Ayşegül CEYLAN, İbrahim AŞIK, Burak ERKEN, G. Enver ÖZGENCİL

Clinical results of intradiscal hydrogel administration (GelStix) in lumbar degenerative disc disease

Background/aim: Degenerative disc disease (DDD) is one of the main causes of lower back pain. In this study, we evaluate the efficacyof percutaneous intradiscal GelStix administration in patients with discogenic pain due to lumbar DDD who were unresponsive toconservative methods.Materials and methods: A total of 29 patients were included in the study, which took place between 2013 and 2017. Sedation wasperformed in the prone position in the operating room, and a C-arm was located so as to provide a lateral view of the surgical field.A 22-G, 3.5-inch needle was inserted into the center of the disc under fluoroscopy guidance, and a percutaneous intradiscal GelStiximplantation was performed. All patients were evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and a visual analogue scale (VAS)before and after treatment, and using the Patient Satisfaction Scale at 12 months following treatment.Results: The mean VAS scores were 7.14 ± 0.64 at baseline and 2.48 ± 0.63 at 12 months (P < 0.001). The mean ODI scores were 28.14 ±1.81 at baseline and 17.35 ± 0.67 at 12 months (P < 0.001). There was a statistically significant decrease in the VAS and ODI scores beforeand after treatment. A total of 86.2% of the patients rated the procedure as very good or good at 12 months.Conclusion: Our study results suggest that GelStix treatment is useful in pain relief in patients with DDD from the first month oftreatment.

PDF

___

1. Long DM, Ben Debba M, Torgerson WS, Boyd RJ, Dawson EG et al. Persistent back pain and sciatica in the United States: patient characteristics. Journal of Spinal Disorders 1996; 9: 40- 58.
2. Miller J, Schmatz C, Schultz A. Lumbar disc degeneration: correlation with age, sex, and spine level in 600 autopsy specimens. Spine 1988; 13: 173-178.
3. Lyons G, Eisenstein SM, Sweet MB. Biochemical changes in intervertebral disc degeneration. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1981; 673: 443-453.
4. Bibby SR, Urban JP. Effect of nutrient deprivation on the viability of intervertebral disc cells. European Spine Journal 2004; 13: 695-701.
5. Kroeber M, Unglaub F, Guehring T, Nerlich A, Hadi T et al. Effects of controlled dynamic disc distraction on degenerated intervertebral discs: an in vivo study on the rabbit lumbar spine model. Spine 2005; 30: 181-187.
6. Yue JJ, Morgenstern R, Morgenstern C, Lauryssen C. Shape memory hydrogels - A novel material for treating age-related degenerative conditions of the spine. European Musculoskeletal Review 2011; 6: 184-188.
7. Gullbrand SE, Schaer TP, Agarwal P, Bendigo JR, Dodge GR et al. Translation of an injectable triple-interpenetrating-network hydrogel for intervertebral disc regeneration in a goat model. Acta Biomaterialia 2017; 60: 201-209.
8. Gan Y, Li P, Wang L, Mo X, Song L et al. An interpenetrating network-strengthened and toughened hydrogel that supports cell-based nucleus pulposus regeneration. Biomaterials 2017; 136: 12-28.
9. Durdag E, Ayden O, Albayrak S, Atci IB, Armagan E. Fragmentation to epidural space: first documented complication of GelstixTM. Turkish Neurosurgery 2014; 24: 602-605.
10. Bowles RD, Setton LA. Biomaterials for intervertebral disc regeneration and repair. Biomaterials 2017; 129: 54-67.
11. Field A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage; 2013.
12. University of Sheffield. Friedman Test in SPSS (Non-Parametric Equivalent to Repeated Measures ANOVA). Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield; 2018.
13. Tomczak M, Tomczak E. The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size. Trends in Sport Sciences 2014; 1: 19-25.
14. Chan SC, Gantenbein-Ritter B. Intervertebral disc regeneration or repair with biomaterials and stem cell therapy–feasible or fiction? Swiss Medical Weekly 2012; 142: 1606-1610.
15. Sing SH. Lumbar intradiscal treatments: early evaluation of patient satisfaction in disc repair by nucleus augmentation (GelStix). Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine 2012; 6: 45.
16. Akgun B, Ozturk S, Cakin H, Kaplan M. Migration of fragments into the spinal canal after intervertebral polyethylene glycol implantation: an extremely rare adverse effect: case report. Journal of Neurosurgery - Spine 2014; 21: 614-616.
17. Tufan A, Tas A, Karagoz GF, Aktas OY, Eren B et al. Hydrogel implant causing lumbar radiculopathy: a case report. Bağcılar Tıp Bülteni 2017; 2: 71-74.
18. Raj PP. Intervertebral disc: anatomy - physiology - pathophysiology - treatment. Pain Practice 2008; 8: 18-44.
19. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Zhao W, Blood EA et al. Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: four-year results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American Volume 2009; 91: 1295.
20. McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Holsapple G, Adams K, Blumenthal S et al. Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: Part II: evaluation of radiographic outcomes and correlation, Spine 2005; 30: 1576-1583.
21. Manchikanti L, Joshua AH. An update on the management of chronic lumbar discogenic pain. Pain Management 2015; 5: 373-386.
22. Maher CG. Effective physical treatment for chronic low back pain. Orthopedic Clinics 2004; 35: 57-64.
23. Leeuw M, Goossens ME, Linton SJ, Crombez G, Boersma K et al. The fear-avoidance model of musculoskeletal pain: current state of scientific evidence. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 2007; 30: 77-94.
24. Dallam LE, Barkauskas C, Ayello EA, Baranoski S. Wound Care Essentials: Practice Principles. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2004. pp. 217-238.