期刊文献+

微创镜下减压治疗退行性腰椎椎管狭窄症的临床研究 被引量:1

Clinical study of minimally invasive decompression in the treatment of degenerative lumbarspinal stenosis
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的分析比较侧入路经皮椎间孔镜手术(PELD)和显微内窥镜手术(MED)治疗退行性腰椎椎管狭窄症(LSS)的临床效果。方法回顾分析2018年1月至2019年12月在湖北省宜昌市中心人民医院脊柱外科住院接受PELD(36例)和MED(36例)治疗的LSS患者的病历资料。其中PELD组男性与女性患者各18例,年龄(61.56±9.87)岁;MED组男性20例,女性16例,年龄(62.61±9.19)岁。统计两组患者相关临床指标、腿痛VAS评分、ODI评分及术后第三个月改良MacNab标准及并发症情况。结果所有患者均获得随访,随访率100%,PELD组随访时间3~7个月,平均(3.98±2.43)个月;MED组随访时间4~9个月,平均(4.52±2.92)个月。PELD组手术切口长度、术中出血量、术后切口渗出时间、术后卧床和住院时间([0.81±0.16)cm、(13.75±5..52)ml、(2.12±1.35)d、(15.29±4.64)h、(5.25±1.72)d],均少于MED组([1.89±0.25)cm、(32.05±8.34)ml、(4.37±2.56)h、(59.35±11.32)h、(6.47±2.03)d],差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05);但MED组手术时间[(83.65±17.69)min]和术中透视次数[(3.72±1.45)次]少于PELD组[(95.14±23.21)min、(13.25±4.32)次],差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者在住院费用[PELD组:(2.54±0.29)万;MED组:(2.51±0.42)万]上,差异无统计学意义。两组患者组间术后第一天、术后1个月、术后3个月组间VAS比较(F=6.466、5.261、4.326,P=0.013、0.025、0.041)及术后1个月、术后3个月ODI(%)评分(F=6.073、5.071,P=0.016、0.027)比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),两组患者组内各时间点腿痛VAS及ODI(%)评分差异均有统计学意义(P<0.001),随着时间的延长,腿痛VAS及ODI(%)评分逐渐降低。MacNab标准评判的手术疗效显示两种手术方式均有较高的有效率(>90%)和优良率(>85%),组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论PELD和MED各有优势,在把握其适用范围的前提下均为治疗LSS的有效方法。 Objective To analyze and compare the clinical effects of two endoscopic surgical methods(PELD and MED)in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis(LSS),and to study the therapeutic advantages of the two surgical methods.Methods The medical records of LSS patients receiving PELD(36 cases)and MED(36 cases)in the spinal surgery department of Yichang Central People's Hospital,Hubei Province from January 2018 to December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed.In the PELD group,there were 18 male and 18 female patients,aged(61.56±9.87)years.There were 20 males and 16 females(62.61±9.19 years old)in the MED group.Relevant clinical indicators,VAS score of leg pain,ODI score,improved MacNab standard and complications in the third month after surgery were calculated.Results All patients were followed up with a follow-up rate of 100%.The follow-up time of the PELD group was 3-7 months,with an average of(3.98±2.43)months.The follow-up time of the MED group was 4-9 months,with an average of(4.52±2.92)months.The length of incision,intraoperative blood loss,postoperative incision exudation time, postoperative bed rest and hospitalization time in the PAD group [(0.81 ± 0.16) cm, (13.75 ±5.52) ml, (2.12±1.35) d, (15.29±4.64) h, (5.25±1.72) d] were all lower than those in the Med group [(1.89±0.25) cm, (32.05±8.34) ml, (4.37±2.56) h, (59.35±11.32) h, (6.47±2.03) d]. The differences were statisticallysignificant (all P<0.05). However, the operative time [(83.65±17.69) min] and the number of intraoperativefluoroscopy [(3.72±1.45) times] in the MED group were less than those in the PELD group [(95.14±23.21)min and (13.25±4.32) times], and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significantdifference in hospitalization expenses between the two groups [PELD group: (2.54±0.29) ten thousand;MED group: (2.51±0.42) ten thousand. Between the two group patients on the first day after operation, postoperative1 month, 3 months after operation VAS comparison between groups (F=6.466, 5.261, 4.326, P=0.013, 0.025, 0.041) and postoperative 1 month, 3 months after operation of ODI (%) score (F=6.073, 5.071,P=0.016, 0.027), the difference had statistical significance (P<0.05), two groups of patients with leg painVAS and ODI at each time point in the group (%) score difference had statistical significance (P<0.001), withthe extension of time, The VAS and ODI (%) scores of leg pain decreased gradually. MacNab standard evaluationof surgical efficacy showed that the two surgical methods had high effective rate (>90%) and excellentand good rate (>85%), there was no significant difference between groups, there was no statistical significance(P>0.05). Conclusions PELD and MED have their own advantages, and both of them are effectivemethods to treat LSS under the premise of grasping its applicable scope.
作者 张鹏 刘丰平 刘杨 赵红卫 Zhang peng;Liu Fengping;Liu Yang;Zhao Hongwei(Department of Spinal Surgery,Central People's Hospital of Yichang,The First College of Clinical Medical Science,China Three Gorges University,Yichang 443003,China)
出处 《中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志》 2021年第2期85-92,共8页 Chinese Journal of Geriatric Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation(Electronic Edition)
基金 2020年宜昌市医疗卫生研究项目(A20-2-007)。
关键词 微创 内镜 脊柱 腰椎 狭窄 Minimally invasive Endoscopic Spinal lumbar vertebra Stenosis
  • 相关文献

参考文献10

二级参考文献66

  • 1刘晟,仇明,江道振,郑向民,沈宏亮.微创手术学习曲线的新概念与临床意义[J].中国微创外科杂志,2008,8(1):5-6. 被引量:59
  • 2史亚民,侯树勋,韦兴,高天君,李利.腰椎后路手术早期并发症的防治[J].中华骨科杂志,2004,24(9):543-546. 被引量:10
  • 3李士春,郭昭庆.评分系统在腰椎疾患中的应用[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2005,15(12):758-761. 被引量:82
  • 4党晓谦,王坤正,柏传毅,时志斌,宋金辉,王春生.退行性腰椎不稳的手术治疗[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2006,16(8):589-592. 被引量:18
  • 5Lee S H, Kang B U, Ahn Y, et al. Operative failure of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a radiologic analysis of 55 cases [J]. Spine ( Phila Pa 1976), 2006,31 (10) : 285-290.
  • 6Kasai Y,Morishita K,Kawakita E. A new evaluation method for lumbar spinal instability:passive lumbar extension test[J].Physical Therapy,2006,(12):1661-1667.doi:10.2522/ptj.20050281.
  • 7Watters WC,Bono CM,Gilbert TJ. An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis[J].Spine Journal,2009,(07):609-614.
  • 8Iguchi T,Kanemura A,Kasahara K. Lumbar instability and clinical symptoms:which is the more critical factor for symptoms:sagittal translation or segment angulation[J].Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques,2004,(04):284-290.
  • 9Garfin SR,Herkowitz HV,Mirkovic S. Spinal stenosis[J].AAOS Instructinoal Course Lecturer,2000.361-374.
  • 10Kumar SP. Efficacy of segmental stabilization exercise for lumbar segmental instability in patients with mechanical low back pain:A randomized placebo controlled crossover study[J].N Am J Med Sci,2011,(10):456-461.

共引文献173

同被引文献3

引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部