• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

经皮内镜下腰椎间盘切除术与开放性腰椎显微椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症:采用生存分析

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy versus open lumbar microdiscectomy for treating lumbar disc herniation: Using the survival analysis.

作者信息

Lin Chang-Hao, Huang Yi-Hung, Lien Fang-Chieh, Wu Cheng-Yi, Chao Lin-Yu

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedics, Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chia-Yi Christian Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan.

出版信息

Tzu Chi Med J. 2023 Feb 13;35(3):237-241. doi: 10.4103/tcmj.tcmj_262_22. eCollection 2023 Jul-Sep.

DOI:10.4103/tcmj.tcmj_262_22
PMID:37545800
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10399846/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the risk of symptomatic recurrent disc herniation and clinical outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) versus open lumbar microdiscectomy (OLM) for lumbar disc herniation with 2 years of follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed 23 patients who underwent PELD and 32 patients who underwent OLM for lumbar disc herniation. The numeric rating scale of back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) were assessed before and at 12 and 24 months after the surgery. The wound pain and complications were also recorded. Survival analysis was performed to estimate the risk of symptomatic recurrent disc herniation.

RESULTS

In the comparison of groups, the reductions in back and leg pain, ODI, and RMDQ were not significantly different at 12 and 24 months. For patients who underwent PELD, the wound pain was significant lower at the day of surgery. The survival rate of patients who were free from symptomatic recurrent disc herniation at 24 months was 0.913 in PELD and 0.875 in OLM, and the log-rank test revealed no significant difference between the two survival curves. The incidence of complication was not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSION

Both PELD and OLM are effective treatments for lumbar disc herniation because they have similar clinical outcomes. PELD provided patients with less painful wounds. The survival analysis revealed that the risk of symptomatic recurrent disc herniation in 2 years of follow-up was not different between PELD and OLM.

摘要

目的

本研究比较了经皮内镜下腰椎间盘切除术(PELD)与开放式腰椎显微椎间盘切除术(OLM)治疗腰椎间盘突出症并随访2年的症状性复发性椎间盘突出风险及临床结果。

材料与方法

我们分析了23例行PELD的患者和32例行OLM的腰椎间盘突出症患者。在手术前以及术后12个月和24个月评估背痛和腿痛的数字评分量表、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)和罗兰-莫里斯功能障碍问卷(RMDQ)。还记录了伤口疼痛和并发症情况。进行生存分析以估计症状性复发性椎间盘突出的风险。

结果

在组间比较中,12个月和24个月时背痛、腿痛、ODI和RMDQ的降低无显著差异。对于接受PELD的患者,手术当天的伤口疼痛明显较轻。24个月时无症状性复发性椎间盘突出患者的生存率在PELD组为0.913,在OLM组为0.875,对数秩检验显示两条生存曲线之间无显著差异。组间并发症发生率无显著差异。

结论

PELD和OLM都是治疗腰椎间盘突出症的有效方法,因为它们具有相似的临床结果。PELD给患者带来的伤口疼痛较轻。生存分析显示,在2年的随访中,PELD和OLM的症状性复发性椎间盘突出风险没有差异。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cab3/10399846/1cb152d238c8/TCMJ-35-237-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cab3/10399846/6a3d45edc82e/TCMJ-35-237-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cab3/10399846/1cb152d238c8/TCMJ-35-237-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cab3/10399846/6a3d45edc82e/TCMJ-35-237-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cab3/10399846/1cb152d238c8/TCMJ-35-237-g002.jpg

相似文献

1
Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy versus open lumbar microdiscectomy for treating lumbar disc herniation: Using the survival analysis.经皮内镜下腰椎间盘切除术与开放性腰椎显微椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症:采用生存分析
Tzu Chi Med J. 2023 Feb 13;35(3):237-241. doi: 10.4103/tcmj.tcmj_262_22. eCollection 2023 Jul-Sep.
2
Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar microdiscectomy for recurrent disc herniation.经皮内镜下腰椎间盘切除术与开放式腰椎显微椎间盘切除术治疗复发性椎间盘突出症的比较。
J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2009 Dec;46(6):515-21. doi: 10.3340/jkns.2009.46.6.515. Epub 2009 Dec 31.
3
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy as an Alternative to Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy for Large Lumbar Disc Herniation.经皮内镜下腰椎间盘切除术作为大型腰椎间盘突出症开放腰椎显微椎间盘切除术的替代方法
Pain Physician. 2016 Feb;19(2):E291-300.
4
A matched comparison of outcomes between percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar microdiscectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a 2-year retrospective cohort study.经皮内镜腰椎间盘切除术与开放腰椎显微切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效比较:一项 2 年回顾性队列研究。
Spine J. 2021 Jan;21(1):114-121. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2020.07.005. Epub 2020 Jul 16.
5
Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy, microendoscopic discectomy, and microdiscectomy for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation: minimum 2-year follow-up results.经皮内镜下经椎间孔椎间盘切除术、显微内镜下椎间盘切除术和显微椎间盘切除术治疗症状性腰椎间盘突出症的比较:至少2年的随访结果
J Neurosurg Spine. 2018 Mar;28(3):317-325. doi: 10.3171/2017.6.SPINE172. Epub 2018 Jan 5.
6
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy via Transforaminal Approach Combined with Interlaminar Approach for L4/5 and L5/S1 Two-Level Disc Herniation.经皮椎间孔镜下腰椎间盘切除术联合经椎间孔入路与经椎板间入路治疗 L4/5 和 L5/S1 双节段椎间盘突出症
Orthop Surg. 2021 May;13(3):979-988. doi: 10.1111/os.12862. Epub 2021 Apr 5.
7
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Versus Posterior Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy for the Treatment of Symptomatic Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis.经皮内窥镜腰椎间盘切除术与后路开放式腰椎显微椎间盘切除术治疗有症状的腰椎间盘突出症:一项系统评价和荟萃分析
World Neurosurg. 2018 Dec;120:352-362. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.08.236. Epub 2018 Sep 8.
8
[Comparative analysis of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy, and fenestration discectomy in treatment of lumbar disc herniation].[单侧双通道内镜下椎间盘切除术、经皮内镜下腰椎间盘切除术和开窗椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的比较分析]
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2022 Oct 15;36(10):1200-1206. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.202205129.
9
Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study.单侧双通道内镜下椎间盘切除术与经皮内窥镜下腰椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的回顾性研究。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2022 Jan 15;17(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5.
10
Comparative Study of the Outcomes of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy and Microscopic Lumbar Discectomy Using the Tubular Retractor System Based on the VAS, ODI, and SF-36.基于视觉模拟评分法(VAS)、腰椎功能障碍指数(ODI)和36项简短健康调查(SF-36)对经皮内镜下腰椎间盘切除术与使用管状牵开器系统的显微镜下腰椎间盘切除术的疗效比较研究
Korean J Spine. 2012 Sep;9(3):215-22. doi: 10.14245/kjs.2012.9.3.215. Epub 2012 Sep 30.

