Advertisement

Percutaneous automated discectomy

Abstract

Herniated lumbar discs are a major health problem throughout the world. Over 200,000 back operations are performed each year in the United States alone. The traditional procedure for herniated lumbar discs, surgical removal through laminectomy, while benefiting most patients, carries the risk of soft tissue injury of both joints and neural structures and can have a prolonged recovery period following surgery. Because of the potential problem associated with surgery the trend in the treatment of this problem is moving toward the use of more conservative treatment modalities prior to resorting toward surgery. Prior to chemonucleolysis those patients who had failed conservative means such as bed rest, traction, physical therapy, and epidural steroids had laminectomy as their only alternative. Chymopapain raised the hopes of both patients and physicians that a relatively noninvasive treatment could be used instead of surgery in this patient population. The fact that 70,000 chymopapain injections were made within 6 months of introduction of its use in the United States attests to this desire on the patient’s part not to have to undergo back surgery. The use of chymopapain, however, has been greatly curtailed due to its association with major complications which include anaphylaxis, subarachnoid hemorrhage, disc space infection, and transverse myelitis with associated paraplegia.

Keywords

Disc Space Lumbar Disc Disc Material Epidural Fibrosis Free Fragment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hijikata S, Yamagishi M, Nakayama T, Oomori K (1975) Percutaneous diskectomy: a new treatment method for lumbar disc herniation. J Toden Hosp 5: 5–13Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hijikata S, Nakayama T, Yamagishi M, Ichihara M (1978) Percutaneous nucleotomy for low back pain. Presented at the 14th World Congr Soc Int Chirurgie Orthopedique et de Traumatologie, Kyoto, Japan, October 15–20, 1978Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hijikata S (1981) Percutaneous nuclectomy for low back pain: the second report. Presented at the 15th World Congr Soc Int Chirurgie Orthopedique et de Traumatologie, Rio de Janeiro, August 30—September 4, 1981Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kambin P, Gellman H (1983) Percutaneous lateral diskectomy of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop 174: 127–132Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schreiber A, Suezawa Y (1986) Trans discoscopic percutaneous nucleotomy in disc herniation. Orthoped rev 15: 75–78Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Friedman WA (1983) Percutaneous diskectomy: an alternative to chemonucleolysis. Neurosurgery 13: 542–547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Onik G, Helms C, Ginsburg L et al (1985) Percutaneous lumbar diskectomy using a new aspiration probe: porcine and cadaver model. Radiology 155: 251–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Onik G, Helms C, Ginsburg L, Hoaglund F, Morris J (1985) Percutaneous lumbar diskectomy using a new aspiration probe. AJNR 6: 290–293Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Onik G, Maroon J, Helms C et al (1987) Automated percutaneous discectomy: Initial patient experience. Radiology 162: 129–132Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Written Communication, Ron Allan Surgical Dynamics, May 1987Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Onik
    • 1
  1. 1.Allegheny-Singer Research InstitutePittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations