cervical nucleoplasty can effectively approach the lesion site because it uses the anterior approach [2,5]. Another benefits of cervical nucleoplasty are that it does not have any influence on the stability of the cervical vertebrae compared to surgical treatment [13]; it is mini- mally invasive since it uses a 19-gauge introducer needle, which is smaller compared to other percutaneous decom- pression; the PercTM DCTM SpineWand that is handled by the surgeon is small and hard so it could be operated more precisely; it only takes a 10-12 minutes to treat one level of disc; and there is a markedly low possibility of damage to the surrounding tissue [5,8]. Upon retrospective examination of the medical records of the 22 patients that were treated in our hospital, clinical improvement in symptoms within a month after cervical nucleoplasty were seen in most patients. Most of the pa- tients reported the reduced subjective symptoms, such as radicular and axial pain, and an improved quality of life. Consequently, they expressed satisfaction with the cervical nucleoplasty. In conclusion, in the treatment of cervical disc dis- orders, cervical nucleoplasty is minimally invasive, easy and has fewer complications than the surgical treatment. Therefore, when there is no response to conservative treatment, cervical nucleoplasty can be considered as a suitable alternative prior to open surgical treatment. However, to obtain good clinical results, appropriate se- lection of patients according to the indications of nucleo- plasty must precede the procedure, and more experience and research should be accumulated for other indications such as extrusion and stenosis. REFERENCES 1. Nardi PV, Cabezas D, Cesaroni A. Percutaneous cervical nucleoplasty using coblation technology. Clinical results in fifty SE Sim, et al / Nucleoplasty in Cervical Disc Disorder 43 consecutive cases. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2005; 92: 73-8. 2. Bonaldi G, Baruzzi F, Facchinetti A, Fachinetti P, Lunghi S. Plasma radio-frequency-based diskectomy for treatment of cervical herniated nucleus pulposus: feasibility, safety, and preliminary clinical results. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006; 27: 2104-11. 3. Sharps LS, Isaac Z. Percutaneous disc decompression using nucleoplasty. Pain Physician 2002; 5: 121-6. 4. Singh V, Piryani C, Liao K, Nieschulz S. Percutaneous disc decompression using coblation (nucleoplasty) in the treatment of chronic discogenic pain. Pain Physician 2002; 5: 250-9. 5. Ro JY, Oh CS, Kim OS, Kim DK, Woo NS, Shin HY. Nucle- oplasty in a patient with cervical disc extrusion with radiating pain of an upper extremity. Anesth Pain Med 2009; 4: 203-7. 6. Chen YC, Lee SH, Chen D. Intradiscal pressure study of percutaneous disc decompression with nucleoplasty in human cadavers. Spine 2003; 28: 661-5. 7. Boswell MV, Trescot AM, Datta S, Schultz DM, Hansen HC, Abdi S, et al. Interventional techniques: evidence-based practice guidelines in the management of chronic spinal pain. Pain Physician 2007; 10: 7-111. 8. Birnbaum K. Percutaneous cervical disc decompression. Surg Radiol Anat 2009; 31: 379-87. 9. Calisaneller T, Ozdemir O, Karadeli E, Altinors N. Six months post-operative clinical and 24 hour post-operative MRI examinations after nucleoplasty with radiofrequency energy. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2007; 149: 495-500. 10. Singh V. Scientific basis for nucleoplasty. Tech Reg Anesth Pain Manag 2005; 9: 13-24. 11. Bhagia SM, Slipman CW, Nirschl M, Isaac Z, El-Abd O, Sharps LS, et al. Side effects and complications after percutaneous disc decompression using coblation technology. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 85: 6-13. 12. Oh WS, Park YO, Shim WS, Wie HW, Woo CH. Psoas abscess and discitis after intradiscal nucleoplasty. Korean J Anesthesiol 2002; 42: 844-9. 13. Li J, Yan DL, Zhang ZH. Percutaneous cervical nucleoplasty in the treatment of cervical disc herniation. Eur Spine J 2008; 17: 1664-9.