椎间盘镜与椎板开窗治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症疗效对比分析

[目的]比较椎间盘镜下髓核摘除术和椎板开窗髓核摘除术治疗单节段单侧腰椎间盘出症的临床效果及优缺点。[方法]回顾性分析2003年7月-2005年7月手术治疗的单节段椎间盘突出症患者69例，其中应用椎间盘镜手术治疗腰椎间盘突出症患者32例、椎板开窗手术37例。分别比较手术时间、术中出血量、术后卧床时间、术后出院时间、术前术后JOA评分、腰痛及腿痛VAS评分。[结果]椎间盘镜组和椎板开窗组疗效优良率分别为优良率93．7％和91．9％，无显著性差异，同时两组患者术后腿痛缓解无显著性差异；而两组患者在术后腰痛VAS评分、术中出血量、术后卧床时间及术后住院时间有显著性差异，椎间盘镜组要明显优于常规椎板开窗组。[结论]两种术式都能有效缓解腰椎间盘突出症患者的症状，但MED手术创伤小、出血少、术后早期康复快，术后遗留腰痛较轻。     

显微镜下巨大型腰椎间盘突出症的手术治疗

目的 探讨经后路显微镜辅助下椎间盘切除术(microsurgery lumbar discectomy,MSLD)治疗单节段巨大型腰椎间盘突出症的方法与疗效.方法 2008年9月至2012年1月,收治25例单节段巨大型腰椎间盘突出症患者,其中男12例,女13例;年龄15～56岁,平均43岁.均行MSLD辅助下椎板开窗摘除椎间盘手术.结果 术后随访6个月～3年(平均1.5年),术后按照Macnab评分进行疗效评定,优18例(72％),良5例(20％),可2例(8％),差0例.术后切口均1期愈合.无手术间隙定位错误、神经根损伤、马尾神经损伤及感染等并发症发生.结论 MSLD具有创伤小、安全、并发症少、效果好等优点,是治疗单节段巨大型腰椎间盘突出症的一种理想的微创手术方式.     

经皮椎间孔镜与椎间盘镜髓核摘除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的比较

目的比较经皮椎间孔镜技术与椎间盘镜髓核摘除术治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症的手术疗效。方法回顾性分析自2014-06—2016-06诊治的60例单节段腰椎间盘突出症,采用经皮椎间孔镜技术治疗30例(椎间孔镜组),采用椎间盘镜髓核摘除术治疗30例(椎间盘镜组)。比较2组切口长度、手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间,以及术后1周、术后3个月、术后6个月、末次随访时疼痛VAS评分、ODI指数。结果 60例均获得随访,随访时间平均22(12~36)个月。椎间孔镜组在切口长度、术中出血量、术后住院时间方面明显优于椎间盘镜组,但椎间孔镜组手术时间较椎间盘镜组长,差异有统计学意义(P 0.05)。椎间孔镜组与椎间盘镜组术后1周、术后3个月、术后6个月、末次随访时疼痛VAS评分、ODI指数比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论经皮椎间孔镜和椎间盘镜髓核摘除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症均具有创伤小、出血少、并发症少和对腰椎后柱结构破坏小等优点,但相比之下,经皮椎间孔镜手术创伤相对更小,术后患者住院时间更短,患者接受程度更高。     

腰椎间盘突出症两种微创手术方法比较

目的通过研究比较显微镜下腰椎间盘切除术(MSLD)与椎间盘镜(MED)治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症(LDH)的方法和疗效,为LDH的微创治疗提供经验参考和依据。方法回顾性研究单节段LDH微创治疗病例,两组各100例,比较手术时间、术中情况、住院时间、并发症,以及疗效等指标。结果两组疗效优良率均达到90%以上,无显著性差异;在手术成功率及手术时间上MSLD组优于MED组。结论此两种微创方法疗效满意,技术方法无明显差异。MSLD具有操作简单,适应证宽等优点,作为目前微创治疗方法更为理想。     

