Liu Changzhen, Huang Weiguo, Li Jizheng, Geng Xiaopeng, Dou Yongfeng, Cao Shuai, Hou Dongpo, Zhu Tengyue, Sun Zhaozhong
Department of Spine Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Binzhou Medical College, Binzhou Shandong, 256603, P. R. China.
Department of Orthopedics, Civil Aviation General Hospital, Peking University Affiliated School of Civil Aviation Clinical Medicine, Beijing, 100123, P. R. China.
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2023 Aug 15;37(8):989-995. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.202304098.
To compare the effectiveness of posterolateral approach lumbar interbody fusion assisted by one-hole split endoscope (OSE) and traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of L degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).
The clinical data of 58 patients with DLS who met the selection criteria admitted between February 2020 and March 2022 were retrospectively analyzed, of which 26 were treated with OSE-assisted posterolateral approach lumbar interbody fusion (OSE group) and 32 were treated with PLIF (PLIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of gender, age, body mass index, Meyerding grade, lower limb symptom side, decompression side, stenosis type, and preoperative low back pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score, leg pain VAS score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the height of the anterior and posterior margins of the intervertebral space (>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and complications were compared between the two groups. The low back pain and leg pain VAS scores and ODI before operation, at 1 month, 6 months after operation, and last follow-up, the height of anterior and posterior margins of the intervertebral space before operation, at 6 months after operation, and last follow-up, the modified MacNab criteria at last follow-up after operation were used to evaluate the effectiveness; and the Bridwell method at last follow-up was used to evaluate the interbody fusion.
Both groups successfully completed the operation. Compared with the PLIF group, the OSE group showed a decrease in intraoperative blood loss and postoperative hospital stay, but an increase in operation time, with significant differences (<0.05). In the OSE group, no complication such as nerve root injury and thecal sac tear occurred; in the PLIF group, there were 1 case of thecal sac tear and 1 case of epidural hematoma, which were cured after conservative management. Both groups of patients were followed up 13-20 months with an average of 15.5 months. There was no complication such as loosening, sinking, or displacement of the fusion cage. The low back pain and leg pain VAS scores, ODI, and the height of anterior and posterior margins of the intervertebral space at each time point after operation in both groups were significantly improved when compared with those before operation (<0.05). Except for the VAS score of lower back pain in the OSE group being significantly better than that in the PLIF group at 1 month after operation (<0.05), there was no significant difference in all indicators between the two groups at all other time points (>0.05). At last follow-up, both groups achieved bone fusion, and there was no significant difference in Bridwell interbody fusion and modified MacNab standard evaluation between the two groups (>0.05).
OSE-assisted posterolateral approach lumbar interbody fusion for L DLS, although the operation time is relatively long, but the postoperative hospitalization stay is short, the complications are few, the operation is safe and effective, and the early effectiveness is satisfactory.
比较单孔分体式内镜(OSE)辅助下后外侧入路腰椎椎间融合术与传统后路腰椎椎间融合术(PLIF)治疗L型退行性腰椎滑脱症(DLS)的疗效。
回顾性分析2020年2月至2022年3月收治的58例符合入选标准的DLS患者的临床资料,其中26例行OSE辅助下后外侧入路腰椎椎间融合术(OSE组),32例行PLIF(PLIF组)。两组在性别、年龄、体重指数、Meyerding分级、下肢症状侧、减压侧、狭窄类型以及术前腰痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、腿痛VAS评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)和椎间隙前缘及后缘高度方面差异均无统计学意义(>0.05)。比较两组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间及并发症情况。采用术前、术后1个月、6个月及末次随访时的腰痛和腿痛VAS评分、ODI,术前、术后6个月及末次随访时的椎间隙前缘及后缘高度,术后末次随访时的改良MacNab标准评估疗效;采用术后末次随访时的Bridwell法评估椎间融合情况。
两组均成功完成手术。与PLIF组相比,OSE组术中出血量及术后住院时间减少,但手术时间延长,差异有统计学意义(<0.05)。OSE组未发生神经根损伤、硬脊膜撕裂等并发症;PLIF组发生1例硬脊膜撕裂和1例硬膜外血肿,经保守治疗治愈。两组患者均随访13 - 20个月,平均15.5个月。融合器无松动、下沉或移位等并发症。两组术后各时间点的腰痛和腿痛VAS评分、ODI及椎间隙前缘及后缘高度与术前比较均显著改善(<0.05)。除术后1个月时OSE组腰痛VAS评分显著优于PLIF组外(<0.05),两组其他各时间点所有指标差异均无统计学意义(>0.05)。末次随访时,两组均达到骨融合,两组在Bridwell椎间融合及改良MacNab标准评估方面差异无统计学意义(>0.05)。
OSE辅助下后外侧入路腰椎椎间融合术治疗L型DLS,虽手术时间相对较长,但术后住院时间短,并发症少,手术安全有效,早期疗效满意。