Percutaneous Laser Disc Decompression: In Low Back Pain or in Radicular Pain
Abstract
Objective: The efficacy of percutaneous laser disc decompression is still controversial due to inconsistencies between the studies. However, the reason for this discrepancy may be due to having different success levels in low back pain and leg pain. In this study, the response of both pain modalities to percutaneous laser disc decompression was examined separately.
Material and Methods: Results of 49 patients who underwent percutaneous laser disc decompression only for low back pain and 36 patients who underwent percutaneous laser disc decompression only for radicular pain were analyzed retrospectively. It was investigated on which pain type that percutaneous laser disc decompression was more effective. In addition, by examining the magnetic resonance images of the patients, it was determined whether there was a change in the size of the disc herniation.
Reults: Although statistically percutaneous laser disc decompression was effective in both types of pain, this effect was much more pronounced in the low back pain group. It was determined that percutaneous laser disc decompression did not reduce the size of the disc herniation, but still provided some reduction in radicular pain. It was determined that it was much more effective in low back without reducing the size of the disc herniation.
Conclusion: percutaneous laser disc decompression is more effective in low back pain. However, a reduction in the size of the disc herniation should not be expected.
Keywords
Percutaneous laser disc decompression , Low back pain , Radicular pain
Kaynakça
- 1- Ceylan A, Asik I. Percutaneous navigable intradiscal decompression in treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a single-center experience. Turk J Med Sci. 2019;49:519-524.
- 2- Davis TT, Delamarter RB, Sra P, Goldstein TB. The IDET procedure for chronic discogenic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29:752-756.
- 3- Hijikata S. Percutaneous nucleotomy: a new concept technique and 12 years’ experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;238:9-23.
- 4- Saal JA, Saal JS. Intradiscal electrothermal treatment for chronic discogenic low back pain. A prospective outcome study with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:2622-2627.
- 5- Saal JS, Saal JA. Management of chronic discogenic low back pain with a thermal intradiscal catheter: a preliminary report. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:382-388.
- 6- Singh V, Piryani C, Liao K, Nieschulz S. Percutaneous disc decompression using coblation (nucleoplasty) in the treatment of chronic discogenic pain. Pain Physician. 2002;5: 250-259.
- 7- Webster BS, Verma S, Pransky GS. Outcomes of workers’ compensation claimants with low back pain undergoing intradiscal electrothermal therapy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29:435-441.
- 8- Pauza KJ, Howell S, Dreyfuss P, JH Peloza, K Dawson. A randomised, placebo-controlled trial of intradiscal electrothermal therapy for the treatment of discogenic low back pain. Spine J. 2004;4:27-35.
- 9- Freeman BJC. IDET: a critical appraisal of the evidence. Eur Spine J. 2006;15 (Suppl. 3): S448–S457.
- 10- Freedman BA, Cohen SP, Kuklo TR, Lehman RA, Larkin P, Giuliani JR. Intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) for chronic low back pain in active-duty soldiers: 2-year follow-up. Spine J. 2003;3:502-509.