Yeung Yip-Kan, Park Cheol-Woong, Jun Su Gi, Park Jung-Hoon, Tse Andy Choi-Yeung
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Caritas Medical Centre, Hong Kong.
Department of Spinal Surgery, Daejeon Woori Hospital, Daejeon, Korea.
Asian Spine J. 2022 Aug;16(4):560-566. doi: 10.31616/asj.2020.0656. Epub 2021 Nov 18.
This was a retrospective longitudinal study of patients operated on consecutively in a single center from May to October 2019.
The aim in biportal interlaminar endoscopic decompression surgery for lumbar stenosis is to compare the clinical and radiological outcome of lateral recess decompression and facet preservation, employing ipsilateral (IL) versus contralateral (CL) approaches.
There is scant literature comparing the radiological outcome of lateral recess decompression and facet preservation via IL versus CL approaches in patients undergoing biportal interlaminar endoscopic decompression surgery.
In this retrospective study, we reviewed 37 IL and 34 CL approaches. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging of the segment involved was carried out on the same day as the operation for comparison with preoperative imaging. Radiological assessments of recess angle, recess height, facet length, and recess dural sac diameters were compared. In addition, pre- and postoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores for the lower limb were analyzed.
For IL versus CL approaches, we observed statistical differences in the postoperative recess angle (36.0° vs. 43.7°), recess height (4.27 vs. 5.06 mm), and the dural sac expansion ratio for recess diameter (1.54 vs. 2.17). There was better preservation of facet length in the CL approach than in the IL approach (91.9% vs. 83.7%). There was no difference in VAS improvement between the groups (69.3% vs. 63.6%).
Unilateral biportal decompression via the CL interlaminar approach may offer better lateral recess clearance and facet preservation than can be achieved via the IL approach. Larger-scale studies are needed for better delineation and for correlation of radiological features with clinical manifestations.
这是一项对2019年5月至10月在单一中心连续接受手术的患者进行的回顾性纵向研究。
双门椎间孔镜下腰椎管狭窄减压手术的目的是比较采用同侧(IL)与对侧(CL)入路进行侧隐窝减压和小关节保留的临床和影像学结果。
在接受双门椎间孔镜下腰椎管狭窄减压手术的患者中,比较通过IL与CL入路进行侧隐窝减压和小关节保留的影像学结果的文献很少。
在这项回顾性研究中,我们回顾了37例IL入路和34例CL入路。在手术当天对受累节段进行术后磁共振成像,以便与术前成像进行比较。比较了侧隐窝角度、侧隐窝高度、小关节长度和侧隐窝硬脊膜囊直径的影像学评估结果。此外,还分析了术前和术后下肢视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分。
对于IL与CL入路,我们观察到术后侧隐窝角度(36.0°对43.7°)、侧隐窝高度(4.27对5.06mm)以及侧隐窝直径的硬脊膜囊扩张率(1.54对2.17)存在统计学差异。CL入路比IL入路更好地保留了小关节长度(91.9%对83.7%)。两组之间VAS改善情况无差异(69.3%对63.6%)。
通过CL椎间孔入路进行单侧双门减压可能比通过IL入路提供更好的侧隐窝清理和小关节保留效果。需要进行更大规模的研究以更好地描述并使影像学特征与临床表现相关联。