Suppr超能文献

[单侧双通道内镜减压与扩大椎板间开窗治疗腰椎侧隐窝狭窄症的疗效比较]

[Efficacy comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and extended interlaminar fenestration for lumbar lateral recess stenosis].

作者信息

Liu J J, Zhu B, Chen L, Jing J H, Tian D S

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedics, the Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230601, China.

出版信息

Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2022 Mar 22;102(11):801-807. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20210929-02192.

Abstract

To analyze and compare the clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic(UBE) decompression and extended interlaminar fenestration for lumbar lateral recess stenosis. A retrospective analysis of 103 patients treated with UBE decompression or extended interlaminar fenestration for lumbar lateral recess stenosis from July 2017 to June 2020 in the Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University was performed. Eighty patients aged 40 to 86 (63.2±9.8) years were included in this study, including 42 males and 38 females. Forty patients received UBE decompression (UBE group) and 40 patients received extended interlaminar fenestration (fenestration group). Operative time, length of incision, hospital stay and complications were recorded. The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of low back pain and leg pain and Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) scores were recorded preoperatively and at 1, 3 and 6 months after the operation and at the final follow-up, and the modified Macnab scale was used to evaluate the clinical efficacy at the final follow-up. Patients in both groups successfully received lumbar lateral recess decompression and were followed up for (12.9±5.4) months in the UBE group and (14.9±3.5) months in the fenestration group, respectively. The operation time in the UBE group was (63.9±11.6) min, it was higher than that in the fenestration group ((54.1±9.2) min, <0.001). The average incision length in the UBE group was (18.2±1.7) mm, it was lower than that in the fenestration group ((73.5±11.6) mm, <0.001). Postoperative hospital stay in the UBE group was (4.1±2.2) d, it was lower than that in the fenestration group ((7.6±3.1) d, <0.001). VAS scores of low back pain were improved after operation in both groups. Low back pain VAS scores of UBE group were lower than those in fenestration group at 1 and 3 months post operation (both <0.05). The VAS scores of lower limb pain were improved after operation in both groups and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups at postoperative 1, 3, 6 months after the operation and at the last follow-up (all >0.05). ODI scores were improved after operation in both groups. ODI scores of UBE group were lower than those in fenestration group at postoperative 1 month and 3 months(both <0.05). Intraoperative dural tear occurred in 2 cases(5.0%) in the UBE group and 1 case(2.5%) in the fenestration group, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (=0.556). According to the modified Macnab scale at the last follow-up, 35 cases were excellent, 3 cases were good, and 2 cases were fair in the UBE group, and 37 cases were excellent, 2 cases were good, and 1 case was fair in the open group. The difference was not statistically significant between the two groups (=0.745). Compared with the extended interlaminar fenestration, UBE technique can not only reduce the early postoperative low back pain, shorten hospital stay, but also achieve the same long-term clinical efficacy with less trauma.

摘要

分析和比较单侧双通道内镜(UBE)减压与扩大椎板间开窗术治疗腰椎侧隐窝狭窄的临床疗效。对2017年7月至2020年6月在安徽医科大学第二附属医院接受UBE减压或扩大椎板间开窗术治疗腰椎侧隐窝狭窄的103例患者进行回顾性分析。本研究纳入80例年龄40至86(63.2±9.8)岁的患者,其中男性42例,女性38例。40例患者接受UBE减压(UBE组),40例患者接受扩大椎板间开窗术(开窗组)。记录手术时间、切口长度、住院时间及并发症。记录术前、术后1个月、3个月、6个月及末次随访时的腰痛和腿痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)以及Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评分,并在末次随访时采用改良Macnab标准评估临床疗效。两组患者均成功接受腰椎侧隐窝减压,UBE组随访(12.9±5.4)个月,开窗组随访(14.9±3.5)个月。UBE组手术时间为(63.9±11.6)分钟,高于开窗组((54.1±9.2)分钟,P<0.001)。UBE组平均切口长度为(18.2±1.7)毫米,低于开窗组((73.5±11.6)毫米,P<0.001)。UBE组术后住院时间为(4.1±2.2)天,低于开窗组((7.6±3.1)天,P<0.001)。两组术后腰痛VAS评分均改善。UBE组术后1个月和3个月的腰痛VAS评分低于开窗组(均P<0.05)。两组术后下肢疼痛VAS评分均改善,术后1个月、3个月、6个月及末次随访时两组间差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。两组术后ODI评分均改善。UBE组术后1个月和3个月的ODI评分低于开窗组(均P<0.05)。UBE组术中硬脊膜撕裂2例(5.0%),开窗组1例(2.5%),两组间差异无统计学意义(P=0.556)。末次随访时,根据改良Macnab标准,UBE组优35例,良3例,可2例;开放组优37例,良2例,可1例。两组间差异无统计学意义(P=0.745)。与扩大椎板间开窗术相比,UBE技术不仅能减轻术后早期腰痛,缩短住院时间,还能以较小的创伤达到相同的长期临床疗效。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验