Farshad Mazda, Hagel Vincent, Spirig José M, Fasser Marie-Rosa, Widmer Jonas, Burkhard Marco D, Calek Anna-Katharina
Department of Orthopedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
University Spine Center Zurich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022 Dec 15;47(24):1753-1760. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004471. Epub 2022 Sep 7.
Biomechanical cadaveric study.
The aim of this study was to compare the effect of transforaminal endoscopic approaches with open decompression procedures.
Clinical studies have repeatedly highlighted the benefits of endoscopic decompression, however, the biomechanical effects of endoscopic approaches (with and without injury to the disk) have not been studied up to now.
Twelve spinal segments originating from four fresh-frozen cadavers were biomechanically tested in a load-controlled endoscopic transforaminal approach study. Segmental range of motion (ROM) after endoscopic approach was compared with segmental ROM after (1) microsurgical decompression with unilateral laminotomy and (2) midline decompression with bilateral laminotomy. In the intact state and after decompression, the segments were loaded in flexion-extension (FE), lateral shear (LS), lateral bending (LB), anterior shear (AS), and axial rotation (AR).
Vertebral segment ROM was comparable between the two endoscopic transforaminal approaches. However, there was a-statistically nonsignificant-trend for a larger ROM after accessing via the inside-out technique: FE: +3% versus +7%, P =0.484; LS: +1% versus +12%, P =0.18; LB: +0.6% versus +9%, P =0.18; AS: +2% versus +11%, P =0.31; AR: -4% versus +5%, P =0.18. No significant difference in vertebral segment ROM was seen between the transforaminal endoscopic approaches and open unilateral decompression. Vertebral segment ROM was significantly smaller with the transforaminal endoscopic approaches compared with midline decompression for almost all loading scenarios: FE: +4% versus +17%, P =0.005; AS: +6% versus 21%, P =0.007; AR: 0% versus +24%, P =0.002.
The transforaminal endoscopic intracanal technique preserves the native ROM of lumbar vertebral segments and shows a trend toward relative biomechanical superiority over the inside-out technique and open decompression procedures.
尸体生物力学研究。
本研究旨在比较经椎间孔内镜手术与开放减压手术的效果。
临床研究反复强调了内镜减压的益处,然而,内镜手术(无论是否损伤椎间盘)的生物力学效应至今尚未得到研究。
在一项负荷控制的经椎间孔内镜手术研究中,对取自4具新鲜冷冻尸体的12个脊柱节段进行生物力学测试。将内镜手术后节段活动度(ROM)与以下两种情况后的节段ROM进行比较:(1)单侧椎板切开显微减压术;(2)双侧椎板切开中线减压术。在完整状态及减压后,对节段施加屈伸(FE)、侧方剪切(LS)、侧方弯曲(LB)、前方剪切(AS)和轴向旋转(AR)负荷。
两种经椎间孔内镜手术方式之间的椎体节段ROM相当。然而,采用由内向外技术进入后ROM有增大的趋势,但无统计学意义:FE:+3% 对 +7%,P = 0.484;LS:+1% 对 +12%,P = 0.18;LB:+0.6% 对 +9%,P = 0.18;AS:+2% 对 +11%,P = 0.31;AR:-4% 对 +5%,P = 0.18。经椎间孔内镜手术与开放单侧减压术之间的椎体节段ROM未见显著差异。在几乎所有负荷情况下,与中线减压术相比,经椎间孔内镜手术的椎体节段ROM均显著更小:FE:+4% 对 +17%,P = 0.005;AS:+6% 对 21%,P = 0.007;AR:0% 对 +24%