腰椎管狭窄症两种内镜减压术比较
作者:
作者简介:

陈燕,副主任医师,研究方向:脊柱外科,(电话)13865515861,(电子信箱)yanchen5861@163.com

中图分类号:

R681.57

基金项目:

合肥市卫健委 2020 年度应用医学研究重点项目(编号:Hwk2020zd0013)


Comparison of two endoscopic decompression procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis
Author:
  • 摘要
  • | |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献 [25]
  • |
  • 相似文献 [20]
  • |
  • 引证文献
  • | |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    [目的]比较两种内镜减压术治疗腰椎管狭窄症疗效。[方法]回顾性分析 2018 年 5 月—2021 年 5 月在安徽医科大学第二附属医院及合肥市第三人民医院内镜手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症 213 例患者的临床资料。按照医患沟通结果,132 例采用单侧双通道内镜下椎管减压术(unilateral biportal endoscopy, UBE),81 例采用全内镜可视化椎孔成形术减压术(endoscopic forami- noplasty and decompression, EFD),比较两组围手术期、随访及影像结果。[结果] 两组患者均顺利完成手术,UBE 组术中硬膜撕裂 [1 (0.8%) vs 5 (6.2%), P<0.05] 和神经根损伤 [2 (1.5%) vs 6 (7.4%), P<0.05] 显著均少于 EFD 组,且术中射线暴露时间 [(1.1± 0.1) min vs (3.3±0.6) min, P<0.05],显著短于 EFD 组。两组手术时间、术后感染率、下地行走时间、住院时间的差异均无统计学意义 (P>0.05)。两组患者均获随访 12 个月以上,两组恢复完全负重活动时间的差异无统计学意义 (P>0.05)。与术前相比, 末次随访时两组患者术后腰痛 VAS 评分、腿痛 VAS 评分和 ODI 评分均显著减少 (P<0.05),相应时间点,两组间腰痛 VAS 评分、腿痛 VAS 评分、ODI 评分的差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。影像方面,与术前相比,术后 3 个月及末次随访时,两组患者患椎椎间隙高度、侧隐窝矢状径、中央椎管矢状径、腰椎前凸角(L1~S1 Cobb 角)均显著增加(P<0.05)。术前两组间上述影像指标的差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),但是术后 UBE 组侧隐窝矢状径 [(12.0±3.7) mm vs (9.8±2.8) mm, P<0.001] 和中央椎管矢状径 [(15.7±3.8) mm vs (9.8±2.1) mm, P<0.001] 显著大于 EFD 组。相应时间点,两组间患椎椎间隙高度、腰椎前凸角的差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。[结论]UBE 术能改善腰椎管狭窄患者的症状,临床效果显著,特别是在解决腰椎管双侧狭窄及重度狭窄时,优于单侧椎间孔镜技术。

    Abstract:

    [Objective] To compare the clinical efficacy of two kinds of endoscopic decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal ste- nosis. [Methods] A retrospective study was conducted on 213 patients who received endoscopic surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in The Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University and the Third People's Hospital of Hefei City from May 2018 to May 2021. Accord- ing to doctor-patient communication, 132 patients underwent unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE), while the other 81 patients were treated with endoscopic foraminoplasty and decompression (EFD). The perioperative period, follow- up and imaging data of the two groups were compared. [Results] All the patients in both groups were operated on successfully. The UBE group proved significantly superior to the EFD group in terms of dural tear [1 (0.8%) vs 5 (6.2%), P<0.05] and nerve root injury [2 (1.5%) vs 6 (7.4%), P<0.05], as well as intraoperative ra- diation exposure time [(1.1±0.1) min vs (3.3±0.6) min, P<0.05], nevertheless, there were no significant differences in operation time, postop- erative infection rate, postoperative walking time and hospital stay between the two groups (P>0.05). All of them in both groups were fol- lowed up for more than 12 months, without a significant difference in the time to return to full weight-bearing activities between the two groups (P>0.05). The VAS scores for both low back pain and leg pain, and ODI score significantly decreased in both groups at the latest fol- low-up compared with those preoperatively (P<0.05), which proved not significantly different between the two groups at any corresponding time points (P>0.05). Radiographically, compared with those preoperatively the height of involved vertebral space, sagittal diameter of later- al recess, sagittal diameter of central spinal canal and lumbar lordosis angle (L1~S1 Cobb angle) were significantly increased in both groups 3 months after surgery and at the last follow-up (P<0.05). Although there was no significant difference in the abovesaid imaging indexes be- tween the two groups before surgery (P>0.05), the UBE group got significantly greater sagittal diameter of lateral recess [(12.0±3.7) mm vs (9.8±2.8) mm, P<0.001] and sagittal diameter of central spinal canal [(15.7±3.8) mm vs (9.8±2.1) mm, P<0.001] than the EFD group post- operatively. However, there were no statistically significant differences in the height of intervertebral space and lumbar lordosis angle be- tween the two groups at any time points accordingly (P>0.05). [Conclusion] The UBE does improve the symptoms of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and achieve satisfactory clinical outcomes, especially for bilateral and severe lumbar spinal stenosis, which is superior to unilateral transforaminal endoscopies.