手术显微镜下与椎间盘镜下治疗腰椎间盘突出症的比较研究

 目的 对比研究手术显微镜下腰椎间盘切除术(microsurgical lumbar discectomy, MSLD)与椎间盘镜下腰椎间盘切除术(microendoscopic discectomy, MED)治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症的方法、特点与疗效。方法 2006年 1月至 2009年 12月, 900例单节段腰椎间盘突出症患者被随机分为两组, MSLD组与 MED组各 450例, 术后分别平均随访 36个月和 38个月。比较两组手术病例的平均切口长度、手术时间、出血量、并发症、住: 天数及恢复情况。结果 MSLD组及 MED组的切口长度分别为(3.8±1.1) cm和(2.4±0.7) cm, 手术时间分别为(51.0±14.2) min和(62.0±16.3) min, 术中出血量分别为(60±35) ml和(106±43) ml, 以上指标两组间差异均有统计学意义(P 0.05)。末次随访时, MSLD组及 MED组的疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scales, VAS)改善率和 Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index, ODI)改善率差异均无统计学意义(P >0.05)。 MSLD组硬脊膜撕裂、急性竖脊肌血肿、神经根及马尾损伤等并发症及术后复发的发生率均明显少于 MED组(P< 0.01)。两组均未出现定位错误、大血管损伤和术后感染。结论 MSLD与 MED治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症均可获得满意的远期疗效, 但 MSLD操作简单、并发症少、学习曲线短。     

经皮椎间孔镜腰椎间盘切除术与开窗腰椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效对比

目的比较经皮椎间孔镜腰椎间盘切除术与开窗腰椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症(LDH)的近期临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2014-01-2015-01期间在我科接受手术治疗的单节段LDH患者80例,其中接受经皮椎间孔镜腰椎间盘切除术(PTED)患者40例,接受开窗腰椎间盘切除术患者40例.比较两种手术切口长度、手术时间、出血量、住院天数等情况。手术效果按照视觉疼痛模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)、改良Mac Nab标准进行评定。结果 PTED组及开窗腰椎间盘切除术组的切口长度、出血量、住院天数比较,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05),手术时间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。两组患者术后随访时间平均12个月,PTED组术前及术后各个随访点VAS评分与开窗组相比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05),两组术后各随访时间点腰腿痛VAS评分较术前均明显改善(P0.05)。PTED组和开窗腰椎间盘切除术患者末次随访时按改良Macnab标准评定,优良率分别为:、92.5%和90%,组间比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 PTED与开窗腰椎间盘切除术治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症均可取得满意的近期临床疗效。但PTED具有创伤小、出血少和恢复快等[8]特点,是更为理想的微创手术方法。     

全内窥镜技术治疗下腰段腰椎间盘突出症

目的观察全内窥镜镜下切除椎间盘对治疗下腰段腰椎间盘突出症的临床效果。方法采用全内窥镜镜下椎间盘切除术治疗下腰段腰椎间盘突出症患者36例,其中男29例,女7例;年龄25~69岁,平均41.46岁。从术前与术后的视觉模拟评分（visual analogue scale,VAS）、Oswestry功能障碍指数（Oswestry disability index,ODI）及改良Macnab疗效评定标准三个方面来评价临床疗效。结果所有患者临床症状术后均得到缓解。VAS评分术前（8.63±0.75）分,术后（1.75±1.24）分,术前及术后比较具有显著统计学意义（P〈0.01）;ODI评分术前（86.54±4.25）%,术后（21.32±2.25）%,术前及术后比较具有显著统计学意义（P〈0.01）;根据改良Macnab疗效评定标准评价：优8例,良23例,可4例,差1例。结论全内窥镜下椎间盘切除术治疗下腰段椎间盘突出症疗效显著。     

椎间盘镜治疗腰椎间盘突出手术适应证探讨

[目的]合理掌握后路椎间盘镜手术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的手术适应证，提高治疗效果。[方法]比较本院2000年3月～2002年3月应用椎间盘镜手术治疗的腰椎间盘突出症256例（A组）与2002年3月～2005年3月应用椎间盘镜手术治疗的腰椎间盘突出症333例（B组）的于术时间、出血量，并发症及临床效果：[结果]A组的手术时间、出血量大于B组（P〈0．05），而优良率则小于B组（P〈0．05）：A组病例术中硬膜及神经根损伤7例．关节突咬除过多4例，椎间隙感染1例，B组病例术中无硬膜及神经根损伤，无切口感染及椎间隙感染病例：[结论]熟练的手术操作，合理选择手术适心址，充分发挥后路椎间盘镜的优势，是减少并发症、提高腰椎间盘突出症疗效的关键。     

