Suppr超能文献

经皮内镜下腰椎椎间融合术与微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的术后疗效比较

Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

作者信息

Lin Lu, Liu Xiao-Qin, Shi Lei, Cheng Si, Wang Zhi-Qiang, Ge Qi-Jun, Gao Ding-Zhi, Ismail Amadou Cheffou, Ke Zhen-Yong, Chu Lei

机构信息

Department of Spine Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.

出版信息

Front Surg. 2022 Jun 15;9:916087. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.916087. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare postoperative outcomes in surgical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PE-LIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

We reviewed a total of 89 patients undergoing single-level surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis from January 2018 to July 2021. The cases were categorized as PE-LIF (Group PE-LIF, 41 cases) or MIS-TLIF (Group MIS-TLIF, 48 cases) approach. Parameters obtained at baseline through at least six months of follow-up were collected. The surgical outcomes involving the operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative bed staying time, and length of hospital stays were analyzed. PROs included the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), modified MacNab standard evaluation, intervertebral fusion rate, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 89 patients were included in this analysis involving 41 patients who underwent PE-LIF and 48 patients who underwent MIS-TLIF. The 2 groups were similar in gender, age, body mass index, follow-up time and surgery levels ( > 0.05), and were not significantly different in the length of hospital stays ( > 0.05). PE-LIF had a significantly longer operative time, greater fluoroscopy time, lower estimated blood loss and shorter bed rest time than MIS-TLIF. Both groups improved significantly from baseline for the VAS and ODI scores. PE-LIF was associated with a lower VAS score for back pain at three-day after surgery. There were no significant differences between PE-LIF and MIS-TLIF in the excellent or good rates and intervertebral fusion rates at the last follow-up ( > 0.05). As for related complications, there were no significant complications occurred, and no significant differences were seen in the complications between both groups ( > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

To summarize, PE-LIF and MIS-TLIF are both safe and effective for LSS. PE-LIF has a definite short-term curative effect with less trauma.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较经皮内镜下腰椎椎间融合术(PE-LIF)与微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(MIS-TLIF)治疗腰椎管狭窄症(LSS)的手术效果及患者报告结局(PROs)。

方法

我们回顾了2018年1月至2021年7月期间共89例行单节段腰椎管狭窄症手术的患者。这些病例分为PE-LIF组(41例)或MIS-TLIF组(48例)。收集了从基线到至少随访6个月期间获得的参数。分析了手术时间、估计失血量、术后卧床时间和住院时间等手术结局。PROs包括视觉模拟评分(VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)、改良MacNab标准评估、椎间融合率和术后并发症。

结果

本分析共纳入89例患者,其中41例行PE-LIF手术,48例行MIS-TLIF手术。两组在性别、年龄、体重指数、随访时间和手术节段方面相似(>0.05),住院时间也无显著差异(>0.05)。与MIS-TLIF相比,PE-LIF的手术时间明显更长,透视时间更长,估计失血量更低,卧床休息时间更短。两组的VAS和ODI评分均较基线有显著改善。PE-LIF术后三天的背痛VAS评分较低。在最后一次随访时,PE-LIF和MIS-TLIF的优良率和椎间融合率无显著差异(>0.05)。至于相关并发症,未发生显著并发症,两组之间的并发症也无显著差异(>0.05)。

结论

综上所述,PE-LIF和MIS-TLIF治疗LSS均安全有效。PE-LIF具有明确的短期疗效,创伤较小。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6aae/9240389/3b9998bdb503/fsurg-09-916087-g001.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

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验