微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术与开放经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术治疗单节段腰椎管狭窄症的心理和功能比较。

Psychological and Functional Comparison between Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

机构信息

Department of Spine Surgery, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.

Shanghai East Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Shanghai, China.

出版信息

Orthop Surg. 2021 Jun;13(4):1213-1226. doi: 10.1111/os.12986. Epub 2021 May 4.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate whether treatment with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) causes patients suffering from lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) to experience less anxiety and better clinical efficacy than open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed 86 patients, including 46 male patients and 41 female patients, who suffered from single-segmental lumbar spinal stenosis in our department between January 2016 and January 2018. They were divided into two groups: a control group (n = 46), for patients who underwent open TLIF surgery, and an experimental group (n = 40), for patients who underwent Mis-TLIF surgery. All patients were evaluated based on operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), hospital anxiety depression scale (HADS), fusion rate, and complications (screw misplacement and loosening, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, infection, and delayed wound healing). Patient characteristics were compared within and between groups.

RESULTS

The average incision length was 3.64 ± 0.476 cm in the experimental group, which was smaller than that (8.11 ± 2.406 cm) in the control group (P < 0.05). The operation time of the experimental group was a little longer than that of the control group. The intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay in the experimental group were less than those in the control group. The mean preoperative low back pain VAS score was 7.525 ± 1.432 in the experimental group and 7.087 ± 1.799 in the control group (P > 0.05). The low back pain VAS scores on postoperative day 3 and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively were 5.000 ± 0.987, 4.075 ± 0.997, 2.150 ± 0.834, and 1.450 ± 0.639 in the experimental group, respectively; these scores were lower than those in the control group (6.870 ± 1.572, P < 0.05; 4.630 ± 1.103, P < 0.05; 2.630 ± 1.103, P < 0.05; and 2.326 ± 1.034, P < 0.05, respectively). There was no obvious difference in the leg pain VAS scores between the two groups at all follow-up points. The mean preoperative ODI score was 58.700% ± 19.703% in the experimental group and 61.696% ± 17.583% in the control group (P > 0.05). The ODI scores at postoperative months 3, 6, and 12 were 25.225% ± 5.554%, 20.150% ± 7.698%, and 16.125% ± 9.565% in the experimental group; these scores were lower than those in the control group (49.130% ± 14.805%, P < 0.05; 34.044% ± 15.148%, P < 0.05; and 29.282% ± 132.567%, P < 0.05, respectively). The mean preoperative HADS score was 14.475 ± 3.113 in the experimental group and 13.391 ± 2.824 in the control group (P > 0.05). However, the mean HADS scores on postoperative day 3 in the experimental group was 8.500 ± 2.000, decreasing obviously compared to the preoperative scores (P < 0.05). The mean postoperative HADS score on postoperative day 3 in the control group was 12.734 ± 1.949, which had not decreased significantly compared to the preoperative score (P > 0.05). The HADS scores in the experimental group was lower than that in the control group on postoperative day 3 (P < 0.05). In the correlation analysis, the incision length was correlated to the HADS scores on postoperative day 3 (r = 0.527, P < 0.05). The HADS scores on postoperative day 3 were positively correlated with the low back pain VAS scores on the same day (r = 0.388, P < 0.05). The HADS scores on postoperative day 3were positively correlated with the ODI scores at 3-month (r = 0.460, P < 0.05), 6-month (r = 0.429, P < 0.05), and 12-month follow up (r = 0.349, P < 0.05). Fusion rates were not significantly different between the two groups. There was no screw misplacement and loosening, infection, or delayed wound healing in either group. The cerebrospinal fluid leakage rate in the control group was higher than that in the experimental group.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing Mis-TLIF experience less anxiety and have better outcomes than those who undergo open TLIF. The lower level of anxiety experienced by patients undergoing Mis-TLIF is positively correlated with postoperative VAS and ODI scores.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在探讨微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术(Mis-TLIF)治疗腰椎管狭窄症(LSS)患者是否比开放经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术(TLIF)更能减轻患者的焦虑,改善临床疗效。

方法

本回顾性队列研究分析了 2016 年 1 月至 2018 年 1 月期间我科收治的 86 例单节段腰椎管狭窄症患者,其中男 46 例,女 41 例。将患者分为两组:对照组(n=46),行开放 TLIF 手术;实验组(n=40),行 Mis-TLIF 手术。所有患者均根据手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、Oswestry 功能障碍指数(ODI)评分、医院焦虑抑郁量表(HADS)评分、融合率和并发症(螺钉移位和松动、脑脊液漏、感染和伤口愈合延迟)进行评估。比较组内和组间患者的特征。

结果

实验组的平均切口长度为 3.64±0.476cm,小于对照组的 8.11±2.406cm(P<0.05)。实验组的手术时间稍长于对照组。实验组术中出血量和住院时间少于对照组。实验组术前腰痛 VAS 评分平均为 7.525±1.432,对照组为 7.087±1.799(P>0.05)。术后 3d、3 个月、6 个月和 12 个月,实验组腰痛 VAS 评分分别为 5.000±0.987、4.075±0.997、2.150±0.834 和 1.450±0.639,均低于对照组(6.870±1.572,P<0.05;4.630±1.103,P<0.05;2.630±1.103,P<0.05;2.326±1.034,P<0.05)。两组各随访点腿痛 VAS 评分无明显差异。实验组术前 ODI 评分平均为 58.700%±19.703%,对照组为 61.696%±17.583%(P>0.05)。术后 3、6 和 12 个月,实验组 ODI 评分分别为 25.225%±5.554%、20.150%±7.698%和 16.125%±9.565%,均低于对照组(49.130%±14.805%,P<0.05;34.044%±15.148%,P<0.05;29.282%±132.567%,P<0.05)。实验组术前 HADS 评分平均为 14.475±3.113,对照组为 13.391±2.824(P>0.05)。然而,实验组术后 3d 的 HADS 评分平均为 8.500±2.000,明显低于术前评分(P<0.05)。对照组术后 3d 的 HADS 评分平均为 12.734±1.949,与术前评分相比无明显下降(P>0.05)。实验组术后 3d 的 HADS 评分低于对照组(P<0.05)。在相关性分析中,切口长度与术后 3d 的 HADS 评分呈正相关(r=0.527,P<0.05)。术后 3d 的 HADS 评分与当天腰痛 VAS 评分呈正相关(r=0.388,P<0.05)。术后 3 个月(r=0.460,P<0.05)、6 个月(r=0.429,P<0.05)和 12 个月随访(r=0.349,P<0.05)的 HADS 评分与 ODI 评分呈正相关。两组的融合率无显著差异。两组均无螺钉移位和松动、感染或伤口愈合延迟。对照组脑脊液漏发生率高于实验组。

结论

行 Mis-TLIF 的患者焦虑程度低于行开放 TLIF 的患者,术后 VAS 和 ODI 评分越高。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f04b/8274193/cde8ee83ba6c/OS-13-1213-g009.jpg

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