PELD术中选择单侧入路三根减压治疗腰椎间盘突出症疗效与安全性的前瞻性随机对照研究

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-0263.2025.06.005

中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志 ›› 2025, Vol. 11 ›› Issue (06) : 351 -358. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-0263.2025.06.005

脊柱专题

PELD术中选择单侧入路三根减压治疗腰椎间盘突出症疗效与安全性的前瞻性随机对照研究

李鹏¹, 赵成亮²^,^†(

), 曾祥瑞³, 王斐⁴, 杨菲⁵

¹154002　佳木斯市中医医院骨科
²266500　青岛大学附属医院脊柱外科
³154002　佳木斯市中医医院推拿科
⁴154002　佳木斯市中医医院理疗科
⁵154002　佳木斯市中医医院治未病科

收稿日期:2025-02-20 出版日期:2025-12-05
通信作者: 赵成亮
基金资助:
黑龙江省卫生健康委科研课题(编号：20220404071129)

A prospective randomised controlled study of the efficacy and safety of triple root decompression for lumbar disc herniation by selecting a unilateral approach during PELD surgery

Peng Li¹, Chengliang Zhao^†^,²(), Xiangrui Zeng³, Fei Wang⁴, Fei Yang⁵

¹Department of Orthopedics, Jiamusi Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jiamusi 154002, China
²Spine Surgery Department, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao 266000, China
³Department of Massage, Jiamusi Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jiamusi 154002, China
⁴Department of Physical Therapy, Jiamusi Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jiamusi 154002, China
⁵Department of Preventive Medicine, Jiamusi Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jiamusi 154002, China

Received:2025-02-20 Published:2025-12-05
Corresponding author: Chengliang Zhao

全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用

引用本文：

李鹏, 赵成亮, 曾祥瑞, 王斐, 杨菲. PELD术中选择单侧入路三根减压治疗腰椎间盘突出症疗效与安全性的前瞻性随机对照研究[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2025, 11(06): 351-358.

Peng Li, Chengliang Zhao, Xiangrui Zeng, Fei Wang, Fei Yang. A prospective randomised controlled study of the efficacy and safety of triple root decompression for lumbar disc herniation by selecting a unilateral approach during PELD surgery[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Geriatric Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation(Electronic Edition), 2025, 11(06): 351-358.

目的

研究旨在比较单侧与双侧入路经皮椎间孔镜（PELD）治疗L₃~S₁节段腰椎间盘突出症的效果，重点评估疼痛缓解、功能恢复、术后并发症和患者满意度，分析其疗效及安全性。

方法

研究纳入60例腰椎间盘突出症患者，男20例，女40例，年龄18~70岁，平均（48.8±6.1）岁，按手术入路分为单侧入路组和双侧入路组，每组30例。所有患者均接受PELD手术治疗，术后随访6个月，主要评估指标包括视觉模拟评分（VAS）、日本骨科协会评分（JOA）、Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）和术后并发症。

结果

单侧入路组术前、术后1周、术后1个月、术后3个月、术后6个月VAS评分分别为（7.1±1.2）、（4.3±0.8）、（2.2±0.6）、（1.6±0.5）、（1.3±0.4），双侧入路组分别为（7.3±1.2）、（4.7±0.9）、（2.5±0.7）、（2.0±0.6）、（1.7±0.5），不同组别间、时间点间差异有统计学意义（F=4.251，P=0.04；F=325.604，P=0.000），组别与时间点间存在交互作用（F=3.201，P=0.015）；单侧入路组术前、术后1周、术后1个月、术后3个月、术后6个月JOA评分分别为（12.4±2.1）、（16.1±1.6）、（18.4±1.4）、（20.1±1.3）、（20.8±1.2），双侧入路组分别为（12.5±2.2）、（15.7±1.5）、（17.9±1.3）、（17.9±1.3）、（20.0±1.1），不同组别间、时间点间差异有统计学意义（F=5.128，P=0.128；F=598.354，P=0.000），组别与时间点间存在交互作用（F=15.246，P=0.015）；单侧入路组术前、术后1周、术后1个月、术后3个月、术后6个月Oswestry功能障碍指数分别为（51.8±7.0）、（37.5±6.3）、（30.2±5.5）、（24.5±4.7）、（20.8±4.1）、双侧入路组分别为（52.1±7.3）、（39.0±6.5）、（31.0±5.8）、（26.0±4.9）、（22.1±4.4），不同组别间、时间点间差异有统计学意义（F=4.317，P=0.043；F=485.726，P=0.000），组别与时间点间存在交互作用（F=4.128，P=0.003）；双侧入路组感染发生率为13.3%，明显高于单侧入路组的0%（P<0.05）。两组在术后患者满意度方面无显著差异。

结论

单侧入路PELD手术在减轻疼痛、提高功能恢复和减少术后并发症方面优于双侧入路，且两组患者的术后满意度均较高。单侧入路作为治疗L₃~S₁节段腰椎间盘突出症的有效选择，具有较好的临床效果。

关键词: 单侧入路, 经皮椎间孔镜手术, 腰椎间盘突出症, 安全性

Objective

The aim of the study was to compare the effects of unilateral and bilateral approach percutaneous interlaminar laminectomy (PELD) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation at L₃-S₁ segment, focusing on the assessment of pain relief, functional recovery, postoperative complications, and patient satisfaction, and to analyse its efficacy and safety.

Methods

Sixty patients with lumbar disc herniation were included in the study, there were 20 male cases and 40 female cases, aged from 18 to 70 years, with an average age of (48.8±6.1) years, and were divided into unilateral approach group and bilateral approach group according to the surgical approach, with 30 cases in each group. All patients were treated with PELD surgery and followed up for 6 months after surgery. The main assessment indexes included visual analogue score (VAS), Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (JOA), Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) and postoperative complications.

Results

The VAS scores of the unilateral approach group at preoperative, 1 week postoperative, 1 month postoperative, 3 months postoperative and 6 months postoperative were (7.1±1.2), (4.3±0.8), (2.2±0.6), (1.6±0.5), and (1.3±0.4), respectively. Those of the bilateral approach group were (7.3±1.2), (4.7±0.9), (2.5±0.7), (2.0±0.6), and (1.7±0.5), respectively. There were statistically significant differences between different groups and time points (F=4.251, P=0.04; F=325.604, P=0.000), and there was an interaction between groups and time points (F=3.201, P=0.015). The JOA scores of the unilateral approach group at preoperative, 1 week postoperative, 1 month postoperative, 3 months postoperative and 6 months postoperative were (12.4±2.1), (16.1±1.6), (18.4±1.4), (20.1±1.3), and (20.8±1.2), respectively. Those of the bilateral approach group were (12.5±2.2), (15.7±1.5), (17.9±1.3), (17.9±1.3), and (20.0±1.1), respectively. There were statistically significant differences between different groups and time points (F=5.128, P=0.128; F=598.354, P=0.000), and there was an interaction between groups and time points (F=15.246, P=0.015). The Oswestry Disability Index of the unilateral approach group at preoperative, 1 week postoperative, 1 month postoperative, 3 months postoperative and 6 months postoperative were (51.8±7.0), (37.5±6.3), (30.2±5.5), (24.5±4.7), and (20.8±4.1), respectively. Those of the bilateral approach group were (52.1±7.3), (39.0±6.5), (31.0±5.8), (26.0±4.9), and (22.1±4.4), respectively. There were statistically significant differences between different groups and time points (F=4.317, P=0.043; F=485.726, P=0.000), and there was an interaction between groups and time points (F=4.128, P=0.003). The infection rate of the bilateral approach group was 13.3%, significantly higher than that of the unilateral approach group (0%) (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative patient satisfaction (P>0.05).

