切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志 ›› 2021, Vol. 07 ›› Issue (02) : 85 -92. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-0263.2021.02.004

所属专题: 文献

脊柱专题

微创镜下减压治疗退行性腰椎椎管狭窄症的临床研究
张鹏1, 刘丰平1, 刘杨1, 赵红卫1,()   
  1. 1. 443003 三峡大学第一临床医学院宜昌市中心人民医院脊柱外科
  • 收稿日期:2020-09-07 出版日期:2021-04-05
  • 通信作者: 赵红卫
  • 基金资助:
    2020年宜昌市医疗卫生研究项目(A20-2-007)

Clinical study of minimally invasive decompression in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis

peng Zhang1, Fengping Liu1, Yang Liu1, Hongwei Zhao1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Spinal Surgery, Central People's Hospital of Yichang, The First College of Clinical Medical Science, China Three Gorges University, Yichang 443003, China
  • Received:2020-09-07 Published:2021-04-05
  • Corresponding author: Hongwei Zhao
引用本文:

张鹏, 刘丰平, 刘杨, 赵红卫. 微创镜下减压治疗退行性腰椎椎管狭窄症的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2021, 07(02): 85-92.

peng Zhang, Fengping Liu, Yang Liu, Hongwei Zhao. Clinical study of minimally invasive decompression in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Geriatric Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation(Electronic Edition), 2021, 07(02): 85-92.

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 statistically significant (all P<0.05). However, the operative time [(83.65±17.69) min] and the number of intraoperative fluoroscopy [(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 significant difference 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, postoperative 1 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 pain VAS and ODI at each time point in the group (%) score difference had statistical significance (P<0.001), with the extension of time, The VAS and ODI (%) scores of leg pain decreased gradually. MacNab standard evaluation of surgical efficacy showed that the two surgical methods had high effective rate (>90%) and excellent and 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 effective methods to treat LSS under the premise of grasping its applicable scope.

