Park Sub-Ri, Kim Namhoo, Kwon Ji-Won, Suk Kyung-Soo, Moon Seong-Hwan, Park Si-Young, Lee Byung Ho, Kim Hak-Sun, Park Jin-Oh
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Spine and Spinal Cord Institute, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Int J Spine Surg. 2025 May 12;19(2):131-138. doi: 10.14444/8734.
Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) for the treatment of spinal stenosis provided favorable clinical outcomes in many studies. They reported that interlaminar BESS decompression achieved favorable effects in patients with central spinal stenosis. However, many patients still experienced radiating pain even after conventional interlaminar BESS decompression. Therefore, a more reliable BESS decompression method for traversing root and lateral recess areas is necessary. Hence, we investigated a method to better decompress both lateral recess areas while preserving both facet joints as much as possible with bilateral radiculopathy.
We retrospectively analyzed the data of 48 patients undergoing interlaminar BESS decompression; 24 patients underwent decompression using the conventional BESS technique (group A), and the other 24 patients underwent a both facet joint preserving BESS technique (group B). The following steps are the characteristics of a better decompression technique: using a 30° endoscope at ipsilateral side decompression, enough decompression through traversing root pathway, and enough removal of fibrotic tissue. Clinical outcomes (visual analog scale scores for pain, pregabalin usage, and modified MacNab criteria) and radiological changes (using magnetic resonance imaging) in the spinal canal expansion, lateral recess angle, and facet joint preservation were evaluated.
In radiological outcomes, there were significant differences in ipsilateral facet joint preservation ratio and contralateral lateral recess increasing ratio (ipsilateral facet joint preservation ratio 92.15% ± 2.62% vs 90.96% ± 2.88%, value 0.041 and contralateral lateral recess increasing ratio 155.22% ± 15.99% vs 165.39% ± 22.07%, = 0.0136). In clinical outcomes, there were significant differences between the 2 groups over time in leg visual analog scale score and pregabalin medication use.
The BESS technique for preserving both facet joints was an effective treatment option in long-term follow-up; it achieved favorable clinical outcomes while preserving both facet joints and making as much decompression space as possible.
在许多研究中,双孔道内镜脊柱手术(BESS)治疗椎管狭窄取得了良好的临床效果。他们报告说,椎板间BESS减压对中央椎管狭窄患者取得了良好效果。然而,许多患者即使在进行传统的椎板间BESS减压后仍有放射痛。因此,需要一种更可靠的BESS减压方法来处理横过神经根和侧隐窝区域。因此,我们研究了一种方法,在双侧神经根病的情况下,尽可能保留双侧小关节的同时更好地减压双侧侧隐窝区域。
我们回顾性分析了48例行椎板间BESS减压患者的数据;24例患者采用传统BESS技术进行减压(A组),另外24例患者采用保留双侧小关节的BESS技术(B组)。以下步骤是更好的减压技术的特点:在同侧减压时使用30°内镜,通过横过神经根途径进行充分减压,以及充分清除纤维化组织。评估临床结果(疼痛视觉模拟量表评分、普瑞巴林使用情况和改良MacNab标准)以及椎管扩大、侧隐窝角度和小关节保留情况的影像学变化(使用磁共振成像)。
在影像学结果方面,同侧小关节保留率和对侧侧隐窝增加率存在显著差异(同侧小关节保留率92.15%±2.62%对90.96%±2.88%,P值0.041;对侧侧隐窝增加率155.22%±15.99%对165.39%±22.07%,P = 0.0136)。在临床结果方面,两组在腿部视觉模拟量表评分和普瑞巴林用药情况随时间存在显著差异。
保留双侧小关节的BESS技术在长期随访中是一种有效的治疗选择;它在保留双侧小关节并创造尽可能多的减压空间的同时取得了良好的临床效果。