经皮内镜下颈椎间盘切除术与颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术:一项为期五年随访的比较队列研究。
Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Discectomy Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Comparative Cohort Study with a Five-Year Follow-Up.
作者信息
Ahn Yong, Keum Han Joong, Shin Sang Ha
机构信息
Department of Neurosurgery, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon 21565, Korea.
Department of Neurosurgery, Wooridul Spine Hospital, Seoul 06068, Korea.
出版信息
J Clin Med. 2020 Jan 29;9(2):371. doi: 10.3390/jcm9020371.
Percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy (PECD) is an effective minimally invasive surgery for soft cervical disc herniation in properly selected cases. The current gold standard is anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, few studies have evaluated the outcome of PECD compared with ACDF. We compared the surgical results of PECD and ACDF. Data from patients treated with single-level PECD ( = 51) or ACDF ( = 64) were analyzed. Patients were prospectively entered into the clinical database and their records were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative data and clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and modified Macnab criteria. VAS and NDI results significantly improved in both groups. The rates of excellent or good results were 88.24% and 90.63% in the PECD and ACDF group, respectively. The revision rates were 3.92% and 1.56% in the PECD and ACDF group, respectively. Operative time, hospital stay, and time to return to work were reduced in the PECD group compared to the ACDF group ( < 0.001). The five-year outcomes of PECD were comparable to those of conventional ACDF. PECD provided the typical benefits of minimally invasive surgery and may be an effective alternative for treating soft cervical disc herniation.
经皮内镜下颈椎间盘切除术(PECD)对于精心挑选的软性颈椎间盘突出症患者而言,是一种有效的微创手术。当前的金标准是颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)。然而,与ACDF相比,很少有研究评估PECD的疗效。我们比较了PECD和ACDF的手术结果。分析了接受单节段PECD(n = 51)或ACDF(n = 64)治疗的患者数据。患者被前瞻性纳入临床数据库,并对其记录进行回顾性审查。使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)、颈部功能障碍指数(NDI)和改良Macnab标准评估围手术期数据和临床结果。两组的VAS和NDI结果均显著改善。PECD组和ACDF组的优良率分别为88.24%和90.63%。PECD组和ACDF组的翻修率分别为3.92%和1.56%。与ACDF组相比,PECD组的手术时间、住院时间和恢复工作时间均缩短(P < 0.001)。PECD的五年疗效与传统ACDF相当。PECD具有微创手术的典型优势,可能是治疗软性颈椎间盘突出症的有效替代方法。