| 不同脊柱内镜手术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效及并发症比较 |
|
Hits: 1132
Download times: 540
Received:March 13, 2023
|
| 作者 | Author | 单位 | Unit | E-Mail |
| 陈康 |
CHEN Kang |
自贡市第一人民医院骨科, 四川 自贡 643000 |
Department of Orthopaedics, the First People's Hospital of Zigong, Zigong 643000, Sichuan, China |
|
| 杨富国 |
YANG Fu-guo |
自贡市第一人民医院骨科, 四川 自贡 643000 |
Department of Orthopaedics, the First People's Hospital of Zigong, Zigong 643000, Sichuan, China |
|
| 罗园超 |
LUO Yuan-chao |
自贡市第一人民医院骨科, 四川 自贡 643000 |
Department of Orthopaedics, the First People's Hospital of Zigong, Zigong 643000, Sichuan, China |
|
| 何仁建 |
HE Ren-jian |
自贡市第一人民医院骨科, 四川 自贡 643000 |
Department of Orthopaedics, the First People's Hospital of Zigong, Zigong 643000, Sichuan, China |
hrj780502@qq.com |
|
| 期刊信息：《中国骨伤》2024年37卷，第3期，第228-234页 |
| DOI：10.12200/j.issn.1003-0034.20220860 |
|
目的:比较经皮内镜椎间孔入路腰椎间盘髓核摘除术(percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy,PETD)、经皮内镜椎板间入路腰椎间盘髓核摘除术(percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy,PEID)和单侧双通道内镜(unilateral biportal endoscopic,UBE)技术在单节段腰椎间盘突出症(lumbar disc herniation,LDH)中的临床疗效及并发症发生率。
方法:回顾性分析2019年10月至2021年8月采用脊柱内镜治疗的121例单节段LDH患者,根据治疗方法不同分为3组。PETD组48例,男19例,女29例;年龄18~72(44.0±13.9)岁;L3,4节段3例,L4,5节段27例,L5S1节段18例;PEID组43例,男23例,女20例;年龄20~69(40.1±12.1)岁;L3,4节段1例,L4,5节段15例,L5S1节段27例;UBE组30例,男12例,女,18例;年龄29~72(41.2±15.0)岁;L3,4节段1例,L4,5节段18例,L5S1节段11例。观察并比较3组手术时间、出血量、透视次数、并发症等情况。分别于术前、术后3个月及末次随访时采用疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS) 进行腰痛及下肢痛评估,采用Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disfunction index,ODI) 进行腰椎功能评价,并于末次随访时采用改良MacNab标准评价临床疗效。
结果:所有患者完成脊柱内镜手术治疗,并经门诊及(或)电话进行至少12个月的随访。PETD、PEID组术中各发生1例硬膜囊破裂,硬膜囊破口小,术后均无明显不适。UBE组术中发生2例硬膜囊破裂;1例术后出现脑脊液漏,平卧位休息、补液等治疗后好转;1例术后无明显不适。(1)PETD组与PEID组手术时间、出血量及住院日比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),UBE组手术时间、出血量及住院日多于PETD及PEID组(P<0.05)。PEID组与UBE技术组透视次数比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),PETD组透视次数多于PEID组和UBE组(P<0.05)。(2)术后3个月UBE组腰痛VAS高于PETD和PEID组(P<0.05);而PETD组与PEID组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。末次随访3组腰痛VAS组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。(3)3组术后各时间点下肢痛VAS及ODI较术前明显改善(P<0.05),组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),不同时间点-手术分组交互作用差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。(4)末次随访时按照改良MacNab标准,PETD组优27例,良16例,中4例,差1例;PEID组优27例,良12例,中3例,差1例;UBE组优16例,良10例,中2例,差2例;3组比较,差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.308,P>0.05)。3组各发生1例LDH复发,2例经对症治疗后症状改善,1例于外院就诊治疗。
结论:PETD、PEID及UBE技术治疗LDH均可取得良好的早期临床疗效,并发症率相似。PETD及PEID均为单通道微创手术,术中组织损伤轻,术后恢复快;但PETD术中透视次数相对较多,PEID更合适L5S1节段;UBE为双通道手术,术中软组织损伤较重,但显露宽泛,更合适复杂病例。 |
| [关键词]:腰椎间盘突出症 内镜手术 并发症 |
| |
| Effect and complication among different kinds of spinal endoscopic surgery for lumbar disc herniation |
|
Abstract:
Objective To compare clinical efficacy and complication rate of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy(PETD),percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) in treating single-segment lumbar disc herniation(LDH).
