Suppr超能文献

全内镜下椎板间入路与显微外科椎板切开术治疗双侧腰椎中央管狭窄症的前瞻性随机对照研究

Bilateral spinal decompression of lumbar central stenosis with the full-endoscopic interlaminar versus microsurgical laminotomy technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study.

作者信息

Komp Martin, Hahn Patrick, Oezdemir Semih, Giannakopoulos Athanasios, Heikenfeld Roderich, Kasch Richard, Merk Harry, Godolias Georgios, Ruetten Sebastian

机构信息

Center for Spine Surgery and Pain Therapy, Germany.

出版信息

Pain Physician. 2015 Jan-Feb;18(1):61-70.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Extensive decompression with laminectomy, where appropriate, is often still described as the method of choice when operating on degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Nonetheless, tissue-sparing procedures are becoming more common. Endoscopic techniques have become the standard in many areas because of the surgical advantages they offer and the benefits for rehabilitation. One key issue when operating on the spine was the development of instruments to provide sufficient bone resection under continuous visual control. This was achieved by using endoscopes for operations carried out in cases of spinal canal stenosis.

OBJECTIVE

This study of patients with degenerative lumbar central spinal stenosis compares the results of spinal decompression using the full-endoscopic interlaminar technique (FI) with a conventional microsurgical laminotomy technique (MI).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled study.

SETTINGS

135 patients with microsurgical or full-endoscopic decompression were followed up for 2 years. Alongside general and specific parameters, the following measuring instruments were also used for the investigation: Visual Analog Scale (VAS), German version of the North American Spine Society Instrument (NASS), Oswestry Low-Back-Pain-Disability Questionnaire (ODI).

RESULTS

Postoperatively 72 % of the patients no longer had leg pain or the pain was almost completely reduced and 21.2 % experienced occasional pain. The clinical results were the same in both groups. The rate of complications and revisions was significantly reduced in the FI Group. The full-endoscopic techniques brought advantages in the following areas: operation, complications, traumatization, rehabilitation.

LIMITATIONS

Lack of placebo control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The recorded results demonstrate that the full-endoscopic interlaminar bilateral decompression adopting a unilateral approach provides an adequate and safe supplement and alternative to the conventional microsurgical bilateral laminotomy technique when the indication criteria are fulfilled. At the same time, it offers the advantages of a minimally invasive intervention.

摘要

背景

在适当情况下,广泛减压并进行椎板切除术仍常被描述为治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症的首选手术方法。尽管如此,保留组织的手术方法正变得越来越普遍。由于内镜技术具有手术优势及对康复的益处,其已在许多领域成为标准术式。脊柱手术中的一个关键问题是开发能在持续视觉控制下进行充分骨切除的器械。这通过在椎管狭窄病例中使用内镜进行手术得以实现。

目的

本研究对退行性腰椎中央管狭窄症患者采用全内镜椎间孔技术(FI)与传统显微外科椎板切开术技术(MI)进行脊柱减压的结果进行比较。

研究设计

前瞻性、随机、对照研究。

研究地点

135例行显微外科或全内镜减压术的患者接受了2年的随访。除了一般和特定参数外,还使用以下测量工具进行调查:视觉模拟量表(VAS)、北美脊柱协会器械德文版(NASS)、奥斯威斯瑞腰痛残疾问卷(ODI)。

结果

术后72%的患者不再有腿痛或疼痛几乎完全减轻,21.2%的患者偶尔有疼痛。两组的临床结果相同。FI组的并发症和翻修率显著降低。全内镜技术在以下方面带来了优势:手术、并发症、创伤、康复。

局限性

缺乏安慰剂对照组。

结论

记录结果表明,当符合适应证标准时,采用单侧入路的全内镜椎间孔双侧减压术为传统显微外科双侧椎板切开术提供了一种充分且安全的补充和替代方法。同时,它具有微创干预的优势。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验