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 ›› 2024, Vol. 10 ›› Issue (01) : 10 -18. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-0263.2024.01.003

脊柱

斜外侧腰椎椎间融合术联合脊柱内镜减压治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效研究
高放1, 李锋1, 方忠1,()   
  1. 1. 430030 武汉,华中科技大学同济医学院附属同济医院骨科
  • 收稿日期:2023-11-02 出版日期:2024-02-05
  • 通信作者: 方忠
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金项目(81472133)

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with spinal endoscopy decompression for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease

Fang Gao1, Feng Li1, Zhong Fang1,()   

  1. 1. Department of orthopaedics, Tongji Hospital Affiliated Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
  • Received:2023-11-02 Published:2024-02-05
  • Corresponding author: Zhong Fang
引用本文:

高放, 李锋, 方忠. 斜外侧腰椎椎间融合术联合脊柱内镜减压治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效研究[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(01): 10-18.

Fang Gao, Feng Li, Zhong Fang. Oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with spinal endoscopy decompression for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Geriatric Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation(Electronic Edition), 2024, 10(01): 10-18.

目的

观察斜外侧腰椎椎间融合术(OLIF)联合脊柱内镜减压治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效。

方法

回顾性分析2015年10月至2020年5月于我院接受OLIF联合脊柱内镜减压治疗腰椎退行性疾病患者(观察组)的临床资料,并与同期行微创TLIF手术患者(对照组)进行对比。记录两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、术后平均住院天数及并发症等一般情况,利用疼痛VAS评分、ODI指数评估临床疗效,采用腰椎X线或CT三维重建评估椎间隙高度、椎间孔高度和大小及椎间融合率等改变情况。

结果

59例患者均获得随访,观察组26例,对照组33例,平均随访时间为(24.2±7.8)月、(24.7±8.1)月。观察组术中出血量、术后引流量及术后平均住院时间均小于对照组(P<0.05),而手术时间和平均住院费用大于对照组(P<0.05)。观察组术后切口疼痛VAS评分(2.0±1.5)分,低于对照组(4.0±1.4)分(P<0.05)。两组术前及术后各时间点腰痛VAS评分、下肢痛VAS评分、ODI指数经重复测量设计的方差分析,不同时间点间差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),随观察时间延长呈逐渐降低趋势。组别间差异均无统计学意义,组别与时间点间均无交互作用。两组术前、术后各时间点椎间隙高度、椎间孔高度和大小经重复测量设计的方差分析,不同时间点间差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),组别与时间点间均存在交互作用(P<0.05)。椎间隙及椎间孔高度组别间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),椎间孔大小组别间差异无统计学意义。进一步简单效应分析,组间比较,各时间点除术前时间点外观察组椎间隙高度、椎间孔高度和大小均大于对照组(P<0.05)。观察组术后1年测量椎间隙高度、椎间孔高度和大小为[(13.0±2.2)mm、(19.5±0.3)mm、(158.4±4.4)mm2],大于对照组[(10.0±2.4)mm、(18.1±0.2)mm、(142.0±3.9)mm2P<0.05]。组内比较,观察组术后各时点椎间隙高度、椎间孔高度和大小均较术前明显增大(P<0.05)。两组融合率和并发症发生率差异无统计学意义。

结论

OLIF联合脊柱内镜减压手术全程微创、疗效满意,并能有效地恢复椎间隙高度及椎间孔大小,为腰椎退行性疾病的治疗提供新选择。

Objective

To evaluate the clinical effect of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) combined with spinal endoscopy decompression for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease.

Methods

Patients with lumbar degenerative disease who underwent OLIF combined with spinal endoscopy at our hospital between October 2015 and May 2020 were retrospectively analysed (observation group). The results were compared with patients who underwent minimally invasive TLIF during the same period (control group). Operative time, blood loss, postoperative stay, hospital costs and complications were recorded. VAS and ODI scores were used to assess the clinical efficacy of surgery. Radiological parameters were measured by X-ray or three-dimensional CT.

