Jiang Xijia, Zhou Xindie, Xu Nanwei
Department of Orthopedics, The Affiliated Changzhou No. 2 People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou, China.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Nov;97(48):e13417. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013417.
The aim of this study is to observe the therapeutic effect of percutaneous endoscopic discectomy and its influencing factors for lumbar disc herniation and compare the advantages and disadvantages of transforaminal and interlaminar of percutaneous endoscopy.Data from 143 patients with lumbar disc herniation were respectively collected, including demographic and clinical data. Study population were divided into curative effect group and poor curative effect group, and logistic regression was used to explore the influencing factors of curative effect. The operation data and pre-and post-operation scores were compared to explore the effect of transforaminal and interlaminar approach on surgery efficacy.The rate of curative effect was 93.7%. 120 patients were classified as curative group and 23 patients were categorized as poor effective group. Univariate analysis found that the patients in the curative effect group tended to receive the interlaminar approach (58.3% vs 34.8%, P = .038). Multivariate logistic regression did not find operation approach was not related to curative effect of operation (transforaminal and interlaminar). But age ≥45 (odd risk (OR) = 6.43, P = .016), course of disease >12 month (OR = 3.77, P = .003), back and leg pain (OR = 3.46, P = .026), history of trauma (OR = 3.88, P = .014), Pfirrmann level IV (OR = 4.84, P = .004), and pre-Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) <5.3 (OR = 3.63, P = .015) were associated with operation efficacy. Compared with transforaminal group, the interlaminar group has less operative time (P = .000), less fluoroscopy time (P = .000), less puncture time (P = .000), less blood loss (P = .011).The transforaminal or interlaminar did not affect the treatment efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation. The selection of surgery approach depended on anatomical structure and physiological characteristics. It should be noted that 45 years of age or older, in the course of more than 12 months, both lumbocrural pain and lumbar disc herniation with grade IV, with history of trauma, may have impact on the efficacy of surgery.
本研究旨在观察经皮内镜下椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效及其影响因素,并比较经椎间孔和经椎板间入路的经皮内镜的优缺点。收集了143例腰椎间盘突出症患者的数据,包括人口统计学和临床资料。将研究人群分为疗效好组和疗效差组,采用逻辑回归分析探讨疗效的影响因素。比较手术数据及术前、术后评分,以探讨经椎间孔和经椎板间入路对手术疗效的影响。疗效率为93.7%。120例患者被分类为治愈组,23例患者被分类为疗效差组。单因素分析发现,疗效好组患者倾向于采用经椎板间入路(58.3%对34.8%,P = 0.038)。多因素逻辑回归分析未发现手术入路(经椎间孔和经椎板间)与手术疗效相关。但年龄≥45岁(比值比(OR)= 6.43,P = 0.016)、病程>12个月(OR = 3.77,P = 0.003)、腰腿痛(OR = 3.46,P = 0.026)、外伤史(OR = 3.88,P = 0.014)、Pfirrmann分级IV级(OR = 4.84,P = 0.004)以及术前视觉模拟评分(VAS)<5.3(OR = 3.63,P = 0.015)与手术疗效相关。与经椎间孔组相比,经椎板间组手术时间更短(P = 0.000)、透视时间更短(P = 0.000)、穿刺时间更短(P = 0.000)、失血量更少(P = 0.011)。经椎间孔或经椎板间入路不影响经皮内镜下椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效。手术入路的选择取决于解剖结构和生理特征。需要注意的是,45岁及以上、病程超过12个月、同时存在腰腿痛且腰椎间盘突出症为IV级、有外伤史的患者,可能会对手术疗效产生影响。