Suppr超能文献

双门内镜减压术、传统次全椎板切除术和微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎中央管狭窄症的比较结果

Comparative Outcomes of Biportal Endoscopic Decompression, Conventional Subtotal Laminectomy, and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Central Stenosis.

作者信息

Lee Mu Ha, Jang Hyun Jun, Moon Bong Ju, Kim Kyung Hyun, Chin Dong Kyu, Kim Keun Su, Park Jeong-Yoon

机构信息

Department of Neurosurgery, Spine and Spinal Cord Institute, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

Neurospine. 2024 Dec;21(4):1178-1189. doi: 10.14245/ns.2448830.415. Epub 2024 Dec 31.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Spinal stenosis is a prevalent condition; however, the optimal surgical treatment for central lumbar stenosis remains controversial. This study compared the clinical outcomes and radiological parameters of 3 surgical.

METHODS

unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression with unilateral biportal endoscopy (ULBD-UBE), conventional subtotal laminectomy (STL), and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).

METHODS

This retrospective study included 86 patients, divided into ULBD-UBE (n=34), STL (n=24), and MIS-TLIF (n=28) groups. We evaluated demographics and perioperative factors and assessed clinical outcomes using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC). Radiological parameters assessed included lumbar lordosis, L4S1 Cobb angle (L4S1), T12S1 Cobb angle (T12S1), increased cross-sectional dural area (CSA), dynamic angulation (DA), dynamic slip (DS), and development of postoperative instability.

RESULTS

The ULBD-UBE group showed a significantly shorter hospital stay duration and operation time and reduced blood loss than the other groups (p<0.001). ULBD-UBE group showed a trend towards greater VAS and ODI improvement at 1 month and postoperative NIC symptom relief. Radiologically, MIS-TLIF group exhibited lower postoperative DA and DS (p<0.001), indicating higher postoperative stability. Postoperative instability was lower in the ULBD-UBE group (2.9%) than in the STL group (16.7%) and similar to the MIS-TLIF group (0.0%) (p=0.028). The CSA was highest in the MIS-TLIF group (295.5%) compared to that in the other groups (ULBD-UBE, 216.3%; STL, 245.2%) (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Compared to other procedures, ULBD-UBE is a safe, effective, and viable surgical procedure for treating lumbar central stenosis.

摘要

目的

椎管狭窄是一种常见病症;然而,腰椎中央管狭窄的最佳手术治疗方法仍存在争议。本研究比较了三种手术的临床疗效和影像学参数。

方法

单侧椎板切除术联合单侧双通道内镜双侧减压术(ULBD-UBE)、传统次全椎板切除术(STL)和微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(MIS-TLIF)。

方法

本回顾性研究纳入86例患者,分为ULBD-UBE组(n=34)、STL组(n=24)和MIS-TLIF组(n=28)。我们评估了人口统计学和围手术期因素,并使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)和神经源性间歇性跛行(NIC)评估临床疗效。评估的影像学参数包括腰椎前凸、L4S1 Cobb角(L4S1)、T12S1 Cobb角(T12S1)、硬脊膜截面积增加(CSA)、动态成角(DA)、动态滑脱(DS)以及术后不稳定的发生情况。

结果

ULBD-UBE组的住院时间和手术时间明显短于其他组,且失血量减少(p<0.001)。ULBD-UBE组在术后1个月时VAS和ODI改善程度有更大的趋势,且术后NIC症状缓解。在影像学方面,MIS-TLIF组术后DA和DS较低(p<0.001),表明术后稳定性更高。ULBD-UBE组的术后不稳定发生率(2.9%)低于STL组(16.7%),与MIS-TLIF组(0.0%)相似(p=0.028)。MIS-TLIF组的CSA最高(295.5%),高于其他组(ULBD-UBE组为216.3%;STL组为245.2%)(p<0.001)。

结论

与其他手术方法相比,ULBD-UBE是治疗腰椎中央管狭窄的一种安全有效且可行的手术方法。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/877e/11744548/46bdc5f2cd25/ns-2448830-415f1.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