Results

All 59 patients were followed up. The observation group consisted of 26 cases with a mean follow-up of (24.2±7.8) months.The control group consisted of 33 cases with a mean follow-up of (24.7±8.1) months.The observation group had lower intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume and average postoperative hospital stay compared to the control group. However, operative time and average hospital costs were higher in the observation group than in the control group (P<0.05). The postoperative incisional pain VAS score in the observation group [(2.0±1.5) points] was significantly lower than that in the control group [(4.0±1.4) points, P<0.001)]. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to examine back pain VAS scores, leg pain VAS scores, and ODI index across groups and time points. The results showed no significant differences between groups, significant differences between time points (P<0.05) and no interaction between groups and time points. The VAS scores of back pain, VAS scores of leg pain and ODI index at each time point after surgery were significantly lower in both groups compared to pre-surgery scores (P<0.05) and gradually decreased over time. The size and height of the intervertebral foramen, as well as the height of the intervertebral space, underwent analysis through repeated measures ANOVA across time points and groups. Results indicate statistically significant differences between time points and significant interaction effects between groups and time points for all three parameters (P<0.05). Statistically significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of intervertebral space height and intervertebral foramen height (P<0.05), but not in terms of intervertebral foramen size. Further analysis revealed that the intervertebral space height, intervertebral foramen height and size were consistently greater in the observation group than in the control group at all time points except preoperative (P<0.05). Specifically, at 1 year after surgery, the intervertebral space height, foramen height, and size in the observation group were [(13.0±2.2)mm, (19.5±0.3)mm, (158.4±4.4)mm2], which were significantly greater than those in the control group [(10.0±2.4)mm, (18.1±0.2)mm, (142.0±3.9)mm2, P<0.05]. Furthermore, in the observation group, the intervertebral space height, intervertebral foramen height and size were significantly larger at all time points after surgery compared to preoperative (P<0.05). However, there were no significant differences in fusion rate and complication rate between the two groups.

Conclusions

The combination of OLIF with spinal endoscopic decompression surgery is minimally invasive and effective, and can also effectively restore the height of the intervertebral space and the size of the intervertebral foramen, providing a new option for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease.

