Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2025 May 8;14(10):3280.
doi: 10.3390/jcm14103280.

Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Techniques for the Treatment of Cervical Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Affiliations
Review

Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Techniques for the Treatment of Cervical Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Magdalena Rybaczek et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

Background: In recent decades, the adoption of minimally invasive (non-endoscopic) cervical techniques has grown significantly. Advancements in surgical instrumentation have broadened the spectrum of available percutaneous interventions, thus providing viable alternative treatment options for patients with prolonged, conservative treatment-resistant ailments due to contained cervical disc herniation. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive percutaneous (non-endoscopic) cervical techniques. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS databases up to July 2024, in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes measured included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores, the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and MacNab scores, assessing pain relief and functional recovery. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) and the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, with statistical analyses conducted in R software (version 4.3.1). Results: Out of 847 records, 21 studies (covering 1580 patients) were included in the final analysis. Five different percutaneous minimally invasive cervical procedures were incorporated into this review: nucleoplasty (n = 973), discectomy (n = 311), a combination of nucleoplasty and discectomy (n = 98), annuloplasty (n = 33), and pulsed radiofrequency (n = 17). The mean patient age was 49.5, with a gender distribution of 47.7% male and 52.3% female. A meta-analysis of six studies on cervical nucleoplasty (400 patients) demonstrated a significant reduction in pain scores, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -4.68 (95% CI: -8.77; -0.59, p = 0.032). However, a high heterogeneity (I2 = 98.8%, Q = 407.31, p < 0.001) was observed, indicating significant variability across studies. The reoperation rate among patients was 3.4%, with discitis and device-related complications being the most frequently reported adverse events. Conclusions: Minimally invasive percutaneous cervical interventions provide effective pain relief and functional improvement for patients with cervical disc herniation, as evidenced by reductions in VAS scores and positive MacNab outcomes. The choice of the most appropriate technique should be based on individual clinical scenarios, surgeon expertise, and patient preferences, as no single method demonstrates clear superiority according to clinical outcomes or complication rates.

Keywords: annuloplasty; cervical; discectomy; nucleoplasty; nucleotomy; percutaneous.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram depicting the selection of the studies included in this review.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comprehensive visualization of individual studies and the overall treatment efficacy of percutaneous nucleoplasty in patients with cervical discopathy. SD—standard deviation; SMD—standardized mean difference [6,7,8,11,12,13].
Figure 3
Figure 3
Funnel plot illustrating the distribution of individual studies, represented by standardized mean difference (SMD) and standard error (SE) values [6,7,8,11,12,13].

Similar articles

References

    1. Viechtbauer W. Bias and Efficiency of Meta-Analytic Variance Estimators in the Random-Effects Model. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 2005;30:261–293. doi: 10.3102/10769986030003261. - DOI
    1. Hartung J., Knapp G. A refined method for the meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary outcome. Stat. Med. 2001;20:3875–3889. doi: 10.1002/sim.1009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Higgins J.P.T., Thompson S.G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 2002;21:1539–1558. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Borenstein M., Cooper H., Hedges L., Valentine J. Effect sizes for continuous data. Handb. Res. Synth. Meta-Anal. 2009;2:221–235.
    1. Cochran W.G. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics. 1954;10:101–129. doi: 10.2307/3001666. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources