Reyes-Elizalde Emilio A, Reyes-Sanchez Alejandro Antonio, García-Ramos Carla
Spine Surgery, National Institute of Rehabilitation Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra, Mexico City, MEX.
Cureus. 2025 Aug 13;17(8):e90037. doi: 10.7759/cureus.90037. eCollection 2025 Aug.
Background The spine is an articulated structure that bears the load and mechanical stresses of its proximal segment as it traverses distally. To withstand this stress, a proper balance between bony components and soft tissue (ligaments and muscles) must be achieved. Losing the balance between these tissues initiates a degenerative and inflammatory process that alters this balance, resulting in dynamic instability, arthrosis, and discal degenerative disease. Instability develops due to the failure of intrinsic or extrinsic dynamic support. Midline approaches, compared to more paravertebral ones, have a higher probability of affecting the stabilizing tissues of the spine, predisposing it to prolonged instability and possibly requiring repair. Methods A retrospective, observational, cohort-type, comparative study was conducted in adult patients diagnosed with radiculopathy associated with a confirmed diagnosis through radiological and imaging studies, undergoing discectomy via tubular or classic approach, at our Institution from 2016 to 2023. The primary outcome was the comparison between dynamic instability in tubular discectomy and classic microdiscectomy by the differences in radiological measurements in AP (antero-posterior), lateral, and dynamic projections between the two groups. The secondary outcomes were the contrast in disc degeneration of each group through MRI and comparison of other factors (age, BMI, pain, functional scores, blood loss, and surgery duration). Radiographic studies were measured with RadiAnt 2023 (DICOM viewer tool; Medixant, Poznan, Poland) using Cobb angles and AP movement in mm. Data was collected, managed, and all statistical calculations were made with SPSS 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, USA). Central tendency measures were performed for all variables. The comparison between groups was performed using the Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U test, and the comparison of stratified variables by groups and measured throughout their evolution was done using covariate linear models. Results In the 38.3-year-old average cohort, 57.1% were women, with L5-S1 being the most affected level and Pfirrmann grade VI the most frequent. The tubular discectomy technique was used in 62.9% of cases and demonstrated significantly lower intraoperative blood loss compared to the open technique, without differences in surgery duration. Preoperative group differences were limited to flexion angle (p = 0.04), while postoperative outcomes favored the tubular group, with notable improvements in Oswestry, Roland, VAS (Visual Analogue Scale), and extension angles. The tubular technique also showed superior results in the Daniels scale recovery (p < 0.001), and multivariate analysis revealed a marked reduction in vertebral translation in the tubular group (-85.7%) versus an increase in the open group (+111.4%) (p = 0.05). Conclusion There is a non-statistical trend favoring the tubular approach at two levels associated with less postoperative pain. For radiographic and MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) measurements, no general difference was found when comparing the two groups preoperatively and postoperatively.
脊柱是一个关节结构,当它向远端延伸时,承受着近端节段的负荷和机械应力。为了承受这种应力,必须在骨成分和软组织(韧带和肌肉)之间实现适当的平衡。这些组织之间失去平衡会引发退行性和炎症过程,改变这种平衡,导致动态不稳定、关节病和椎间盘退行性疾病。不稳定是由于内在或外在动态支撑失效而发展的。与更多的椎旁入路相比,中线入路更有可能影响脊柱的稳定组织,使其易于出现长期不稳定,并可能需要修复。
对2016年至2023年在我们机构接受诊断为神经根病且经放射学和影像学研究确诊、通过管状或经典入路进行椎间盘切除术的成年患者进行了一项回顾性、观察性、队列类型的比较研究。主要结局是通过两组在前后位(AP)、侧位和动态投照中的放射学测量差异,比较管状椎间盘切除术和经典显微椎间盘切除术中的动态不稳定情况。次要结局是通过MRI对比每组的椎间盘退变情况以及比较其他因素(年龄、体重指数、疼痛、功能评分、失血和手术时间)。使用RadiAnt 2023(DICOM查看工具;Medixant,波兰波兹南)通过Cobb角和以毫米为单位的AP移动来测量放射学研究。数据收集、管理并使用SPSS 26(IBM公司,美国阿蒙克)进行所有统计计算。对所有变量进行集中趋势测量。组间比较使用学生t检验和曼-惠特尼U检验,对按组分层并在其整个演变过程中测量的变量进行比较时使用协变量线性模型。
在平均年龄为38.3岁的队列中,57.1%为女性,L5-S1是受影响最严重的节段,Pfirrmann VI级最为常见。62.9%的病例采用了管状椎间盘切除术技术,与开放技术相比,术中失血量显著更低,手术时间无差异。术前组间差异仅限于屈曲角度(p = 0.04),而术后结果有利于管状组,在Oswestry、Roland、视觉模拟量表(VAS)和伸展角度方面有显著改善。管状技术在丹尼尔斯量表恢复方面也显示出更好的结果(p < 0.001),多变量分析显示管状组的椎体平移显著减少(-85.7%),而开放组增加(+111.4%)(p = 0.05)。
在两个节段上有一种非统计学趋势支持管状入路,其术后疼痛较少。对于放射学和MRI(磁共振成像)测量,术前和术后比较两组时未发现总体差异。