图1 采用椎间孔镜经从左前方经椎间盘减压 A:利用OLIF工作通道,采用椎间孔镜经椎间盘进行神经减压 B:安装工作通道 C:通道下减压 D:探查确认神经根已松弛  图2 侧后方经椎间孔进行减压 A:后路采用椎间孔镜经椎间孔进行减压 B,C:安装工作通道,透视确认工作通道位置 D:减压后神经根已松弛
表1 两组腰椎退行性疾病患者的手术一般情况(±s
表2 两组腰椎退行性疾病患者的患者手术前、后临床疗效指标评估(±s
表3 两组腰椎退行性疾病患者患者手术前、后X线影像学指标评估(±s
表4 两组腰椎退行性疾病患者患者手术前、后CT影像学指标评估(±s
1
Saleem S, Aslam HM, Rehmani MAK, et al. Lumbar disc degenerative disease: disc degeneration symptoms and magnetic resonance image findings [J]. Asian Spine J, 2013, 7(4): 322-334.
2
Fan SW, Hu ZJ, Fang XQ, et al. Comparison of paraspinal muscle injury in one-level lumbar posterior inter-body fusion: modified minimally invasive and traditional open approaches [J]. Orthop Surg, 2010, 2(3): 194-200.
3
Lee CS, Kang KC, Chung SS, et al. How does back muscle strength change after posterior lumbar interbody fusion? [J]. J Neurosurg Spine, 2017, 26(2): 163-170.
4
Phan K, Thayaparan GK, Mobbs RJ. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion--systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Br J Neurosurg, 2015, 29(5): 705-711.
5
Härtl R, Joeris A, McGuire RA. Comparison of the safety outcomes between two surgical approaches for anterior lumbar fusion surgery: anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and extreme lateral interbody fusion (ELIF) [J]. Eur Spine J, 2016, 25(5): 1484-1521.
6
Joseph JR, Smith BW, La Marca F, et al. Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature [J]. Neurosurg Focus, 2015, 39(4): E4.
7
Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, et al. Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion [J]. Spine J, 2006, 6(4): 435-443.
8
Silvestre C, Mac-Thiong JM, Hilmi R, et al. Complications and morbidities of mini-open anterior retroperitoneal lumbar interbody fusion: oblique lumbar interbody fusion in 179 patients [J]. Asian Spine J, 2012, 6(2): 89-97.
9
Fujibayashi SSE, Hynes RA, Otsuki B, et al. Effect of indirect neural decompression through oblique lateral interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease [J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2015, 40(3): E175-E182.
10
Ohtori S, Orita S, Yamauchi K, et al. Mini-Open anterior retroperitoneal lumbar interbody fusion: oblique lateral interbody fusion for lumbar spinal degeneration disease [J]. Yonsei Med J, 2015, 56(4): 1051-1059.
11
方忠,高放,李锋,等.斜外侧腰椎椎间融合术联合后路导航经皮置钉固定治疗腰椎滑脱症的早期疗效[J].中华骨科杂志, 2017, 37(16): 980-988.
12
Hanley ENJ, Spengler DM, Wiesel S, et al. Controversies in low back pain: the surgical approach [J]. Instr Course Lect, 1994, 43: 415-423.
13
Heo DH, Choi WS, Park CK, et al. Minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion with spinal endoscope assistance: technical Note [J]. World Neurosurg, 2016, 96: 530-536.
14
高放,方忠,刘广武,等.导航辅助经皮置钉微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效研究[J].骨科, 2018, 9(4): 260-267.
15
Siepe CJ, Stosch-Wiechert K, Heider F, et al. Anterior stand-alone fusion revisited: a prospective clinical, X-ray and CT investigation [J]. Eur Spine J, 2015, 24(4): 838-851.
16
徐国康,苏棋,屠玉兰,等.斜外侧腰椎椎体间融合联合经皮内镜下减压后路固定治疗腰椎滑脱合并腰椎管狭窄症[J].中华骨科杂志, 2023, 43(9): 550-558.
17
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.
18
Liu LT, Xue H, Han ZY, et al. Comparison between OLIF and MISTLIF in degenerative lumbar stenosis: an age-, sex-, and segment-matched cohort study [J]. Sci Rep, 2023, 13(1): 13188.
19
Sato J, Ohtori S, Orita S, et al. Radiographic evaluation of indirect decompression of mini-open anterior retroperitoneal lumbar interbody fusion: oblique lateral interbody fusion for degenerated lumbar spondylolisthesis [J]. European Spine Journal, 2017, 26(3): 671-678.
20
Hsieh PC, Koski TR, O'Shaughnessy BA, et al. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance [J]. J Neurosurg Spine, 2007, 7(4): 379-386.
21
Mehren C, Mayer HM, Zandanell C, et al. The oblique anterolateral approach to the lumbar spine provides access to the lumbar spine with few early complications [J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2016, 474(9): 2020-2027.
22
Woods KRM, Billys JB, Hynes RA. Technical description of oblique lateral interbody fusion at L1-L5 (OLIF25) and at L5-S1 (OLIF51) and evaluation of complication and fusion rates [J]. Spine J, 2017, 17(4): 545-553.
23
Abe K, Orita S, Mannoji C, et al. Perioperative complications in 155 patients who underwent oblique lateral interbody fusion surgery: perspectives and indications from a retrospective, multicenter survey [J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2017, 42(1): 55-62.
[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] 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.
[3] 向辉, 贾晓斌, 全卫涛. 真空辅助乳腺微创旋切术治疗乳腺纤维瘤的效果及并发症观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 528-530.
[4] 吕玥彤, 靳梦圆, 周大为, 叶啟发. 机器人辅助下肾移植的临床进展与争议[J/OL]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 242-246.
[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] 赵毅, 李昶田, 唐文博, 白雪婷, 刘荣. 腹腔镜术中超声主胰管自动识别模型的临床应用[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(05): 290-294.
[7] 王双兴, 吴永杰, 孟兵, 张宏涛, 刁美, 张辉. 微创切口联合腹腔镜同期治疗先天性心脏病合并心外畸形[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(04): 244-249.
[8] 潘立超, 王兆海, 刘荣. 日间肝切除术2例报道[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(04): 253-256.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] 曹文钰, 郭鹏, 李锦平. 微创手术及非手术方式治疗慢性硬膜下血肿的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 304-309.
[13] 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.
[14] 邵佳申, 张志武, 孟海, 杨雍, 费琦. 单侧双通道脊柱内镜技术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效和学习曲线研究[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(04): 202-208.
[15] 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.
阅读次数
全文


摘要