography is limited; whereas the evidence for diagnostic cervical facet joint nerve blocks is good with a criterion standard of 75% or greater relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is good for cervical interlaminar epidural injections for cervical disc herniation or radiculitis; fair for axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post cervical surgery syndrome. • The evidence for therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions is fair for conventional cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical medial branch blocks, and limited for cervical intraarticular injections. III. Thoracic Spine • The evidence is limited for thoracic provocation discography and is good for diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks with a criterion standard of at least 75% pain relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is fair for thoracic epidural injections in managing thoracic pain. • The evidence for therapeutic thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is fair, limited for radiofrequency neurotomy, and not available for thoracic intraarticular injections. IV. Implantables • The evidence is fair for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in managing patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and limited for implantable intrathecal drug administration systems. V. Anticoagulation • There is good evidence for risk of thromboembolic phenomenon in patients with antithrombotic therapy if discontinued, spontaneous epidural hematomas with or without traumatic injury in patients with or without anticoagulant therapy to discontinue or normalize INR with warfarin therapy, and the lack of necessity of discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including low dose aspirin prior to performing interventional techniques. • There is fair evidence with excessive bleeding, including epidural hematoma formation with interventional techniques when antithrombotic therapy is continued, the risk of higher thromboembolic phenomenon than epidural hematomas with discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy prior to interventional techniques and to continue phosphodiesterase inhibitors (dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox). • There is limited evidence to discontinue antiplatelet therapy with platelet aggregation inhibitors to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and/or to continue antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel, ticlopidine, prasugrel) during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic fatalities. • There islimited evidence in reference to newer antithrombotic agents dabigatran (Pradaxa) and rivaroxan (Xarelto) to discontinue to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and are continued during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic events. Conclusion: Evidence is fair to good for 62% of diagnostic and 52% of therapeutic interventions assessed. Disclaimer: The authors are solely responsible for the content of this article. No statement on this article should be construed as an official position of ASIPP. The guidelines do not represent “standard of care.” Key words: Interventional techniques , chronic spinal pain, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint interventions, epidural injections, epidural adhesiolysis, discography, radiofrequency, disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal implantable systems

Percutaneous discectomy: Minimally invasive method for treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation

ObjectivesRecurrent lumbar disc herniation has been reported in 5–11% of patients. Revision surgery carries a higher risk of complications due to epidural scar formation and difficulty in identifying the bony landmarks. The present study was conducted to apply an innovative procedure which optimally has lower complications, and decrease the need for major surgery for high risk patients. Patient and methodOur study presents six patients of recurrent herniation after past performed procedures such as microdiscectomy, or a laminectomy and discectomy who were readmitted and treated with APLD (automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy) as the first line. The APLD criteria for patient selection in the present study are those with predominantly leg pain that failed conservative treatment for at least 6 weeks and, after lumbar surgery for at least 6 months at the same level. ResultsFour of the patients have sciatica recovery signs ranging between excellent to good and, two showed no improvement. None of the screened patients in this study developed any serious complications. ConclusionAlthough this is a small series with a short follow up duration, it can be postulated that in the absence of objective evidence of spinal instability, recurrent disc herniation with predominantly leg pain may be treated by APLD as a first line. This can be especially helpful in patients with high risk for anesthesia.

Percutaneous Disc Coagulation Therapy (PDCT) comparing with Automated Percutaneous Lumbar Discectomy (APLD) in Patients of Herniated Lumbar Disc Disease: Preliminary Report.

ObjectivePercutaneous techniques are rapidly replacing traditional open surgery. This is a randomized controlled trial study of clinical outcomes of Percutaneous Plasma Disc Coagulation Therapy (PDCT) in patients with HLD(herniated lumbar disc) as a new percutaneous access in comparison with Automated Percutaneous Lumbar Discectomy (APLD) in its clinical application and usefulness as a reliable alternative method.MethodsThe authors analyzed 25 patients who underwent PDCT randomized 1:1 to 25 who underwent APLD between June, 2010 and October, 2011. All patients had herniated lumbar disc diseases. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using Visual Analog Scales (VAS) score and MacNab's criteria.ResultsThe age of the patients who underwent PDCT ranged from 29 to 88 years with a mean age of 51.8 years. The age of the APLD undergone patients' population ranged from 30 to 66 with a mean age of 46.0 years. The average preoperative VAS score in PDCT was 7.60 and 1.94 at 7months post-operatively, and in APLD was 7.32, and 3.53 at 7 months post-operatively (p<0.001). In Macnab's criteria, 20 patients (80%) had achieved favorable improvement (excellent and good) in PDCT group. In Macnab's criteria, 16 patients (64%) had achieved favorable improvement in APLD group (p<0.001).ConclusionPDCT can be considered a viable option as a new percutaneous access to herniated lumbar disc. PDCT showed to be more effective than APLD in this study, allowing stable decompression and safe minimally invasive operation to an area desired by the operator in lumbar disc herniation patients, although further long term clinical evaluations are still necessary.

Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Interventional Techniques in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain

Background: Comprehensive, evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in the management of chronic spinal pain are described here to provide recommendations for clinicians. Objective: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. Design: Systematic assessment of the literature. Methods: Strength of evidence was assessed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria utilizing 5 levels of evidence ranging from Level I to III with 3 subcategories in Level II. Outcomes: Short-term pain relief was defined as relief lasting at least 6 months and longterm relief was defined as longer than 6 months, except for intradiscal therapies, mechanical disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation and intrathecal infusion systems, wherein up to one year relief was considered as short-term. Results: The indicated evidence for accuracy of diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is Level I or II1 in the diagnosis of lumbar, thoracic, and cervical facet joint pain. The evidence for lumbar and cervical provocation discography and sacroiliac joint injections is Level II-2, whereas it is Level II-3 for thoracic provocation discography. The indicated evidence for therapeutic interventions is Level I for caudal epidural steroid injections in managing disc herniation or radiculitis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. The evidence is Level II-1 or II-2 for therapeutic cervical, thoracic, and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks; for caudal epidural injections in managing pain of post-lumbar surgery syndrome, and lumbar spinal stenosis, for cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing cervical pain; for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections; for percutaneous adhesiolysis in management of pain secondary to post-lumbar surgery syndrome; and spinal cord stimulation for post-lumbar surgery syndrome. The indicated evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), mechanical disc decompression with automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), and percutaneous lumbar laser discectomy (PLDD) is Level II-2. Limitations: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of the literature, lack of updates, and conflicts in preparation of systematic reviews and guidelines by various organizations. Conclusion: The indicated evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic inverventions is variable from Level I to III. These guidelines include the evaluation of evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations for managing spinal pain. However, these guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Further, these guidelines also do not represent “standard of care.” Key words: Interventional techniques , chronic spinal pain, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint interventions, epidural injections, epidural adhesiolysis, discography, radiofrequency, disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal implantable systems

Automated Percutaneous Lumbar Discectomy for the Contained Herniated Lumbar Disc: A Systematic Assessment of Evidence

Lumbar disc prolapse, protrusion, and extrusion account for less than 5% of all low back problems, but are the most common causes of nerve root pain and surgical interventions. The typical rationale for traditional surgery is an effort to provide more rapid relief of pain and disability. It should be noted that the majority of patients will recover with conservative management. The primary rationale for any form of surgery for disc prolapse associated with radicular pain is to relieve nerve root irritation or compression due to herniated disc material. The primary modality of treatment continues to be either open or microdiscectomy, but several alternative techniques including automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD) have been described. However, there is a paucity of evidence for all decompression techniques, specifically alternative techniques including automated and laser discectomy. A systematic review of the literature. To determine the effectiveness of APLD. A comprehensive evaluation of the literature relating to automated lumbar disc decompression was performed. The literature was evaluated according to Cochrane review criteria for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria was utilized for observational studies. A literature search was conducted of English language literature through PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, systematic reviews, and cross references from reviews and systematic reviews. The level of evidence was classified as Level I, II, or III with 3 subcategories in Level II based on the quality of evidence developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Pain relief was the primary outcome measure. Other outcome measures were functional improvement, improvement of psychological status, opioid intake, and return to work. Short-term effectiveness was defined as one year or less, whereas, long-term effectiveness was defined as greater than one year. Based on USPSTF criteria, the indicated evidence for APLD is Level II-2 for short- and long-term relief. Paucity of RCTs in the literature. This systematic review indicated Level II-2 evidence for APLD. APLD may provide appropriate relief in properly selected patients with contained lumbar disc prolapse.

