Figures & data
Figure 1. The pathological pathway of cervical dizziness between cervical structures and vestibulospinal nucleus. Pathway 1: originating from mechanoreceptors in the facet joint; pathway 2: originating from muscle spindles; pathway 3: originating from mechanoreceptors in intradiscal endings.
![Figure 1. The pathological pathway of cervical dizziness between cervical structures and vestibulospinal nucleus. Pathway 1: originating from mechanoreceptors in the facet joint; pathway 2: originating from muscle spindles; pathway 3: originating from mechanoreceptors in intradiscal endings.](/cms/asset/3619929c-f8b1-45ea-855a-daf0b0fb5ade/iann_a_1910336_f0001_c.jpg)
Figure 2. Three distinct ablation regions in the degenerative disc. (a) Mechanoreceptors innervate from annulus into nucleus, 1-plot indicates the margin of annulus, 2-plot indicates the boundary between annulus and nucleus, and 3-plot indicates the mid-nucleus; (b–d) Ablation region is in the margin of the annulus, the boundary between annulus and nucleus, and the mid-nucleus, respectively; (e–g) In C4–5 level, the ablation region is in the margin of the annulus, the boundary between annulus and nucleus, and the mid-nucleus under fluoroscopic guidance, respectively.
![Figure 2. Three distinct ablation regions in the degenerative disc. (a) Mechanoreceptors innervate from annulus into nucleus, 1-plot indicates the margin of annulus, 2-plot indicates the boundary between annulus and nucleus, and 3-plot indicates the mid-nucleus; (b–d) Ablation region is in the margin of the annulus, the boundary between annulus and nucleus, and the mid-nucleus, respectively; (e–g) In C4–5 level, the ablation region is in the margin of the annulus, the boundary between annulus and nucleus, and the mid-nucleus under fluoroscopic guidance, respectively.](/cms/asset/027bee3e-7205-4b01-bd4f-4ebffffdfda3/iann_a_1910336_f0002_c.jpg)
Table 1. Inclusion criteria for cervicogenic dizziness.
Table 2. Demographic data of patients in CGD.
Figure 3. The efficacy outcomes after coblationdiscoplasty in 12 months follow-up. (a) Comparison of CDG VAS between two groups; (b) Comparison of neck pain VAS between two groups; (c) Comparison of CGD frequency score between two groups; (d) Comparison of CGD alleviation rating between two groups. B: baseline; P: post-operative; w: week; m: month; “__” indicates medium; “--->” indicates 25th quartile; “–>” indicates 75th quartile.
![Figure 3. The efficacy outcomes after coblationdiscoplasty in 12 months follow-up. (a) Comparison of CDG VAS between two groups; (b) Comparison of neck pain VAS between two groups; (c) Comparison of CGD frequency score between two groups; (d) Comparison of CGD alleviation rating between two groups. B: baseline; P: post-operative; w: week; m: month; “__” indicates medium; “--->” indicates 25th quartile; “–>” indicates 75th quartile.](/cms/asset/3828f16a-b643-4023-a26e-fbf089fe6ed4/iann_a_1910336_f0003_b.jpg)
Table 3. Comparison of CGD VAS, neck pain VAS and CGD score between two groups in 12-month follow-up.