Conclusion

The unilateral approach to PELD surgery was superior to the bilateral approach in reducing pain, improving functional recovery, and reducing postoperative complications, and both groups had higher postoperative patient satisfaction. Unilateral approach as an effective choice for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation at L3-S1 segment has better clinical results.

Key words: Unilateral approach, Percutaneous intervertebral laminectomy, Lumbar disc herniation, Safety

表1 两组腰椎间盘突出症患者一般资料比较

组别	例数	性别（例，男/女）	BMI指数（kg/m²，±s）	患病节段（例，L_3-4/L_4-5/L₅-S₁）	病程（月，±s）	年龄（岁，±s）
单侧组	30	12/18	25.92±2.43	7/11/12	13.18±3.47	49.01±6.24
双侧组	30	8/22	25.52±2.12	8/12/10	13.03±3.54	48.83±6.04
t/χ²值		1.200	0.679	1.023	0.077	0.113
P值		0.273	0.500	0.310	0.939	0.910

表1 两组腰椎间盘突出症患者一般资料比较

组别	例数	性别（例，男/女）	BMI指数（kg/m²，±s）	患病节段（例，L_3-4/L_4-5/L₅-S₁）	病程（月，±s）	年龄（岁，±s）
单侧组	30	12/18	25.92±2.43	7/11/12	13.18±3.47	49.01±6.24
双侧组	30	8/22	25.52±2.12	8/12/10	13.03±3.54	48.83±6.04
t/χ²值		1.200	0.679	1.023	0.077	0.113
P值		0.273	0.500	0.310	0.939	0.910

图1~14 患者男，58岁，诊断L_4-5间盘突出继发腰椎管狭窄，症状双下肢疼痛麻木，左侧重，右侧轻，术式：后外侧入路PELD（侧路镜）左侧入路双侧椎管减压；图1~2　硬膜囊及对侧神经根减压；图3~6　行走根减压；图7~10　出口根减压；图11~14　出口根及行走根及对侧行走根及硬膜腹侧减压侧底

表2 治疗前后腰椎间盘突出症患者的疼痛VAS评分变化情况（分，

±s）

组别	例数	术前	术后1周	术后1个月	术后3个月	术后6个月	F值	P值
单侧入路组	30	7.1±1.2	4.3±0.8^a	2.2±0.6^ab	1.6±0.5^abc	1.3±0.4^abcd	285.741	0.000
双侧入路组	30	7.3±1.4	4.7±0.9^a	2.5±0.7^ab	2.0±0.6^abc	1.7±0.5^abcd	250.963	0.000
F值		-1.045	-2.311	-2.431	-2.880	-3.226
P值		0.298	0.025	0.020	0.008	0.003

表2 治疗前后腰椎间盘突出症患者的疼痛VAS评分变化情况（分，

±s）

组别	例数	术前	术后1周	术后1个月	术后3个月	术后6个月	F值	P值
单侧入路组	30	7.1±1.2	4.3±0.8^a	2.2±0.6^ab	1.6±0.5^abc	1.3±0.4^abcd	285.741	0.000
双侧入路组	30	7.3±1.4	4.7±0.9^a	2.5±0.7^ab	2.0±0.6^abc	1.7±0.5^abcd	250.963	0.000
F值		-1.045	-2.311	-2.431	-2.880	-3.226
P值		0.298	0.025	0.020	0.008	0.003

表3 治疗前后腰椎间盘突出症患者的JOA评分情况（分，

±s）

组别	例数	术前	术后1周	术后1个月	术后3个月	术后6个月	F值	P值
单侧入路组	30	12.4±2.1	16.1±1.6^a	18.4±1.4^ab	20.1±1.3^abc	20.8±1.2^abcd	412.619	0.000
双侧入路组	30	12.5±2.2	15.7±1.5^a	17.9±1.3^ab	17.9±1.3^abc	20.0±1.1^abcd	385.927	0.000
F值		-0.351	1.244	1.713	2.327	2.842
P值		0.726	0.219	0.090	0.023	0.006

