临床外科杂志 ›› 2024, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (4): 346-349.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-6483.2024.04.004

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

经皮单通道与经皮单侧双通道脊柱内镜下腰椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效比较

包贝西 闫辉 邱道静 程晓康 伍宇轩 许春阳 唐家广   

  1. 100730 首都医科大学附属北京同仁医院骨科
  • 收稿日期:2023-07-18 出版日期:2024-05-10 发布日期:2024-05-10
  • 通讯作者: 唐家广,Email:tangjiaguang2013@163.com

Comparison on clinical curative effect of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy on lumbar disc herniation

BAO Beixi,YAN Hui,QIU Daojing,CHENG Xiaokang,WU Yuxuan,XU Chunyang,TANG Jiaguang.   

  1. Department of Orthopedics,Beijing Tongren Hospital affiliated to Capital Medical University,Beijing 100730,China
  • Received:2023-07-18 Online:2024-05-10 Published:2024-05-10

摘要: 目的 比较经皮单通道脊柱内镜下腰椎间盘切除术(PELD)与经皮单侧双通道脊柱内镜下腰椎间盘切除术(UBED)治疗腰椎间盘突出症(LDH)的临床疗效。方法 2019年6月~2022年6月本院行经皮脊柱内镜下腰椎间盘切除术治疗的LDH病人102例,按治疗方法分为两组,PELD组51例,行PELD治疗;UBED组51例,行UBED治疗。比较两组手术时间,术中出血量,住院时间,术后椎管横截面积、椎间孔中部矢状径、椎间孔面积等影像学指标,疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS),Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)及手术疗效,记录两组硬膜撕裂、血肿等并发症发生情况。结果 两组手术时间、术后卧床时间、住院时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);PELD组术中透视次数为(6.62±1.11)次,多于UBED组的(3.24±0.72)次,PELD组术中出血量为(21.56±4.79)ml,少于UBED组的(38.59±7.82)ml(P<0.05)。PELD组与UBED组术后VAS、ODI评分均较术前降低(P<0.05)。PELD组与UBED组术后椎管横截面积、椎间孔中部矢状径、椎间孔面积等影像学指标均较术前显著改善(P<0.05),但两组术后的各影像学指标比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。PELD组与UBED组均有较高手术优良率,但两组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组手术相关并发症发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(Fisher精确概率=0.999)。结论 PELD与UBED治疗LDH的临床疗效相当,但前者术中出血量较少,后者术中透视次数较少,受到的辐射较小。

关键词: 腰椎间盘突出症; 经皮脊柱内镜下腰椎间盘切除术; 单通道; 单侧双通道;疗效

Abstract: Objective To compare the clinical curative effect of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) on lumbar disc herniation (LDH).Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on the case data of 102 patients with LDH undergoing percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the hospital between June 2019 and June 2022,including 51 cases undergoing PELD in PELD group and 51 cases undergoing UBED in UBED group.The operation time,intraoperative blood loss,hospitalization time and other surgical related indicators,postoperative spinal canal cross-sectional area,sagittal diameter of intervertebral foramen,intervertebral foramen area and other imaging indicators,visual analogue scale (VAS),Oswestry disability index (ODI) and surgical efficacy were compared between the two groups.The complications such as dural tear and hematoma were recorded in the two groups.Results The operation time,postoperative bed time and hospitalization time in PELD group were similar to those in UBED group(P>0.05).The times of intraoperative fluoroscopy in PELD group were more than those in UBED group [(6.62±1.11) times vs. (3.24±0.72) times],and intraoperative blood loss was less than that in UBED group [(21.56±4.79) ml vs. (38.59±7.82) ml;P<0.05].After surgery,VAS and ODI scores in both groups were decreased (P<0.05).After surgery,imaging indexes (cross-sectional area of spinal canal,sagittal diameter in the middle of intervertebral foramen,intervertebral foramen area) in both groups were significantly improved (P<0.05),but the PELD group were similar to those in UBED group (P>0.05).The good rates of surgery in both groups were high,but the PELD group were similar to those in UBED group (P>0.05).The incidence of surgical related complications in PELD group were similar to those in UBED group (Fisher exact probability=1.000).Conclusion The clinical curative effect of PELD and UBED is comparable on LDH.However,the former has less intraoperative blood loss,while the latter has fewer times of intraoperative fluoroscopy and less radiation.

Key words: lumbar disc herniation; percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy; single channel; unilateral double channel; curative effect

No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!