MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4416694675 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd011852.pub2

Nucleoplasty for cervical radicular pain due to disc herniation

2025· article· en· W4416694675 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Judith D. de Rooij, Arianne P. Verhagen, Biswadjiet S. Harhangi, Michael G. Fehlings, George Groeneweg, Wichor M. Bramer, Frank Huygen, Miranda Langendam

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesMcMaster University
Mots-clésRadicular painReduction (mathematics)Adverse effectDisc herniationLow back painDorsum

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cervical radicular pain due to disc herniation presents with pain in the neck and one arm, with muscle weakness with or without numbness or tingling in the fingers or hands. Conservative treatment includes rest, analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, exercises and cervical collar. When conservative treatment fails, surgery is considered. Surgery can carry risks, and freedom from pain is not guaranteed. Recently, nucleoplasty, a new treatment for contained disc herniations, was developed. Nucleoplasty is a minimally invasive outpatient procedure that relieves nerve pressure by removing small portions of the disc's gel-like nucleus, with no reported neurological complications. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of nucleoplasty on pain, function, quality of life, recovery, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events compared to placebo, no treatment, conservative treatment, minimally invasive interventions or surgery for people with cervical radicular pain due to disc herniation. SEARCH METHODS: We used CENTRAL, MEDLINE, seven other databases and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify the studies that are included in the review. The latest search date was 24 February 2025. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated nucleoplasty compared to placebo/sham treatment, no treatment, conservative treatment, minimally-invasive interventions or surgery for people with cervical radicular pain due to disc herniation. Major outcomes were pain in the arm and neck, neck-related function, recovery, quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. The primary time point was short-term follow-up (up to three months). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the references. We used the original Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs (259 participants). We judged all four studies to have an overall high risk of bias, due either to a high risk of detection or attrition bias. Three of four studies were at high risk of detection bias for unblinded outcome assessors. Nucleoplasty versus no treatment or placebo We did not find any RCT for this comparison. Nucleoplasty versus conservative treatment (1 study, 120 participants) Low-certainty evidence, downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision, showed that nucleoplasty may result in a large reduction in pain (0 to 100 scale, 0 = no pain) at short-term follow-up. The mean change from baseline in pain was 30.45 points lower with conservative treatment and 53.16 points lower with nucleoplasty (mean difference (MD) 22.71 points lower (95% confidence interval (CI) 30.10 lower to 15.32 lower)). Low-certainty evidence, downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision, showed that nucleoplasty may result in no difference in neck-related function at short-term follow-up (Neck Disability Index (NDI) 0 to 50, lower scores indicate less disability). The mean change from baseline function was 9.27 points lower in the conservative treatment group and 11.75 points lower in the nucleoplasty group (MD 2.48 lower, 95% CI 5.11 lower to 0.15 higher). Low-certainty evidence, downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision, showed that, compared to conservative treatment, nucleoplasty may result in little to no difference in quality of life (36-item Short-Form Health Survey, mental component summary (SF-36 MCS), 0 to 100, 100 = best score) in the short term. The mean change in quality of life from baseline was 8.04 points with conservative treatment and 6.31 points with nucleoplasty (MD 1.73 lower, 95% CI 5.32 lower to 1.86 higher). Compared to conservative treatment, it is uncertain if nucleoplasty increases the risk of adverse effects. This study did not report on recovery and there were no withdrawals. Nucleoplasty versus pulsed radiofrequency of the dorsal root ganglion (1 study, 34 participants) We are uncertain if, compared to pulsed radiofrequency, nucleoplasty has any effect on pain (0 to 100 scale, 0 = no pain; MD 7.9 lower, 95% CI 29.45 lower to 13.65 higher), neck-related function (0 to 50, 0 = best score; MD 0.30 higher, 95% CI 6.97 lower to 7.57 higher), recovery (MD 5.10 lower, 95% CI 29.92 lower to 19.72 higher) or adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.0, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.83) at short-term follow-up, due to very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision and indirectness). Nucleoplasty versus discectomy (2 studies, 105 participants) Low-certainty evidence, downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision, showed that nucleoplasty may result in little to no difference in neck pain at short-term follow-up (MD 0.33 points higher, 95% CI 0.36 lower to 1.03 higher). We are uncertain if nucleoplasty has any effect on arm pain (MD 0.74 points lower, 95% CI 1.23 lower to 0.25 lower), neck-related function (MD 0.69 points lower, 95% CI 12.63 lower to 11.25 higher), recovery (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.29; 1 RCT, 48 participants), quality of life (MD 0.83 points higher, 95% CI 8.47 lower to 10.13 higher; 1 RCT, 48 participants) or adverse events (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.62) compared to discectomy at short-term follow-up, due to very low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision and indirectness. No withdrawals due to adverse events were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to conservative treatment, low-certainty evidence showed that nucleoplasty may result in a large reduction in pain and no difference in neck-related function at short-term follow-up. For the other comparisons (pulsed radiofrequency of the dorsal root ganglion, discectomy), there was low to very low-certainty evidence for little to no effect of nucleoplasty on pain, neck-related function, recovery or adverse events. No serious complications occurred in the nucleoplasty or comparison groups. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of nucleoplasty for people with radicular pain due to disc herniation. There is a need for sufficiently powered, well-designed RCTs.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,009
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,031

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,014
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0070,003
Bibliométrie0,0050,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,050
Tête enseignante GPT0,363
Écart entre enseignants0,313 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsMême sujetSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyTravaux en français237 207