Kong Lei, Shang Xi-Fu, Zhang Wen-Zhi, Duan Li-Qun, Yu Yang, Ni Wei-Jian, Huang Yan
Department of Orthopedic, Anhui Provincial Hospital, No. 17 Lujiang Road, 230001, Hefei, Anhui Province, China.
Department of Pharmacy, Anhui Provincial Hospital, 230001, Hefei, Anhui Province, China.
Orthopade. 2019 Feb;48(2):157-164. doi: 10.1007/s00132-018-3610-z.
Sufficient decompression of the nerve root canal is still regarded as the method of choice when operating on patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH) with lumbar lateral recess stenosis; however, tissue-sparing procedures are becoming more popular. Endoscopic techniques offer advantages and the benefits of rehabilitation, which have become the standard in many surgical operations when operating on the spine. A significant issue has been the upgrading of instruments to provide enough bone resection under continuous visual control.
We examined patients who had LDH with lateral recess stenosis and compared the results of nerve root canal decompression using percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) with a microsurgical laminotomy (ML) technique. In this study 40 patients with full endoscopic decompression or microsurgery were followed up for 2 years. In addition to general and specific parameters, the following two parameters were also used for the investigation: the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).
Except for 1 patient in whom repair was done by fusion and 1 who was lost to follow-up, 38 patients remained in the study over the 2 years. The mean operating time in the PELD group was longer (p < 0.05), but intraoperative and postoperative blood loss was less than in the ML group (p < 0.05). The postoperative results were better than before surgery, and the VAS and ODI parameters indicated a clear improvement in leg pain and daily activities in both groups (p > 0.05). Of the patients three suffered increasing back pain (2 ML, 1 PELD).
The results indicated that the PELD can provide an effective supplement and serve as an alternative for LDH with lateral recess stenosis compared with the ML technique when the indication criteria are fulfilled. The PELD also has the advantage of being a minimally invasive intervention.
对于伴有腰椎侧隐窝狭窄的腰椎间盘突出症(LDH)患者进行手术时,神经根根管的充分减压仍被视为首选方法;然而,保留组织的手术方法正变得越来越流行。内镜技术具有优势和康复益处,已成为许多脊柱手术的标准方法。一个重要问题是仪器的升级,以便在持续视觉控制下进行足够的骨切除。
我们检查了患有LDH并伴有侧隐窝狭窄的患者,并比较了经皮内镜下腰椎间盘切除术(PELD)与显微外科椎板切开术(ML)技术进行神经根根管减压的结果。在本研究中,对40例行全内镜减压或显微手术的患者进行了2年的随访。除了一般和特定参数外,还使用以下两个参数进行调查:视觉模拟量表(VAS)和Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)。
除1例行融合修复的患者和1例失访患者外,38例患者在2年期间仍在研究中。PELD组的平均手术时间较长(p < 0.05),但术中及术后失血量少于ML组(p < 0.05)。术后结果均优于术前,VAS和ODI参数表明两组患者的腿痛和日常活动均有明显改善(p > 0.05)。有3例患者出现背痛加重(2例ML,1例PELD)。
结果表明,当符合适应证标准时,与ML技术相比,PELD可为伴有侧隐窝狭窄的LDH提供有效的补充,并可作为一种替代方法。PELD还具有微创干预的优势。