引用本文的文献

1
[Short-term effectiveness of uni-portal non-coaxial spinal endoscopic surgery via crossing midline approach in treatment of free lumbar disc herniation].经中线交叉入路单通道非同轴脊柱内镜手术治疗游离型腰椎间盘突出症的短期疗效
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2025 Jan 15;39(1):83-87. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.202409030.
2
Surgical Strategy for Lumbar Disc Herniation based on the MSU Classification: Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A 5-year Retrospective Study.基于密歇根州立大学(MSU)分类的腰椎间盘突出症手术策略:经皮内镜下腰椎间盘切除术与经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术的比较:一项5年回顾性研究
Orthop Surg. 2024 Aug;16(8):1963-1973. doi: 10.1111/os.14145. Epub 2024 Jul 3.

本文引用的文献

1
Transforaminal Versus Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.经椎间孔与椎板间内镜下腰椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症:一项系统评价与Meta分析
Global Spine J. 2023 Mar;13(2):575-587. doi: 10.1177/21925682221120530. Epub 2022 Aug 21.
2
Meaningful outcome research to validate endoscopic treatment of common lumbar pain generators with durability analysis.开展有意义的结局研究,通过耐久性分析来验证常见腰椎疼痛根源的内镜治疗效果。
J Spine Surg. 2020 Jan;6(Suppl 1):S6-S13. doi: 10.21037/jss.2019.09.07.
3
The Long-term Reoperation Rate Following Surgery for Lumbar Herniated Intervertebral Disc Disease: A Nationwide Sample Cohort Study With a 10-year Follow-up.
腰椎间盘突出症手术治疗后的长期再手术率:一项全国性样本队列研究,随访 10 年。
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019 Oct 1;44(19):1382-1389. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003065.
4
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Versus Posterior Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy for the Treatment of Symptomatic Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis.经皮内窥镜腰椎间盘切除术与后路开放式腰椎显微椎间盘切除术治疗有症状的腰椎间盘突出症:一项系统评价和荟萃分析
World Neurosurg. 2018 Dec;120:352-362. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.08.236. Epub 2018 Sep 8.
5
A Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy and Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation in the Korean: A Meta-Analysis.经皮内镜腰椎间盘切除术与开放式腰椎显微切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的比较:一项荟萃分析。
Biomed Res Int. 2018 Aug 7;2018:9073460. doi: 10.1155/2018/9073460. eCollection 2018.
6
Transforaminal endoscopic discectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for lumbar discherniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.经皮椎间孔镜下椎间盘切除术与传统显微镜下椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的系统评价和 Meta 分析。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2018 Jul 5;13(1):169. doi: 10.1186/s13018-018-0868-0.
7
Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Diskectomy and Open Lumbar Microdiskectomy for Recurrent Lumbar Disk Herniation.经皮内窥镜腰椎间盘切除术与开放式腰椎显微椎间盘切除术治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症的比较。
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2018 Nov;79(6):447-452. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1608870. Epub 2017 Dec 14.
8
A randomised controlled trial of transforaminal endoscopic discectomy vs microdiscectomy.经椎间孔内镜下椎间盘切除术与显微椎间盘切除术的随机对照试验
Eur Spine J. 2017 Mar;26(3):847-856. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4885-6. Epub 2016 Nov 24.
9
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy as an Alternative to Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy for Large Lumbar Disc Herniation.经皮内镜下腰椎间盘切除术作为大型腰椎间盘突出症开放腰椎显微椎间盘切除术的替代方法
Pain Physician. 2016 Feb;19(2):E291-300.
10
Outcomes of Microendoscopic Discectomy and Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Comparative Retrospective Study.显微内镜下椎间盘切除术与经皮椎间孔内镜下椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效:一项回顾性比较研究
Asian Spine J. 2015 Dec;9(6):833-40. doi: 10.4184/asj.2015.9.6.833. Epub 2015 Dec 8.