Methods From October 2019 to August 2021,121 LDH patients with single-segment treated by spinal endoscopy were retrospectively analyzed and divided into three groups. In PETD group,there were 48 patients,including 19 males and 29 females,aged from 18 to 72 years old with an average of (44.0±13.9) years old;3 patients with L3,4 segments,27 patients with L4,5 segments,and 18 patients with L5S1 segments. In PEID group,there were 43 patients,including 23 males and 20 females,aged from 20 to 69 years old with an average of (40.1±12.1) years old;1 patient with L3,4 segments,15 patients with L4,5 segments,and 27 patients with L5S1 segments. In UBE group,there were 30 patients,including 12 males and 18 females,aged from 29 to 72 years old with an average of (41.2±15.0) years old;1 patient with L3,4 segments,18 patients with L4,5 segments,and 11 patients with L5S1 segments. Operation time,blood loss,fluoroscopy times and complications among three groups were observed and compared. Before opertaion,3 months after operation and at the latest follow-up,visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to evaluate low back pain and lower extremity pain,Oswestry disfunction index (ODI) was used to evaluate lumbar function,and modified MacNab was used to evaluate clinical efficacy at the latest follow-up.
Results All patients were performed endoscopic spinal surgery completly and were followed up for at least 12 months. One patient occurred dural sac rupture both in PETD and PEID group,and dural sac rupture was small,and there was no obvious discomfort after operation. Two patients were occurred intraoperative rupture of dural sac in UBE group. One patient was occurred cerebrospinal fluid leakage after operation,and was improved after rest in supine position and fluid rehydration. One patient without no significant postoperative discomfort. (1)There were no significant difference in operating time,blood loss and hospital stay between PETD and PEID group (P>0.05),while UBE group was higher than those of PETD and PEID group (P<0.05). There was no statistical significance in fluoroscopy times between PEID and UBE group (P>0.05),but PETD group was higher than that of PEID and UBE group (P<0.05). (2)VAS of low back pain at 3 months after operation in UBE group was higher than that in PETD and PEID group (P<0.05),but there was no significant difference between PETD and PEID group (P>0.05). At the latest follow-up,there was no significant difference in VAS of low back pain among three groups (P>0.05). (3)Lower extremity pain of VAS and ODI among 3 groups after operation were significantly improved at all time points compared with those before opertaion(P<0.05),and there were no statistical significance between groups (P>0.05),and there were no statistical significance in interaction between different time points and operation groups (P>0.05). (4) At the latest follow-up,according to the modified MacNab standard,the results of PETD group were excellent in 27 patients,good in 16 patients,moderate in 4 patients,poor in 1 patient;in PEID group,27 patients got excellent result,12 good,3 moderate,and 1 poor;in UBE group,16 patients got excellent,10 good,2 moderate,and 2 poor. There was no significant difference among three groups (χ2=0.308,P>0.05). Recurrence of lumbar disc herniation occurred in 1 patient among each three groups,symptoms were improved in 2 patients after symptomatic treatment,and 1 patient was treated in other hospitals.
Conclusion PETD,PEID and UBE techniques could achieve good early clinical effects in treating lumbar disc herniation with similar complication rates. Both of PETD and PEID are single-channel minimally invasive surgery,with mild intraoperative tissue damage and quick postoperative recovery; while intraoperative fluoroscopy of PETD was relatively more frequent, and PEID was more suitable for L5S1 segment;UBE is a two-channel surgery,in which the intraoperative soft tissue damage is more severe,but exposure is broad,which is more suitable for complex cases. |
| KEYWORDS:Lumbar disc herniation Endoscopic surgery Complication |
| |
| 引用本文，请按以下格式著录参考文献： |
| 中文格式: | 陈康,杨富国,罗园超,何仁建.不同脊柱内镜手术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效及并发症比较[J].中国骨伤,2024,37(3):228~234 |
| 英文格式: | CHEN Kang,YANG Fu-guo,LUO Yuan-chao,HE Ren-jian.Effect and complication among different kinds of spinal endoscopic surgery for lumbar disc herniation[J].zhongguo gu shang / China J Orthop Trauma ,2024,37(3):228~234 |
|
| View Full Text View/Add Comment Download reader |
| Close |
|
|
|
