Wang Dongping, Yang Jiamin, Liu Chang, Lin Wei, Chen Yuxian, Lei Shenglin, Cheng Pinying, Huang Yilin, Gu Shuling, Lin Yuewei, Guo Huizhi, Mai Bing, Zhang Zheng, Li Yongxian, Zhang Shuncong, Tang Yongchao
The First Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
The Shenzhen Clinical College of Medicine of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Sci Rep. 2025 Mar 17;15(1):9098. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-91964-3.
This study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical effectiveness of two surgical techniques-unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) discectomy and percutaneous interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD)-in addressing high-grade down-migrated lumbar disc herniation (HDM-LDH). A retrospective analysis was conducted on 39 patients with HDM-LDH who underwent surgical treatment between January 2020 and February 2023. This cohort included 18 patients in the UBE group and 21 patients in the IELD group. The two endoscopic techniques were compared based on operative time, intraoperative blood loss, hemoglobin decrease, C-reactive protein levels, and length of hospital stay. Efficacy was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria. The IELD group exhibited a shorter operative duration and reduced length of hospital stay, as well as diminished intraoperative blood loss compared to the UBE group (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed in the reduction of hemoglobin levels or the increase in C-reactive protein between the two groups (P > 0.05). Postoperatively, both groups experienced significant decreases in VAS scores and ODI scores relative to preoperative values. One day post-surgery, the VAS score for low back pain was higher in the UBE group than in the IELD group, with the difference being statistically significant (P < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found in the VAS scores for lower limb pain at any time point, nor in the ODI scores one day, one month, and three months post-surgery (P > 0.05). At the final follow-up, patient satisfaction rates were 94.44% in the UBE group and 95.24% in the IELD group, with no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). One patient in the IELD group developed neurological symptoms following surgery. Both UBE and IELD demonstrate significant clinical efficacy in the treatment of HDM-LDH. The IELD technique is characterized by its minimally invasive nature, whereas UBE offers greater flexibility and a notably enhanced decompression effect. Clinicians are advised to select the appropriate technique based on individual patient conditions and specific clinical scenarios.
本研究旨在评估和比较两种手术技术——单侧双通道内镜(UBE)椎间盘切除术和经皮椎间孔镜下腰椎间盘切除术(IELD)——治疗高度下移型腰椎间盘突出症(HDM-LDH)的临床疗效。对2020年1月至2023年2月期间接受手术治疗的39例HDM-LDH患者进行回顾性分析。该队列包括UBE组的18例患者和IELD组的21例患者。基于手术时间、术中失血量、血红蛋白降低情况、C反应蛋白水平和住院时间对两种内镜技术进行比较。使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)和改良MacNab标准评估疗效。与UBE组相比,IELD组的手术时间更短,住院时间缩短,术中失血量减少(P < 0.05)。两组之间血红蛋白水平降低或C反应蛋白升高方面未观察到统计学显著差异(P > 0.05)。术后,两组的VAS评分和ODI评分相对于术前值均显著降低。术后一天,UBE组下腰痛的VAS评分高于IELD组,差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。然而,在任何时间点下肢疼痛的VAS评分以及术后一天、一个月和三个月的ODI评分均未发现显著差异(P > 0.05)。在最终随访时,UBE组的患者满意度为94.44%,IELD组为95.24%,无统计学显著差异(P > 0.05)。IELD组有一名患者术后出现神经症状。UBE和IELD在治疗HDM-LDH方面均显示出显著的临床疗效。IELD技术的特点是微创,而UBE具有更大灵活性和明显增强的减压效果。建议临床医生根据患者个体情况和具体临床场景选择合适的技术。