椎间孔镜与椎板间开窗腰椎间盘切除术疗效对比

目的探讨椎间孔镜椎间盘切除术(TED)与椎板间开窗椎间盘切除术(FD)治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症的疗效差异。方法选取2015年1月至2017年12月揭阳市人民医院收治的69例单节段腰椎间盘突出症患者,按随机数字表法分为TED组和FD组,其中TED组36例、FD组33例。对两组切口长度、手术时间、围手术期并发症、住院时间、末次随访日本骨科学会评分(JOA)及视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分进行比较。结果随访时间6～25个月,平均随访时间(18.8±12.5)个月。两组末次随访JOA评分、VAS评分、围手术期并发症比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05),但在切口长度、手术时间及住院时间方面,TED组短于FD组(P 0.05)。结论TED和FD治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症均可取得满意的短期疗效,但与FD比较,TED创伤更小,手术时间更短,更有利于患者的术后恢复。     

青壮年腰椎间盘突出症椎间盘镜微创术疗效分析

目的探讨采用椎间盘镜治疗青壮年腰椎间盘突出症临床疗效与椎间盘突出类型和突出节段的相关性。方法对青壮年腰椎间盘突出症46例采用椎间盘镜微创术治疗。结果末次随访时85.4%(35/41)重新返回工作岗位,14.6%(6/41)带药出院。VAS评分平均减少4.7分。结论采用椎间盘镜治疗青壮年症状性椎间盘突出,具有创伤小、恢复快的特点,应用于L5S1间盘突出时疗效更好。     

Comparison of surgical outcomes between macro discectomy and micro discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective randomized study with surgery performed by the same spine surgeon

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study was conducted on the surgical procedures for lumbar disc herniation. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate the surgical outcomes of different methods when performed by the same surgeon, using a prospective study. BACKGROUND: Macro discectomy is widely known as a common surgical procedure for lumbar disc herniation, while microdiscectomy in place of Caspar technique (the Caspar method) and microendoscopic discectomy by a posterior approach are reported as less invasive surgical methods for this condition. However, there have not been a significant number of prospective studies conducted to compare different surgical procedures for lumbar disc herniation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The target of our study was a group of 62 patients (male: 43, female: 19) who underwent surgery by macro discectomy (A group) and 57 patients (male: 33, female: 24) who underwent surgery by microdiscectomy in place of Caspar technique (B group). The mean ages at surgery were 34 (14 to 62) years and 41 (18 to 65) years respectively, and the mean duration of follow-up was 2 years and 8 months (12 months to 4 years). For all patients, the surgery was performed by 1 of the authors. The items investigated were the operation time, amount of bleeding, duration of hospitalization, amount of analgesic agent used after surgery, pre- and postoperative scores based on judgment criteria for treatment of lumbar spine disorders established by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, visual analog scales (VAS, 0 to 10) for lumbago before surgery and at discharge, VAS for sciatica before surgery and at discharge, perioperative complications, and cases requiring further surgery. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the 2 surgical procedures in the frequency of use of an analgesic agent after surgery, the pre- and postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores or postoperative VAS for sciatica. Statistically significant differences were observed in the operation time, amount of bleeding, duration of hospitalization, and postoperative VAS for lumbar pain, but the differences were not large, and may not have been clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: For herniotomy for lumbar disc herniation, both macro discectomy and microdiscectomy are appropriate, as long as surgeons have mastery of the procedures.     

