{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018018018018018018, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006006006006006006, 'mean_word_length': 5.4396135265700485, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Comparison of Minimally Invasive Techniques in Percutaneous Treatment of Lumbar Herniated Discs

Low back pain is the commonest spine disease causing absence from work in developed countries. Low back pain with classical irradiation along the course of the nerve root affected is more frequently due to disc disease. In 60–80% of patients with herniated disc, radicular symptoms disappear with conservative treatment after about six weeks, the remainder are treated surgically with a 2–6% of incidence of true recurrence of herniation post-intervention and with failed back surgery syndrome in 15% of cases. Recently minimally invasive techniques have developed as “alternative” treatments to surgical intervention. This review aimed to assess the pathogenesis of low back pain caused by lumbar disc hernia as a basis for action of minimally invasive techniques; to illustrate the techniques already used or currently in use, to compare them in technical guidance, indications and complications, exposing for each of them the inclusion/exclusion criteria in enrolling patients and the imaging guide technique of choice. Minimally invasive techniques can be a valuable alternative to traditional surgery with low cost, low risk of complications, easy feasibility, and in the event of failure they do not exclude subsequent surgery.