Suppr超能文献

经皮内镜下腰椎间孔入路椎间盘切除术与单侧双通道内镜技术学习曲线的比较研究

Comparative study of the learning curves for percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy and unilateral biportal endoscopy techniques.

作者信息

Guo Weidong, Guo Shikong, Zhang Xiaoping, Zhang Weiliang, Xia Guifeng, Liao Bo

机构信息

Department of Orthopedics, Tangdu Hospital, Air Force Military Medical University, Xi'an, 710038, China.

Xian Peoples Hospital, Xian, Shannxi, 710000, China.

出版信息

BMC Surg. 2025 May 15;25(1):210. doi: 10.1186/s12893-025-02951-4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques, such as Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Lumbar Discectomy (PEID) and Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy (UBE), have been developed to reduce surgical morbidity and enhance patient recovery. Although both techniques demonstrate promising clinical outcomes, the learning curves required for surgeons to achieve proficiency with these methods remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the learning curves of PEID and UBE in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 173 patients who underwent either PEID (n = 94) or UBE (n = 79), performed by two independent surgeons between January 2020 and January 2022. Eligible patients were aged 18-75 years, diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation, and had no previous spinal surgeries at the affected level. Metrics analyzed included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, complication rates, and clinical outcomes, assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores.

RESULTS

The PEID group demonstrated significantly shorter operative times (99.96 ± 34.74 min vs. 116.52 ± 47.20 min, P < 0.05) and less blood loss (20.85 ± 11.06 ml vs. 80.19 ± 22.81 ml, P < 0.01) compared to the UBE group. Both techniques showed significant improvements in VAS and ODI scores postoperatively, with no significant differences between the groups at any follow-up points. Learning curve analysis revealed that operative times for PEID stabilized at approximately 70 min after about 40 cases, while UBE stabilized at around 65 min after approximately 35 cases. Complication rates were low, and patient satisfaction was high in both groups. According to the Modified MacNab criteria, 83% of patients in the PEID group and 79.7% in the UBE group achieved excellent outcomes, while only 5.3% and 3.8% of patients experienced fair or poor outcomes in the PEID and UBE groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Both PEID and UBE are effective minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation, offering comparable clinical outcomes and low complication rates. However, PEID is associated with shorter operative times and reduced intraoperative blood loss. Understanding the learning curves of these techniques is crucial for surgeons to improve proficiency and optimize patient outcomes.

摘要

背景

微创脊柱手术技术,如经皮内镜下腰椎间孔入路椎间盘切除术(PEID)和单侧双通道内镜技术(UBE),已被开发用于降低手术发病率并促进患者康复。尽管这两种技术都显示出了良好的临床效果,但外科医生熟练掌握这些方法所需的学习曲线仍不明确。

目的

比较PEID和UBE治疗腰椎间盘突出症的学习曲线。

方法

我们对2020年1月至2022年1月期间由两名独立外科医生进行的173例行PEID(n = 94)或UBE(n = 79)手术的患者进行了回顾性分析。符合条件的患者年龄在18 - 75岁之间,诊断为腰椎间盘突出症,且在受影响节段既往未接受过脊柱手术。分析的指标包括手术时间、术中出血量、术后恢复情况、并发症发生率以及临床结局,使用视觉模拟评分法(VAS)和Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评分进行评估。

结果

与UBE组相比,PEID组的手术时间显著更短(99.96 ± 34.74分钟 vs. 116.52 ± 47.20分钟,P < 0.05),出血量更少(20.85 ± 11.06毫升 vs. 80.19 ± 22.81毫升,P < 0.01)。两种技术术后VAS和ODI评分均有显著改善,各随访时间点两组间无显著差异。学习曲线分析显示,PEID大约在40例手术后手术时间稳定在约70分钟,而UBE在约35例手术后稳定在约65分钟。两组并发症发生率低,患者满意度高。根据改良MacNab标准,PEID组83%的患者和UBE组79.7%的患者获得了优异的结果,而PEID组和UBE组分别只有5.3%和3.8%的患者结果为一般或较差。

结论

PEID和UBE都是治疗腰椎间盘突出症的有效微创技术,临床效果相当,并发症发生率低。然而,PEID手术时间更短,术中出血量更少。了解这些技术的学习曲线对外科医生提高熟练程度和优化患者结局至关重要。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/52e7/12079865/0f7dd2f69e3a/12893_2025_2951_Fig1_HTML.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