显微内窥镜椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎椎间盘突出术后复发

目的研究后路经椎板间隙入路显微内窥镜椎间盘切除术(Micro-endoscope discectomy,MED)治疗腰椎椎间盘突出术后复发的临床疗效。方法选取本院2003年6月~2013年6月诊断为腰椎椎间盘突出术后复发并行手术治疗患者61例,根据治疗手术方式分为观察组和对照组。观察组行MED手术,患者23例;对照组行后入路固定融合术,患者38例。统计2组术中出血量、手术时间及日本骨科学会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA)评分、疼痛视觉模拟量表(visual analogue scale,VAS)评分等情况,用SPSS 20.0统计软件进行统计分析。结果 2组患者在术中出血量、手术时间方面相比,差异有统计学意义(P0.05),而术后JOA、VAS评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 MED治疗腰椎椎间盘突出术后复发中期临床效果满意,并将是今后脊柱外科的发展的重点、热点。     

显微内镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症远期效果评价

目的探讨显微内镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症远期效果. 方法回顾性分析218例经显微内镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症远期疗效,术后随访3年以上,采用日本骨科学会下腰痛评分标准(JOA)进行疗效评定. 结果本组病例术后随访3年以上,优121例,良80例,可16例,差1例,优良率92.2%(201/218).结论显微内镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症远期疗效确切,娴熟的操作技巧和术后正确指导患者康复训练是确保手术效果的关键.     

Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging of lumbar disc herniation: comparison of microendoscopic discectomy and Love's method.

STUDY DESIGN: We performed a study to compare the magnetic resonance imaging findings up to 24 weeks after microendoscopic discectomy or surgery using Love's method in patients with lumbar disc herniation. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to determine whether or not microendoscopic discectomy was minimally invasive with respect to the nerve roots, cauda equina, and paravertebral muscles by comparing the postoperative magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients treated by microendoscopic discectomy and the conventional Love's method. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: We introduced microendoscopic discectomy as a minimally invasive surgical procedure for lumbar disc herniation in September 1998 and have obtained good results. Microendoscopic discectomy is superior to the conventional Love's method in that it reduces postoperative pain, shortens the duration of hospitalization, and allows earlier resumption of normal activities. However, the effect of microendoscopic discectomy on the nerves and paravertebral muscles has not been evaluated objectively. METHODS: Enhancement of the nerve roots and paravertebral muscles, as well as the configuration of the cauda equina at the level of herniation, was assessed on axial magnetic resonance images obtained with contrast enhancement using gadolinium-diethylenetriamine penta-acetic acid before surgery and 1, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks after surgery in 25 patients who underwent microendoscopic discectomy and 15 patients who were treated using Love's method. RESULTS: Increased enhancement of the nerve roots was seen in 50.0% of the microendoscopic discectomy group and 46.2% of the Love group at 1 week after surgery. Enhancement of the paravertebral muscles at the surgical site tended to persist for longer in the microendoscopic discectomy group than in the Love group. However, muscle enhancement was widespread in some patients from the Love group. Abnormalities of the cauda equina attributed to surgical invasion were seen in 12.5% of the microscopic discectomy group and 15.4% of the Love group at 1 week after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Microendoscopic discectomy had an effect on the nerve roots and cauda equina that was comparable with that of Love's method. The magnetic resonance images of the route of entry failed to show that microendoscopic discectomy is appreciably less invasive with respect to the paravertebral muscles.     

Cost-effectiveness of microendoscopic discectomy versus conventional open discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a prospective randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN51857546]

Background  

Open discectomy is the standard surgical procedure in the treatment of patients with long-lasting sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation. Minimally invasive approaches such as microendoscopic discectomy have gained attention in recent years. Reduced tissue trauma allows early ambulation, short hospital stay and quick resumption of daily activities. A comparative cost-effectiveness study has not been performed yet. We present the design of a randomised controlled trial on cost-effectiveness of microendoscopic discectomy versus conventional open discectomy in patients with lumbar disc herniation.     

Microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation with bony fragment due to apophyseal separation.

The purpose of this study was to elucidate the feasibility of microendoscopic discectomy (MED) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation with a bony fragment due to apophyseal separation. Eighteen patients with low back pain and unilateral sciatic pain due to lumbar disc herniation with a bony fragment were treated by MED using the unilateral approach (15 males and three females; mean age, of 28.9 years; mean follow-up period, 21.1 months); 18 age-and sex-matched patients with lumbar disc herniation without a bony fragment treated by MED served as the control group. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopedic Association Score for Low Back Pain (JOA scores; maximum score, 29 points). Evaluation of the results revealed that good surgical outcomes equivalent to those in the control group were obtained in the subjects of LDH with a bony fragment (JOA scores; 14.1+/-3.5 in the patient group vs.15.4+/-2.6 in the control group before surgery; 26.3+/-1.8 in the patient group vs. 26.9+/-1.3 at follow-up after the surgery). Although the mean surgical time was significantly longer in the patient group, there were no intra- or postoperative complications in either group. We conclude that MED using the unilateral approach is a feasible minimally invasive surgical option for patients of lumbar disc herniation with an apophyseal bony fragment.     