    参考文献
    [1] Rodrigues LCL,Natour J.Surgical treatment for lumbar spinal ste? nosis:a single-blinded randomized controlled trial [J].Adv Rheu? matol,2021,61(1):25.
    [2] Zhang J,Liu TF,Shan H,et al.Decompression using minimally in? vasive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis associated with degenera? tive spondylolisthesis:A review [J].Pain Ther,2021,10(2):941-959.
    [3] Minetama M,Kawakami M,Teraguchi M,et al.Supervised physi? cal therapy versus unsupervised exercise for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis:1-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial [J].Clin Rehabil,2021,35(7):964-975.
    [4] Iguchi T,Kurihara A,Nakayama J,et al.Minimum 10-year out? come of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spi? nal stenosis [J].Spine,2000,25(14):1754-1759.
    [5] Kim JY,Ryu DS,Paik HK,et al.Paraspinal muscle,facet joint,and disc problems:risk factors for adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar fusion [J].Spine J,2016,16(7):867-875.
    [6] 魏亚,吴昌兵,马维邦,等.全内镜大通道单侧入路双侧减压治疗老年单节段腰椎管狭窄症的早期疗效 [J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2022,32(2):135-140,148.
    [7] Chu PL,Wang T,Zheng JL,et al.Global and current research trends of unilateral biportal endoscopy/biportal endoscopic spinal surgery in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases:A biblio? metric and visualization study [J].Orthop Surg,2022,14(4):635-643.
    [8] Kim JE,Choi DJ,Park EJJ,et al.Biportal endoscopic spinal sur? gery for lumbar spinal stenosis [J].Asian Spine J,2019,13(2):334-342.
    [9] Jespersen AB,Gustafsson MEAK.Correlation between the Oswes? try Disability Index and objective measurements of walking capaci? ty and performance in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis:a sys? tematic literature review [J].Eur Spine J,2018,27(7):1604-1613.
    [10] Zhao XB,Ma HJ,Geng B,et al.Percutaneous endoscopic unilater? al laminotomy and bilateral decompression for lumbar spinal steno? sis [J].Orthop Surg,2021,13(2):641-650.
    [11] 张迪,张文明,周献伟,等.CLIF 与TLIF治疗退变性腰椎滑脱合并腰椎管狭窄症的疗效比较 [J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2021,35(2):210-216.
    [12] 李锐,张仁赞,刘正蓬,等.不同融合方式对多节段腰椎椎管狭窄合并腰椎间盘突出症患者应激反应的影响 [J].中国临床解剖学杂志,2022,40(5):599-604.
    [13] 杨进,王玉,孔清泉.腰椎侧方椎管狭窄分型在全内镜减压治疗老年退变性腰椎管狭窄症的应用 [J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2020,34(4):415-421.
    [14] 苏保辉,栾素娴,孙良智,等.单侧双通道内镜治疗双节段腰椎管狭窄症 [J].中国矫形外科杂志,2022,30(16):1508-1511.
    [15] Epstein NE.Foraminal and far lateral lumbar disc herniations:sur? gical alternatives and outcome measures [J].Spinal Cord,2002,40(10):491-500.
    [16] Hu ZJ,Fang XQ,Zhou ZJ,et al.Effect and possible mechanism of muscle-splitting approach on multifidus muscle injury and atrophyafter posterior lumbar spine surgery [J].J Bone Joint Surg Am,2013,95(24):e192(1-9).
    [17] 李建国,孙武,高春雨,等.肥胖对腰椎管狭窄症后路椎间融合术的影响 [J].中国矫形外科杂志,2022,30(7):593-597.
    [18] Weinstein JN,Tosteson TD,Lurie JD,et al.Surgical versus nonsur? gical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis [J].N Engl J Med,2008,358(8):794-810.
    [19] 赵子豪,孙亦强,赵加庆,等.腰椎管狭窄症的双通道内镜与开放减压比较 [J].中国矫形外科杂志,2022,30(11):973-978.
    [20] 杨求勇,李亚伟,王硕,等.Coflex 棘突间固定系统治疗短节段退变性腰椎管狭窄症 [J].中国矫形外科杂志,2019,27(7):659-661.
    [21] 佟怀宇,余新光,王群,等.通道椎旁入路与半椎板入路非融合微创手术对腰椎椎管狭窄症的疗效分析 [J].中华医学杂志,2020,100(4):261-264.
    [22] 王斌,郭东哲,夏晨,等.椎旁肌间隙入路手术治疗单节段腰椎管狭窄症 [J].中国矫形外科杂志,2020,28(23):2139-2143.
    [23] 田杰,茹江英.腰椎管扩大减压术中保留棘突韧带复合体的优势与问题 [J].中国组织工程研究,2019,23(8):1228-1234.
    [24] 李志跃,张泽鹏,陈世杰,等.单纯椎管扩大减压术与减压联合椎管成形术的临床疗效比较 [J].中南大学学报(医学版),2015,40(5):533-538.
    [25] Oertel MF,Ryang YM,Korinth MC,et al.Long-term results of mi? crosurgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by unilateral lami? notomy for bilateral decompression [J].Neurosurgery,2006,59(6):1264-1269.
    引证文献
引用本文

陈燕,田大胜,王立飞,等. 腰椎管狭窄症两种内镜减压术比较[J]. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2023, 31 (15): 1345-1350. DOI:10.3977/j. issn.1005-8478.2023.15.01.
CHEN Yan, TIAN Da- sheng, WANG Li-fei, et al. Comparison of two endoscopic decompression procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis[J]. Orthopedic Journal of China , 2023, 31 (15): 1345-1350. DOI:10.3977/j. issn.1005-8478.2023.15.01.

复制
文章指标
  • 点击次数:
  • 下载次数:
  • 引用次数:
历史
  • 收稿日期:August 03,2022
  • 最后修改日期:January 30,2023
  • 在线发布日期: August 22,2023