Department of Orthopaedics, Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Department of Orthopedics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Br J Neurosurg. 2021 Jun;35(3):245-250. doi: 10.1080/02688697.2020.1784393. Epub 2020 Jul 7.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical results of a Bi-needle technique and conventional transforaminal endoscopic spine system (TESSYS) technique for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) in treating patients with intervertebral disc calcification (IDC).
PELD has gained acceptance for treating patients with IDC. The Bi-needle technique was designed to improve the efficiency and safety of PELD.
Bi-needle and TESSYS group within each cohort were balanced using 1:1 propensity score matching. Finally, 32 patients with IDC treated by Bi-needle technique from December 2015 to September 2017 were enrolled and 25 patients treated by TESSYS technique from the same spine surgery center between January 2013 and October 2017 were enrolled as controls.
Propensity score matching generated 22 Bi-needle and 22 TESSYS patients. There were no significant differences in visual analog scale and lumbar Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores between Bi-needle and TESSYS group. Operative time and rate of complications in the Bi-needle was significantly better than the TESSYS group ( < 0.01).
Both surgical methods achieved good clinical outcomes. However, compared with the TESSSY technique, operative time of the Bi-needle technique is shorter, and rate of complications is lower.
本研究旨在评估 Bi-needle 技术与传统经皮椎间孔内窥镜脊柱系统(TESSYS)技术在治疗椎间盘钙化(IDC)患者中的经皮内窥镜腰椎间盘切除术(PELD)的临床效果。
PELD 已被接受用于治疗 IDC 患者。Bi-needle 技术旨在提高 PELD 的效率和安全性。
使用 1:1 倾向评分匹配对每个队列中的 Bi-needle 和 TESSYS 组进行平衡。最终,纳入 2015 年 12 月至 2017 年 9 月期间采用 Bi-needle 技术治疗的 32 例 IDC 患者,并纳入 2013 年 1 月至 2017 年 10 月期间同一脊柱外科中心采用 TESSYS 技术治疗的 25 例患者作为对照。
倾向评分匹配产生了 22 例 Bi-needle 和 22 例 TESSYS 患者。Bi-needle 和 TESSYS 组之间的视觉模拟评分和腰椎日本矫形协会评分没有显著差异。Bi-needle 组的手术时间和并发症发生率明显优于 TESSYS 组(<0.01)。
两种手术方法均取得了良好的临床效果。然而,与 TESSSY 技术相比,Bi-needle 技术的手术时间更短,并发症发生率更低。