[1]胡 波,李思云.经皮内镜辅助下腰椎椎间融合术与传统术式治疗退行性腰椎滑脱症的比较[J].医学信息,2022,35(10):130-133.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2022.10.031]
 HU Bo,LI Si-yun.Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Traditional Surgical Treatment for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis[J].Medical Information,2022,35(10):130-133.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2022.10.031]
点击复制

经皮内镜辅助下腰椎椎间融合术与传统术式治疗退行性腰椎滑脱症的比较()
分享到:

医学信息[ISSN:1006-1959/CN:61-1278/R]

卷:
35卷
期数:
2022年10期
页码:
130-133
栏目:
论著
出版日期:
2022-05-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Traditional Surgical Treatment for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
文章编号:
1006-1959(2022)10-0130-04
作者:
胡 波李思云
(江西省中西医结合医院骨伤二科,江西 南昌 330000)
Author(s):
HU BoLI Si-yun
(The Second Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology,Jiangxi Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Hospital,Nanchang 330000,Jiangxi,China)
关键词:
经皮内镜辅助下腰椎椎间融合术退行性腰椎滑脱症内镜
Keywords:
Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusionDegenerative lumbar spondylolisthesisEndoscopy
分类号:
R687.3
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2022.10.031
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的 比较经皮内镜辅助下腰椎融合术和传统术式治疗退行性腰椎滑脱症(DLS)的临床效果。方法 选取2019年7月-2020年6月的60例DLS患者为研究对象,将采用经皮内镜辅助下腰椎椎间融合术的28例设为微创组,传统后路腰椎椎间融合术(PLIF)治疗的32例设为对照组。比较两组围手术期手术指标、不同时间段腰痛、腿痛和ODI评分、不同时间段滑脱复位及骨性融合情况以及并发症发生情况。结果 微创组术中出血量、术后卧床时间及住院时间均小于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组手术时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);微创组术后3 d及术后1个月腰痛VAS评分、ODI评分及术后3 d腿痛VAS评分均低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组术后1个月腿痛VAS评分,术后3个月、末次随访腰痛、腿痛和ODI评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);微创组术后3个月滑脱复位率、末次随访椎间融合率与对照组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);随访3个月,微创组并发症发生率为3.57%,与对照组的9.38%比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 与传统术式相比,经皮内镜辅助下腰椎椎间融合术治疗DLS疗效确切,具有创伤小、恢复快、早期效果显著等优势。
Abstract:
Objective To compare the clinical effect of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar fusion and traditional surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).Methods From July 2019 to June 2020, 60 patients with DLS were selected as the study subjects. Twenty-eight patients who underwent percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion were set as minimally invasive group, and 32 patients who underwent traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) were set as control group. The perioperative operation indexes, low back pain, leg pain and ODI scores at different time points, slippage reduction and bone fusion at different time points, and complications were compared between the two groups.Results The intraoperative blood loss, postoperative bed time and hospitalization time in the minimally invasive group were lower than those in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05); there was no significant difference in operation time between the two groups (P>0.05). The VAS score of low back pain, ODI score at 3 d and 1 month after operation and VAS score of leg pain at 3 d after operation in the minimally invasive group were lower than those in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05); there was no significant difference in the VAS score of leg pain at 1 month after operation, and the scores of low back pain, leg pain and ODI at 3 months and the last follow-up (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the slip reduction rate at 3 months after operation and the intervertebral fusion rate at the last follow-up between the minimally invasive group and the control group (P>0.05). After 3 months of follow-up, the incidence of complications in the minimally invasive group was 3.57%, which was compared 9.38% in the control group, the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05).Conclusion Compared with traditional surgery, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion is effective in the treatment of DLS, with the advantages of less trauma, faster recovery and early effect.