表3 治疗前后腰椎间盘突出症患者的JOA评分情况（分，

±s）

组别	例数	术前	术后1周	术后1个月	术后3个月	术后6个月	F值	P值
单侧入路组	30	12.4±2.1	16.1±1.6^a	18.4±1.4^ab	20.1±1.3^abc	20.8±1.2^abcd	412.619	0.000
双侧入路组	30	12.5±2.2	15.7±1.5^a	17.9±1.3^ab	17.9±1.3^abc	20.0±1.1^abcd	385.927	0.000
F值		-0.351	1.244	1.713	2.327	2.842
P值		0.726	0.219	0.090	0.023	0.006

表4 腰椎间盘突出症患者治疗前后Oswestry功能障碍指数水平情况

组别	例数	术前	术后1周	术后1个月	术后3个月	术后6个月	F值	P值
单侧入路组	30	51.8±7.0	37.5±6.3^a	30.2±5.5^ab	24.5±4.7^abc	20.8±4.1^abcd	352.419	0.000
双侧入路组	30	52.1±7.3	39.0±6.5^a	31.0±5.8^ab	26.0±4.9^abc	22.1±4.4^abcd	298.635	0.000
F值		-0.357	-1.311	-1.147	-2.135	-2.672
P值		0.722	0.192	0.259	0.035	0.010

表4 腰椎间盘突出症患者治疗前后Oswestry功能障碍指数水平情况

组别	例数	术前	术后1周	术后1个月	术后3个月	术后6个月	F值	P值
单侧入路组	30	51.8±7.0	37.5±6.3^a	30.2±5.5^ab	24.5±4.7^abc	20.8±4.1^abcd	352.419	0.000
双侧入路组	30	52.1±7.3	39.0±6.5^a	31.0±5.8^ab	26.0±4.9^abc	22.1±4.4^abcd	298.635	0.000
F值		-0.357	-1.311	-1.147	-2.135	-2.672
P值		0.722	0.192	0.259	0.035	0.010

表5 治疗术后治疗前后腰椎间盘突出症患者的并发症发生情况[例（%）]

组别	例数	感染	神经损伤	总体并发症数
单侧入路组	30	0	1（3.3）	1（3.3）
双侧入路组	30	4（13.3）	1（3.3）	5（16.63）
χ²值		4.286	0.000	2.963
P值		0.048	1.000	0.085

表5 治疗术后治疗前后腰椎间盘突出症患者的并发症发生情况[例（%）]

组别	例数	感染	神经损伤	总体并发症数
单侧入路组	30	0	1（3.3）	1（3.3）
双侧入路组	30	4（13.3）	1（3.3）	5（16.63）
χ²值		4.286	0.000	2.963
P值		0.048	1.000	0.085

图17~18 手术后MRI显示突出髓核已摘除，神经受压解除

表6 治疗后不同时间腰椎间盘突出症患者满意度情况

时间点	单侧入路组患者满意度（%）	双侧入路组患者满意度（%）	χ²值	P值
术后1周	80	78.5	1.234	0.222
术后1个月	85	82.7	1.568	0.119
术后3个月	90.2	88.4	1.213	0.233
术后6个月	95.1	92.6	1.341	0.195

表6 治疗后不同时间腰椎间盘突出症患者满意度情况

时间点	单侧入路组患者满意度（%）	双侧入路组患者满意度（%）	χ²值	P值
术后1周	80	78.5	1.234	0.222
术后1个月	85	82.7	1.568	0.119
术后3个月	90.2	88.4	1.213	0.233
术后6个月	95.1	92.6	1.341	0.195