经皮椎间孔内窥镜下手术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的近期疗效观察

目的:评价经皮椎间孔内窥镜下椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的近期临床效果。方法:2009年9月～2010年3月应用经皮椎间孔内窥镜下椎间盘切除术治疗30例腰椎间盘突出症患者,男19例,女11例,年龄18～60岁,平均40.8岁;病程3个月～4年,平均9个月。术前患者均表现为腰痛伴单侧下肢放射性疼痛,均为单间隙突出,侧方型突出25例,旁中央型突出5例。均采用局部麻醉下手术。术前、术后不同时间对患者腰、腿痛进行VAS评分;采用Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评估腰椎功能改善情况;术后6个月随访时采用Mac-Nab标准评价疗效。结果:30例患者均成功实施手术,手术时间55～135min,平均75min,术中出血5～30ml,平均12ml。术后第二天戴腰围下地行走。1例术后患侧膝反射减弱;1例术后腰痛缓解,出院后腿痛加重,均经保守治疗后恢复正常或症状缓解。随访6～12个月,平均9.2个月。腰痛、腿痛VAS由术前的平均6.5分、8.7分下降到术后6个月时的1.9分、1.5分,与术前比较均有显著性差异﹙P<0.01﹚。ODI由术前平均77.38%下降至术后6个月时的平均19.09%。根据MacNab标准,术后6个月时随访优10例(33.3%),良16例(53.3%),可3例(10%),差1例(3.3%),优良率86.6%。结论:经皮椎间孔内窥镜下椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症创伤小,并发症少,术后恢复快,近期疗效较满意。     

经横突间入路显微内窥镜下髓核摘除术治疗极外侧型腰椎间盘突出症

目的：探讨经横突间入路显微内窥镜下髓核摘除（MED）治疗极外侧型腰椎间盘突出症的临床效果。方法：对2005年2月至2010年2月经横突间入路显微内窥镜下髓核摘除治疗的极外侧型腰椎间盘突出症73例患者进行回顾性分析,其中男41例,女32例;年龄19-80岁,平均56.5岁;病程1-25个月,平均4.5个月。突出间隙：L3,49例,L4,549例,L5S115例。记录术前、术后2周及末次随访时疼痛强度视觉模拟评分（visual analogue scale,VAS）,评估患者疼痛缓解情况。采用Oswestry功能障碍指数（Oswestry Disability Index,ODI）评价患者术前和末次随访时躯体功能、行走能力等总体生活质量。结果：所有患者手术顺利完成,手术时间40-115 min,平均50 min;出血量50-150 ml,平均110 ml;切口感染1例,神经根不完全损伤1例。73例均获随访,时间3-8年,平均4.5年。术后VAS及ODI分值均较术前有明显改善（P〈0.01）。结论：经横突间入路显微内窥镜下髓核摘除术是治疗极外侧型腰椎间盘突出症有效可行的方法。     

椎间盘镜与胶原酶治疗腰椎间盘突出症的初步比较

目的　比较行椎间盘镜与胶原酶化学溶解术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效等一系列问题。方法　随机抽取同期采用上述两种方法治疗病例各 97例 ,对其临床疗效 ,住院费用、住院天数、适应证及禁忌证等问题比较分析。结果　两种治疗方法总有效率分别为 95 %、87.6 % ,平均住院费分别为 86 5 8元和 2 746元 ,住院天数分别为 6 .5天和 5 .5天 ,前者适应证较后者广泛 ,禁忌证较少。结论　上述方法治疗腰椎间盘突出症均具有创伤小、出血少 ,脊柱力学结构完整 ,住院时间短、患者痛苦小 ,乐于接受等优点 ,前者费用较高 ,要求设备更先进昂贵、操作技术复杂 ,较难掌握 ,但有效率较高 ,适应证较广泛 ,作为两种现代微创治疗手段可根据适应证和禁忌证选择使用