表1 两组退行性腰椎椎管狭窄症患者术前一般资料对比
图5~8 患者,男性,72岁,因"间断左下肢疼痛2年,加重一周"入院,全麻下MED术,经脊柱后入路。图5 术前检查示腰椎退变,无滑脱;图6 术前CT示L4~5椎间盘向右后方部分脱出,压迫硬膜囊及右侧侧隐窝,黄韧带肥厚增生;图7 椎间盘镜下出血较多,组织分辨率低,神经根和硬膜囊减压充分;图8 术后MRI示L4~5椎管狭窄明显改善,突出髓核组织消失,椎间隙右侧神经根压迫减轻
表2 两组退行性腰椎椎管狭窄症患者临床指标对比(±s
表3 两组退行性腰椎椎管狭窄症患者手术前后腿痛VAS评分对比(±s
表4 两组退行性腰椎椎管狭窄症患者手术前后ODI(%)评分对比(±s
表5 手术后第三个月改良MacNab标准评判手术疗效对比
1
Genevay S, Atlas S. Lumbar spinal stenosis [J]. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol, 2010, 24(2): 253-265.
2
Yabuki S, Fukumori N, Takegami M, et al. Prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis, using the diagnostic support tool, and correlated factors in Japan: a population-based study [J]. J Orthop Sci, 2013, 18(6): 893-900.
3
Rousing R, Jensen RK, Fruensgaard S, et al. Danish National clinical guidelines for surgical and nonsurgical treatment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis [J]. Eur Spine J, 2019, 28(6): 1386-1396.
4
Budzynska K. Spinal stenosis prevalence and association with symptoms:the Framingham Study [J]. Spine Journal, 2009, 9(7): 545-550.
5
Zaina F, Tomkins-Lane C, Carragee E, et al. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis [J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2016 (1): CD010264.
6
伊广坤.腰椎管狭窄症的CT分型及其对经皮内镜下减压手术入路选择的意义[D].济南:山东大学, 2016.
7
李利军,常峰,海涌,等.经皮椎间孔镜治疗腰椎管狭窄症临床疗效评价[J].中国骨伤, 2018, 31(7): 617-620.
8
Langley GB, Sheppeard H. The visual analogue scale: its use in pain measurement [J]. Rheumatol Int, 1985, 5(4): 145-148.
9
Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, et al. The oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire [J]. Physiotherapy, 1980, 66(8): 271-273.
10
Macnab I. Negative disc exploration. An analysis of the causes of nerve-root involvement in sixty-eight patients [J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1971, 53(5): 891-903.
11
陈红梅,丁宇,朱旭,等.经皮椎间孔镜下椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎管狭窄症患者的围术期快速康复护理[J].解放军护理杂志, 2019, 36(2): 81-84.
12
Costa F, Anania CD, Zileli M, et al. Lumbar spinal stenosis: introduction to the world federation of neurosurgical societies (WFNS) spine committee recommendations [J]. World Neurosurg X, 2020, 7: 100075.
13
赵猛,刘光旺,姜效韦,等.经皮椎间孔镜技术治疗老年退行性腰椎管狭窄症[J].中国骨与关节损伤杂志, 2018, 33(9): 974-975.
14
Bagley C, Macallister M, Dosselman L, et al. Current concepts and recent advances in understanding and managing lumbar spine stenosis [J]. F1000Res, 2019, 8: F1000 Faculty Rev-F1000 Faculty 137.
15
Hey HW, Hee HT. Lumbar degenerative spinal deformity: Surgical options of PLIF, TLIF and MI-TLIF [J]. Indian J Orthop, 2010, 44(2): 159-162.
16
Airaksinen O, Herno A, Turunen V, et al. Surgical outcome of 438 patients treated surgically for lumbar spinal stenosis [J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1997, 22(19): 2278-2282.
17
高琨,杨浩,刘亮,等.椎间孔镜BEIS技术与TLIF手术治疗老年腰椎管狭窄症的疗效比较[J].中国骨与关节损伤杂志, 2019, 34(1): 13-16.
18
Lewandrowski KU. "Outside-in" Technique, Clinical Results, and Indications with Transforaminal Lumbar Endoscopic Surgery: a Retrospective Study on 220 Patients on Applied Radiographic Classification of Foraminal Spinal Stenosis [J]. Int J Spine Surg, 2014, 8: 1-17.
19
Moammer G, Rehman Y, Abolfotouh S. Two window-minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery (new approach) has a better post operative outcome and less soft tissue damage [J]. Ann Med Surg (Lond), 2020, 55: 62-65.
20
张为,李昊儒,丁文元,等.椎间孔镜技术在脊柱外科的应用进展[J].中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 20157, 3(06): 377-380.
21
游浩,杨全中,吴卫国,等.应用BEIS技术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的早中期疗效观察[J].中国骨伤, 2019, 32(3): 248-253.
22
Choi G, Lee SH, Raiturker PP, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy for intracanalicular disc herniations at L5-S1 using a rigid working Channel endoscope [J]. Neurosurgery, 2006, 58(1 Suppl): ONS59-ONS68; discussion ONS59-68.
23
徐宝山,常峰,赵刘军,等.经皮椎间孔入路内镜下治疗腰椎管狭窄症术后再手术的临床报告[J].中华骨科杂志, 2018, 38(8): 485-496.
24
Kim JH, Han S, Kim Jhad - Department Of Neurosurgery CO, et al. Surgical consideration of the intraspinal component in extradural dumbbell tumors [J]. Surg Neurol, 2008, 70(1): 98-103.
25
林阳,陈文坚,祝文涛,等.早期康复治疗对退变性腰椎失稳伴椎管狭窄症手术疗效的影响[J].骨科, 2013, 4(2): 69-72.
26
何春军,陈浩樑,赖以毅,等.经皮椎间孔镜技术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效[J].实用医学杂志, 2013, 29(17): 2863-2865.
27
Lee DY, Lee SH. Learning curve for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy [J]. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo), 2008, 48(9): 383-388.
28
刘丰平,赵红卫,陈海丹.学习曲线在微创治疗腰椎间盘突出症的研究进展[J].中国骨与关节外科, 2014, 7(3): 266-270.
[1] 孙佳丽, 金琳, 沈崔琴, 陈晴晴, 林艳萍, 李朝军, 徐栋. 机器人辅助超声引导下经皮穿刺的体外实验研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(09): 884-889.
[2] 王振宁, 杨康, 王得晨, 邹敏, 归明彬, 王雅楠, 徐明. 机器人与腹腔镜手术联合经自然腔道取标本对中低位直肠癌患者远期疗效比较[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 437-442.
[3] 母德安, 李凯, 张志远, 张伟. 超微创器械辅助单孔腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 14-14.
[4] 杨建波, 马欢, 黄小梅, 刘华柱. 结肠镜辅助下EMR、CSP和RFA术治疗直径<1cm结直肠息肉的疗效和安全性比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 76-79.
[5] 吴登爽, 李墨农, 张欣红, 侯四川, 邱志磊. 解剖性显微镜下精索静脉结扎术的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 591-596.
[6] 李凯, 陈淋, 苏怀东, 向涵, 张伟. 超微创器械在改良单孔腹腔镜巨大肝囊肿开窗引流及胆囊切除中的应用[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 144-144.
[7] 张宗明, 董家鸿, 何小东, 王秋生, 徐智, 刘立民, 张翀. 老年胆道外科热点问题的争议与思考[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 754-762.
[8] 卓文锋, 曾桂芳, 杨思加, 赵家立, 邹宝嘉, 白子锐, 林恩, 李坚. 腹腔镜巨脾切除术:逐步打破的手术壁垒[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 783-788.
[9] 黄韬, 杨晓华, 薛天森, 肖睿. 改良“蛋壳”技术治疗老年OVCF及对脊柱矢状面平衡参数、预后的影响[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(06): 340-348.
[10] 谭明明, 战世强, 侯宏涛, 曾翔硕. 经皮微创椎弓根螺钉内固定术对骨质疏松脊柱压缩性骨折患者临床研究[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(06): 349-354.
[11] 吴天宇, 刘子璇, 杨浦鑫, 贾思明, 丁凯, 程晓东, 李泳龙, 陈伟, 吕红芝, 张奇. 腰椎间盘突出症保守治疗进展[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(06): 379-384.
[12] 李新宇, 梁建锋. 3D打印导板辅助颅内血肿穿刺引流手术[J/OL]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 382-384.
[13] 吴广迎, 张延娟, 秦鹏, 卢艳丽. 经颈静脉肝内门体静脉分流术预防上消化道出血的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 545-548.
[14] 王景明, 王磊, 许小多, 邢文强, 张兆岩, 黄伟敏. 腰椎椎旁肌的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(09): 846-852.
[15] 马豆豆, 丁艳, 古今, 王丽芳, 石连杰. 以发热为首发表现的强直性脊柱炎合并潜伏性结核感染一例[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(08): 791-794.
阅读次数
全文


摘要