Ross Nicolas, Aleman Carlos, Dhenin Alexandre, Vassal Matthieu, Lonjon Guillaume
Orthosud Montpellier, Clinique Saint Jean Sud de France, Montpellier, France.
Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
Eur Spine J. 2025 May 31. doi: 10.1007/s00586-025-08953-3.
Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis frequently requires surgical intervention when conservative treatments fail. Minimally invasive techniques such as unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression have largely replaced traditional open laminectomy because of effective decompression and reduced tissue damage. This study compared the radiological and clinical outcomes of tubular decompression and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) in patients with severe stenosis.
This was a retrospective, monocentric, nonrandomized study including 103 patients with severe lumbar spinal stenosis (52 tubular decompression, 51 UBE) from July 2020 to April 2024. The primary radiological outcomes were changes in anteroposterior diameter and dural sac surface area, assessed by MRI. Clinical outcomes included operative time, complication rates, and patient-reported outcomes with the Oswestry Disability Index and visual analog scale for pain, evaluated preopertatively, 3 and 12 months postoperatively.
As compared with tubular decompression, UBE resulted in a more significant increase in anteroposterior diameter (+ 4.9 vs. + 3.75 mm, p < 0.001) and dural sac surface area (+ 95.8 vs. + 85.4 mm², p = 0.038). However, with both techniques, clinical improvements were similar at 3 and 12 months, with no significant difference in Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale score, or patient satisfaction. The complication rate, including reoperation, was low in both groups, but the incidence of symptomatic hematoma was higher with UBE than tubular decompression.
Both tubular decompression and UBE were effective for spinal stenosis treatment, with UBE providing superior radiological decompression, even in the early learning phase. However, the techniques were comparable in clinical outcomes at 3 months and 1 year. Further studies are needed to assess long-term results and refine patient selection criteria.
当保守治疗失败时,退行性腰椎管狭窄症常常需要手术干预。诸如单侧椎板切除术用于双侧减压等微创技术,由于减压效果良好且组织损伤减少,已在很大程度上取代了传统的开放椎板切除术。本研究比较了严重狭窄患者行管状减压术与单侧双通道内镜(UBE)手术的影像学和临床结果。
这是一项回顾性、单中心、非随机研究,纳入了2020年7月至2024年4月期间103例严重腰椎管狭窄症患者(52例行管状减压术,51例行UBE手术)。主要影像学结果为通过磁共振成像(MRI)评估的前后径和硬膜囊表面积的变化。临床结果包括手术时间、并发症发生率,以及术前、术后3个月和12个月采用奥斯威斯利功能障碍指数和视觉模拟疼痛量表评估的患者报告结果。
与管状减压术相比,UBE手术导致前后径有更显著增加(分别为+4.9 vs. +3.75毫米,p < 0.001)和硬膜囊表面积增加(分别为+95.8 vs. +85.4平方毫米,p = 0.038)。然而,两种技术在术后3个月和12个月时临床改善情况相似,在奥斯威斯利功能障碍指数、视觉模拟量表评分或患者满意度方面无显著差异。两组的并发症发生率(包括再次手术)均较低,但UBE手术的症状性血肿发生率高于管状减压术。
管状减压术和UBE手术在治疗椎管狭窄方面均有效,即使在早期学习阶段,UBE手术在影像学减压方面更具优势。然而,两种技术在术后3个月和1年的临床结果相当。需要进一步研究以评估长期结果并完善患者选择标准。