A Prospective Study of Preoperative and Postoperative Sequential Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Early Clinical Outcome in Automated Percutaneous Lumbar Discectomy

The authors evaluated the size of the disc herniation with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before and after surgery in patients undergoing automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD) and compared the MRI findings with the early clinical outcome. This study includes 20 consecutive patients with a contained lumbar disc herniation. Sequential MRI were performed immediately before and after surgery, on the day of surgery, and 6 weeks after surgery. The development of pain, nerve root tension sign (SLR), and neurological findings were analyzed, as was the need for subsequent open surgery. There was no significant difference in the maximum protrusion of the disc herniation between the three measurements. The sciatic pain improved significantly on the first day after surgery but not at 1 week or 6 weeks after surgery. The SLR was reduced significantly after surgery and at 1 and 6 weeks after surgery. There was no correlation between the MRI findings and the early clinical outcome. Seven patients needed subsequent open surgery. The findings indicate that the effect of APLD is not mediated by reducing the size of the disc herniation. In this small series of patients, APLD was ineffective in the treatment of a contained lumbar disc herniation. There was no correlation between the MRI findings and the early clinical outcome.

A Prospective Study of Preoperative and Postoperative Sequential Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Early Clinical Outcome in Automated Percutaneous Lumbar Discectomy

The authors evaluated the size of the disc herniation with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before and after surgery in patients undergoing automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD) and compared the MRI findings with the early clinical outcome. This study includes 20 consecutive patients with a contained lumbar disc herniation. Sequential MRI were performed immediately before and after surgery, on the day of surgery, and 6 weeks after surgery. The development of pain, nerve root tension sign (SLR), and neurological findings were analyzed, as was the need for subsequent open surgery. There was no significant difference in the maximum protrusion of the disc herniation between the three measurements. The sciatic pain improved significantly on the first day after surgery but not at 1 week or 6 weeks after surgery. The SLR was reduced significantly after surgery and at 1 and 6 weeks after surgery. There was no correlation between the MRI findings and the early clinical outcome. Seven patients needed subsequent open surgery. The findings indicate that the effect of APLD is not mediated by reducing the size of the disc herniation. In this small series of patients. APLD was ineffective in the treatment of a contained lumbar disc herniation. There was no correlation between the MRI findings and the early clinical outcome.

No indications for percutaneous lumbar discectomy?

A questionnaire was used to assess the outcome of automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), to correlate patients' data and to identify criteria for pain relief and patient satisfaction. Two hundred and thirty eight patients were operated on by APLD between 1988 and 1990. The questionnaire returned by 182 patients (76.4%) was suitable for evaluation. The mean follow-up was 2.5 years. Overall, 60% reported pain relief and 52% were satisfied with APLD. Conventional operations were carried out subsequently on 45 patients (25%). Bivariate and multivariate analyses were done for preoperative (age, gender, neurological deficit, Lasegue's sign, sports activity), perioperative (weight of disc material removed, level of APLD) and post-operative (conventional nucleotomy, change in condition, pain relief, satisfaction, sports activity, return to work, compensation claims) parameters. The only significant parameters for improvement in condition and pain relief was age, where patients younger than 41 do better. Risk factors for reoperation were a positive Lasegue's sign and over 41 years of age. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher for patients without sensory deficit preoperatively.

Automated Percutaneous Lumbar Discectomy: A Prospective Multi-institutional Study

A prospective study in 10 independent hospitals from 1992 to 1994 evaluated automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD) with a newly designed percutaneous instrument. One thousand five hundred eighty-two APLD procedures were performed in 1,525 patients with disc herniation or back pain. Mean follow-up after APLD was 18.3 months. Follow-up of at least 1 year was available in 1,474 patients. One thousand two hundred eighty-nine patients had sciatic pain and 185 had back pain only. Eight hundred twenty-two patients had symptoms for less than 2 years, 652 for more than 2 years. One thousand two hundred sixty-two patients were older than 60 years, 212 were younger than 60 years. Nine hundred fifty patients had disc protrusion, and 357 had sequestration. Forty-eight patients had disc or longitudinal ligament calcification. Twenty-two had previous surgical discectomy. All discectomies were done with use of a straight needle with the patient in the lateral decubitus position. Success rate (measured by Hijikata's criteria) was 83% at 1 year. Success was significantly greater for protrusion versus sequestration (86% vs 72%, P < .001); for back pain alone versus leg and back pain (89% vs 80%, P < .005); for duration of symptoms less than 2 years versus more than 2 years (85% vs 79%, P < .005); and for age younger than 60 years versus older than 60 years (84% vs 76%, P < .01). Among postsurgical patients, success rate was 77% (17 of 22 patients). The only complication was discitis (0.06%, nine patients). Technical success at L5-S1 was 99% (795 of 800). APLD with Teng's instrument has excellent results. Indications may include back pain alone. A straight needle can be used at L5-S1 in most patients, with proper positioning.

Automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy. An outcome study

We treated 137 patients with symptomatic lumbar disc prolapse by automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD). Seventeen (12%) required further operation. At a mean follow-up of 55 months, the success rate was 45%. Of those who had APLD alone, 52% were graded as either excellent or good. In this group, 76% were employed, and the mean Oswestry score was 28.2%. One-third of those patients initially rated as successful had deterioration in symptoms and increased disability from back pain. The Short Form 36 health survey questionnaire revealed that these patients had a chronic ill-health profile.

Restriction of indication for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy based on computed tomographic discography.

This report details the authors' early experience using the automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD) procedure, developed by Onik et al., in 97 patients with a disc protrusion. In the evaluation of a herniated disc, we used computed tomography (CT) discography. According to the distribution of the dye inside the disc, five different disc types can be differentiated. With a follow-up after 3-7 months, the short-term outcomes of the first 40 APLD-treated patients varied, depending on the shape of the protruded nuclear material. Patients with a broad dye base on CT discography had better short-term outcomes than patients with a narrow dye base. In the next 57 patients we treated with APLD, this tendency was confirmed. The success rate of a consecutive group of patients with a disc protrusion with a broad dye base, treated with APLD, was 80%. In comparison, the patients with a disc protrusion with a narrow dye base had an overall success rate of only 53%. The difference is statistically significant (P < 0.05). The message of this report is that APLD is a useful invasive treatment for patients with a disc protrusion. The outcome depends, however, on the shape of the protruded nuclear material as shown by CT discography, which makes this examination as a conditio sine qua non before treating patients with a disc protrusion with APLD.

Automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD) ? Method and 1-Year follow-up

From July 1989 to June 1991 135 discs on 129 patients were treated, in about twothirds at level L4/5 and at the remaining one third L5/S1.15% (n = 2) failed technically. Sixty eight patients are in the 1-year follow-up. Average age was 41 years (range 16–68 years). Average pain duration was 12 months, and average aspiration time was 25.8 min (range 15–45 min). All patients had contained disc lesions, suffered from radicular symptoms and had not responded to conservative treatment. 67,1% (group A, n =45) had a failure rate of 17,8%. Patients with associated degenerations (group B, n = 7) had a failure rate of 35,3%. 80% of the patients with recurrent radicular symptoms (group C, interval patients, n = 6) were free of symptoms. Re herniation rate in all patients was 2.9%, and the laminectomy rate 4.4%. No major complications were noted. Treated disc level, patient aage, aspirated nucleus material and CT changes revealed no correlation to clinical success. Patients with associated degenerations (group B) as wellas those with longer pain duration and larger contained disc lesions had a significantly worse outcome.

Automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy with and without chymopapain pretreatment versus non-automated, discoscopy-monitored percutaneous lumbar discectomy

Percutaneous lumbar discectomy has gained growing interest during recent years as an alternative to open surgery for protrusions and non-sequestrated subligamentous intervertebral disc herniations. As a less invasive method it competes with chemonucleolysis. At least two modifications are known to date: automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD) with a 2-mm suction probe and non-automated, discoscopy-monitored percutaneous lumbar discectomy with a suction rongeur and a motor-driven shaver (NAPLD). In this study these two methods are compared for the amount of material extracted, dependence upon the degree of degeneration of the disc and intrinsic technical problems, using 20 human cadaver lumbar specimens for experimental testing. Total nucleotomy was not possible with either method. APLD yielded significantly less material and proved to be less effective in severely degenerated intervertebral discs than the NAPLD procedure, as preexisting gaps within the degenerated nucleus pulposus allowed the tissue to shift away from the tip of the 2-mm probe and facilitated displacement of the probe within the anulus fibrosus. By contrast, the rongeur, which first cuts the material to be removed and then carries it away by suction, was much more effective. Further data to support the advantages of non-automated percutaneous nucleotomy are discussed. Pretreatment of the disc with chymopapain did not result in a higher yield of nucleus material when combined with APLD.