MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nucleoplasty for cervical radicular pain due to disc herniation

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

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsRadicular painReduction (mathematics)Adverse effectDisc herniationLow back painDorsum

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207