Nucleus replacement surgery has the potential to be an early treatment option for chronic lower back pain. The surgery involves removal (nuclectomy) and replacement of the native degenerated nucleus with a material designed to restore the disc's physiological properties. Multiple techniques have been considered to perform a nuclectomy, however the advantages and disadvantages of each are not well understood. The aim of this study was to quantitatively compare three nuclectomy techniques: automated-shaver, rongeurs, and laser. Fifteen human vertebra-disc-vertebra lumbar specimens were split into three groups. Before and after nuclectomy axial mechanical tests were performed and T2-weighted 9.4T MRIs were acquired for each specimen. Using the automated-shaver and rongeur similar volumes of disc material were removed (2.51±1.10% and 2.76±1.39% of the total disc volume, respectively), whilst considerably less material was removed when using the laser (0.12±0.07%). Using the automated-shaver and rongeur significantly reduced the toe-region stiffness, while the linear region stiffness was significantly reduced only in the rongeur group. From the MRIs, more homogeneous cavities were seen in the center of the disc when using the automated shaver compared to rongeur, whilst laser ablation resulted in small, localized cavities.Introduction
Methods and results
Our aim was to ascertain the opinion of Orthopaedic Consultants, General Practitioners, and Patients on the proposed primary care based follow up of joint replacements. An email questionnaire was sent Orthopaedic Consultants registered with the BOA. Responders had to answer simple questions regarding follow up practices after hip and knee arthroplasty and safe alternatives to the existing system. General practitioners in London were sent a different questionnaire to assess their familiarity with follow up of arthroplasty patients and their competence in identifying complications. Finally, arthroplasty patients were directly questioned on their preference for follow up. Eigthy-one Orthopaedic Consultants who undertake lower limb arthroplasty responded, 89.06% advocated follow up and review of radiographs by the surgeon. The Arthroplasty Practitioner, the Radiologist and the Physiotherapist were deemed suitable for follow up of patients by 50%, 14.06% and 4.69 % respectively. All responders unanimously disagreed with initial follow up by General Practitioners (0%). However, after a 12 month review, 30.15% thought primary arthroplasty patients could be discharged to the care of their General Practitioner and 11.11% were happy to discharge revision arthroplasty patients. Of the 52 General Practitioners who returned our questionnaire, only 37% were confident of interpreting symptoms related to prosthetic loosening or infection and 98% did not feel competent identifying radiological changes after arthroplasty. 94% of the General Practitioners did not think that they would be happy to follow up arthroplasty patients even if they were offered further training. The reasons for this were lack of specialty skills, work-load concerns, funding issues and surgeons’ duty of care towards the patient. All of the 104 patients who were questioned preferred to be followed up by the arthroplasty team. In conclusion, Orthopaedic Surgeons, General Practitioners and patients prefer a hospital based dedicated Orthopaedic team for the post operative follow-up of arthroplasty patients.