1	王湘斌,王翀,李勇,等.脊柱内镜技术在胸椎黄韧带骨化症手术治疗中的应用[J].中华外科杂志, 2024, 62(8): 793-797.
2	唐骞,汤忠鑫,申明奎,等.单侧双通道内镜技术与经皮椎间孔镜技术治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症的临床效果与安全性比较[J].中华外科杂志, 2025, 63(9): 814-820.
3	Zhang B, Chen P, Zhong J, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in lumbar disc herniation with posterior ring apophysis fracture: A case report in a 15-year-old child [J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2023, 102(52): e36213.
4	Long X, Jian h Z, Qin Z, et al. Clinical comparison of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar vs. unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study [J]. Scientific Reports, 2025, 15(1): 15347-15347.
5	Balan V, Fishchenko I, Kravchuk L. Comparison of unilateral bioportal endoscopic discectomy and interlaminar microdiscectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation [J]. Brain and Spine, 2024, 4(S2): 103093-103093.
6	徐聪,李美华,王立超,等.单侧双通道内镜与经皮内镜椎板间入路技术治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症的疗效分析[J].中华神经外科杂志, 2025, 41(5): 464-470.
7	Wang H, Zhou T, Gu Y, et al. Evaluation of efficacy and safety of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery (PTES) for surgical treatment of calcified lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective cohort study of 101 patients [J]. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2021, 22(1): 1-9.
8	Edizioni M, Medica, Bonis PD, et al.Transpars approach for L5-S1 foraminal and extra-foraminal lumbar disc herniations: technical note [J]. J Neurosurg Sci, 2020,12(5).
9	Shen SC, Chen HC, Tsou HK, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for L5-S1 disc herniation base on image analysis and clinical findings: A retrospective review of 345 cases [J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2023, 102(5): e32832.
10	Jiang HW, Chen CD, Zhan BS, et al. Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study [J]. J Orthop Surg Res, 2022, 17(1): 30.
11	Wu X, Wang J, Xu Z, et al. Bi-Needle PELD with Intra-Discal Irrigation Technique for the Management of Lumbar Disc Herniation [J]. Pain Physician, 2022, 25(2): E309-E317.
12	Luo M, Wang Z, Zhou B, et al. Risk factors for lumbar disc herniation recurrence after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a meta-analysis of 58 cohort studies [J]. Neurosurg Rev, 2023, 46(1): 159.
13	Wei FL, Li T, Gao QY, et al. Eight Surgical Interventions for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Network Meta-Analysis on Complications [J]. Front Surg, 2021, 8: 679142.
14	Zhu H, Hussain Z, Zhang M, et al. Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation With Type II Modic Changes [J]. World Neurosurg, 2022, 164: e143-e149.
15	Jitpakdee K, Liu Y, Kotheeranurak V, et al. Transforaminal Versus Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [J]. Global Spine J, 2023, 13(2): 575-587.
16	Jiang L, Xie X, He R, et al. Analysis of risk factors for post-operative recurrence after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in patients with lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis [J]. J Orthop Surg Res, 2023, 18(1): 935.
17	Qu L, Wang Y, Wang F, et al. Surgical outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in obese adolescents with lumbar disc herniation [J]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2023, 24(1): 710.
18	Tang T, Liu J, Cao J, et al. Risk Factors and Causes of Reoperation in Lumbar Disc Herniation Patients after Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: A Retrospective Case Series with a Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up [J]. Med Sci Monit, 2023, 29: e939844.
19	Zhou G, Liang Z, Gao F, et al.Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Calcified Lumbar Disc Herniation:A Retrospective Cohort Study, Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [J]. Pain Physician, 2024, 27(1): E1-E15.
20	Zhao K, Li LD, Li TT, et al. Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-analysis [J]. Biomed Res Int, 2022, 2022: 6488674.
21	Mao L, Wang K, Zhu W, et al. Repeat Surgery after Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Adolescent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Multicenter Observational Study [J]. Orthop Surg, 2024, 16(6): 1336-1343.
22	Tang J, Liang Z, He J, Shang Q, et al. Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation Using an Endoscopic Staining: A Technical Note [J]. Orthop Surg, 2021, 13(4): 1430-1436.