参考文献/References:

[1]尧登博,侯伟光,陈丹,等.经皮大直径全内镜下经椎板间入路治疗腰椎管狭窄症的疗效评价[J].西部医学,2019,31(4):65-70.[2]唐超,王高举,廖烨晖,等.经皮全内镜治疗75岁以上高龄节段性腰椎管狭窄症患者的早期疗效观察[J].中国骨与关节杂志,2018,7(10):731-737[3]de Kunder SL,van Kuijk SMJ,Rijkers K,et al.Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis:a systematic review and meta-analysis[J].Spine J,2017,17(11):1712-1721.[4]丁一,海涌,杨晋才,等.经皮内窥镜辅助下经椎间孔腰椎减压融合术治疗单节段腰椎管狭窄症对多裂肌的影响[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2019,29(9):822-827.[5]肖飞.探讨经皮椎板间入路内镜下椎管减压治疗老年腰椎侧隐窝狭窄症的临床疗效[J].西藏医药,2020(1):8-10.[6]李保栾.经皮椎板间入路内镜下椎管减压术对老年腰椎管狭窄症患者的疗效[J].河南医学研究,2020,29(4):625-626.[7]丁永国,李昌隆,孙建民,等.经皮穿刺椎间孔镜下应用TESSYS技术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效观察[J].医学信息,2018,31(16):38-42.[8]尹鹏,海涌,杨晋才,等.经皮内镜下经椎间孔与传统后入路椎间融合术治疗伴有腰椎不稳的腰椎管狭窄症的疗效对比[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2021,31(3):213-221.[9]李子全,余可谊,蔡思逸,等.椎弓根上隐窝在经皮内镜下经椎间孔入路腰椎侧隐窝减压术中的意义[J].中华骨与关节外科杂志,2019,12(3):15-19.[10]Elsarrag M,Soldozy S,Patel P,et al.Enhanced recovery after spine surgery:a systematic review[J].Neurosurgical Focus,2019,46(4):E3.[11]晏荣保,刘杨,赵鹏,等.经皮内镜下改良经椎间孔入路技术治疗腰椎侧隐窝狭窄症[J].中国骨与关节杂志,2020,9(1):16-21.[12]Lee MJ,Mok J,Patel P.Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: traditional open versus minimally invasive techniques[J].J Am Acad Orthop Surg,2018,26(4):124-131.[13]王向前,李军,郭广铭,等.内镜下减压融合经皮椎弓根钉内固定治疗退变性腰椎Ⅰ、Ⅱ度滑脱[J].中国医学工程,2019,27(12):58-60.[14]宁显宗,王黎明.经皮椎板间入路内镜下椎管减压术在老年腰椎侧隐窝狭窄症治疗中的应用[J].中华实用诊断与治疗杂志,2018,32(12):51-54.[15]俞东升,夏洪超,董涛.经皮椎板间入路椎管减压对老年腰椎侧隐窝狭窄症患者椎管减压程度的影响[J].颈腰痛杂志,2020,41(6):751-753.[16]崔新华.经皮椎板间入路内镜下椎管减压术对老年腰椎侧隐窝狭窄症术后疼痛及ODI评分的影响[J].内蒙古医学杂志,2020,52(1):44-45.[17]陈云生,钟鸣亮,陈荣春,等.内镜辅助下经单侧腰椎间孔椎间融合内固定治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症[J].江西医药,2018,53(8):784-787.[18]陈康,曾建成,修鹏,等.经皮椎板间入路内镜下椎管减压治疗老年腰椎侧隐窝狭窄症[J].中华骨科杂志,2018,38(8):458-467.[19]何宇,王建军,康晓乐,等.经皮椎间孔入路内镜下神经根腹侧减压治疗侧隐窝狭窄症的疗效观察[J].重庆医学,2019,48(15):76-80.[20]楼超,刘飞俊,何登伟,等.经皮内镜下切除术联合斜外侧椎间融合术治疗合并间盘脱出的腰椎退行性疾病[J].中华骨科杂志,2020,40(8):507-514.

更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01