双侧减压单侧入路内镜下腰椎间孔切开术与单通道内镜下腰椎间孔切开术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的比较。

Comparison of biportal endoscopic technique and uniportal endoscopic technique in Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decomprssion (ULBD) for lumbar spinal stenosis.

机构信息

Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu, 212001, China.

Department of Spine Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu, 212001, China.

出版信息

Asian J Surg. 2024 Jan;47(1):112-117. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2023.05.068. Epub 2023 Jun 17.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) has been adopted widely to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). The objective of the study is to investigate clinical and radiological outcomes of the biportal endoscopic ULBD (BE-ULBD) and uniportal endoscopic ULBD (UE-ULBD).

METHODS

We collected retrospectively 65 patients' data who met the inclusion criteria (July 2019-June 2021). 33 patients underwent BE-ULBD surgery, and 32 patients underwent the UE-ULBD surgery, and were followed up for at least 1 year. The following preoperative and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups: the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) for nerve function, and modified Macnab criteria for satisfaction, the cross-sectional area of the dural sac (DSCSA), the mean angle of facetectomy.

RESULTS

Age, BMI, gender, levels of involvement and duration of symptoms were not significantly different at baseline in this study. Clinical data showed that postoperative ODI, VAS scores and Modified Macnab Criteria were not statistically different between the two groups. The BE-ULBD group had a shorter operation time than the UE-ULBD group (P < 0.001). Patients in the BE-ULBD group had a larger postoperative expansion of DSCSA expansion postoperatively (85.58 ± 3.16 mm VS 71.43 ± 3.35 mm, P < 0.001) and a larger contralateral facetectomy angle (63.95 ± 3.34° vs 57.80 ± 3.43°, P < 0.001) compared with patients in the UE-ULBD group. There were no statistical differences in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Both the BE-ULBD and the UE-ULBD yielded clinical improvement in terms of pain and stenosis symptoms. The BE-ULBD technique has the advantages of the shorter operation time, larger DSCSA expansion and larger contralateral facetectomy angle.

摘要

目的

单侧椎板切开双侧减压术(ULBD)已广泛应用于治疗腰椎管狭窄症(LSS)。本研究旨在探讨双入路内窥镜 ULBD(BE-ULBD)和单入路内窥镜 ULBD(UE-ULBD)的临床和影像学结果。

方法

我们回顾性收集了符合纳入标准的 65 例患者数据(2019 年 7 月至 2021 年 6 月)。33 例患者行 BE-ULBD 手术,32 例行 UE-ULBD 手术,随访至少 1 年。比较两组患者术前及术后的视觉模拟评分(VAS)疼痛、Oswestry 功能障碍指数(ODI)神经功能、改良 Macnab 标准满意度、硬脊膜横截面积(DSCSA)、小关节切除角度的变化。

结果

本研究两组患者在年龄、BMI、性别、受累水平和症状持续时间方面无统计学差异。临床资料显示,两组术后 ODI、VAS 评分和改良 Macnab 标准无统计学差异。BE-ULBD 组手术时间短于 UE-ULBD 组(P<0.001)。BE-ULBD 组术后 DSCSA 扩张较大(85.58±3.16mm VS 71.43±3.35mm,P<0.001),对侧小关节切除角度较大(63.95±3.34° VS 57.80±3.43°,P<0.001)。两组术后并发症发生率无统计学差异。

结论

BE-ULBD 和 UE-ULBD 均能改善疼痛和狭窄症状。BE-ULBD 技术具有手术时间短、DSCSA 扩张大、对侧小关节切除角度大的优点。

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