[1]	李继承, 刘仕祺, 杜娟, 杨子馨, 朱杏, 黑明燕. 肠造瘘术后新生儿肠液回输安全性的系统评价和Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2025, 21(02): 219-229.
[2]	陈隆, 段晓鑫, 王思卓, 董胜利. 胃癌免疫治疗的现状[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 177-182.
[3]	刘缤妍, 朱昱冰, 李慧敏, 郝梦迪, 刘晓丽, 袁大晋, 黄汶彬, 李文杰, 曾嘉, 丁磊. 术前CT血管造影三维重建在结直肠癌手术中的应用价值：一项荟萃分析[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 209-216.
[4]	严征远, 张恒, 曹能琦, 方兴超, 陈大敏. 单孔+1腹腔镜结直肠癌根治切除术的有效性及安全性临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(06): 615-618.
[5]	张亚伟, 刘琪, 姜建武, 邓瑞, 符洋. 肠造口还纳联合巨大切口疝一期修补六例分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 276-280.
[6]	郑文涛, 肖静, 欧阳兵, 吴毅, 廖开友, 李春林. 载药微球CalliSpheres经支气管动脉化疗栓塞术治疗Ⅲ~Ⅳ期非小细胞肺癌疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2025, 18(05): 691-696.
[7]	李文洁, 师佩, 赵睿, 穆娇, 魏东东, 顾兴. 超脉冲Nd︰YAG激光消融治疗中心气道狭窄的疗效和安全性分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2025, 18(04): 586-591.
[8]	樊巍, 张丽苇, 沈渝菊. 纤支镜冷冻联合钬激光介入术治疗支气管球形异物一例[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2025, 18(04): 660-661.
[9]	许裕杰, 华学锋, 李宁, 陆敏强. 机器人辅助与腹腔镜肝切除治疗肝脏肿瘤的围手术期疗效对比[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 18(02): 98-104.
[10]	张宇涵, 吴添庆, 高汶卿, 郑梽楷, 贺珉睿, 周仲国. 不可切除性肝内胆管癌不同治疗方式疗效和安全性的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(06): 939-947.
[11]	龙吟, 何晓东, 廖建国, 黄珏, 张磊. 高复发风险肝癌患者术后靶向免疫治疗的安全性及疗效[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(03): 379-386.
[12]	蒋佳君, 韦德令, 任洪冰, 朱海, 王继龙, 徐邦浩, 郭雅, 卢婷婷, 张灵, 吕自力, 文张. 全胰腺切除术治疗胰腺癌安全性和疗效分析并文献复习[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 281-289.
[13]	栾天继, 曹定, 梅洪亮, 付航玮, 杨凯, 王丹, 尚作宏, 凌锋, 李支会, 张振雨, 胡逸林. 腹腔镜左半肝切除联合左肝管残端胆管探查取石治疗复杂肝左叶胆管结石合并胆总管结石患者疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 81-86.
[14]	文皓男, 闻雅, 吴彬阁, 吴倩如, 刘晶, 接英, 田磊. 射频技术用于睑板腺功能障碍相关干眼治疗安全性与有效性的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华眼科医学杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(02): 87-92.
[15]	李晓达, 焦岗军, 李天牧, 姜炬芳. 头孢地尼分散片联合微创旋切术对浆细胞性乳腺炎的治疗效果及安全性评估[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 14-19.

阅读次数

全文

摘要

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

A prospective randomised controlled study of the efficacy and safety of triple root decompression for lumbar disc herniation by selecting a unilateral approach during PELD surgery

模态框（Modal）标题

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

A prospective randomised controlled study of the efficacy and safety of triple root decompression for lumbar disc herniation by selecting a unilateral approach during PELD surgery