椎间孔镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症临床疗效观察

目的探讨椎间孔镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症临床疗效。方法将68例腰椎间盘突出症患者随机分为研究组和对照组,每组各34例,研究组采用椎间孔镜进行手术治疗,对照组采用传统外科手术治疗。比较两组患者治疗前后疼痛程度变化情况、手术时间、术后住院时间及术中出血量等指标。结果研究组术中出血量、手术时间、术后住院时间均显著少于对照组,两组疼痛程度均较术前有所改善,研究组改善程度更明显,两组比较差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论应用椎间孔镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症可获得满意疗效,保障患者预后及生活质量。     

椎间孔镜技术治疗腰椎间盘突出症

目的分析椎间孔镜（transforaminal endoscopic spine system,TESSYS）技术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效,重点探讨治疗复杂类型腰椎间盘突出症的可行性。方法自2011年4月至2012年11月采用脊柱TESSYS技术治疗腰椎间盘突出症患者102例,共132个椎间盘。所有手术均采用德国标准椎间孔镜侧后方经皮穿刺路径方案,采用视觉模拟疼痛评分和改良Macnad标准评定手术疗效。结果腰痛及下肢放射痛的视觉模拟评分术前为（8.7±1.2）分,术后3d为（3.5±1.4）分,末次随访（1.5±1.1）分;术前、术后经统计学处理差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。改良Macnad标准临床效果评定结果为优52例,良40例,可6例,差4例,优良率为90.2%。患者对疼痛缓解满意率为95.2%。结论 TESSYS是治疗腰椎间盘突出症较为安全有效的新技术,具有创伤小、出血少、视野清晰、操作精准、术后恢复快、安全性能好、手术效果优良等优点。     

Thessys椎间孔镜技术治疗腰椎间盘突出症疗效分析

目的探讨经皮椎间孔镜技术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效。方法对2011-05-2012-03期间的腰椎间盘突出症患者21例,采用视觉模拟评分法(VAS法)和改良Macnab疗效评定标准测评入院时和椎间孔镜术后(术后当时、术后一周、一月、三月及六月),评估经皮椎间孔镜技术(PTED)治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效和安全。结果术后当时、术后一周、一月、三月、六月VAS评分分别为(1.62±0.74)、(2.90±0.88)、(1.57±0.50)、(1.57±0.74)和(2.14±0.65)均显著低于术前的(8.71±0.84)(P值均<0.01),根据改良Macnab疗效评定优17例,良2例,可2例。术后优良率均为90.47%,3例老年患者于术后出现腰背肌肉痉挛,于腰大肌肌间沟神经阻滞后症状消失。结论椎间孔镜对腰椎间盘突出症近期疗效确切。     

经皮椎间孔镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症临床疗效观察

[目的]探讨经皮椎间孔镜技术(percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy,PTED)治疗腰椎间盘突出症( lumbar disc herniation,LDH)的疗效.[方法]选择单或双节段椎间盘突出症23例,对5例实施侧后路经皮(transforaminal endoscopic spine system,THESSYS)椎间孔镜下椎间盘髓核摘除、减压手术,观察对比术前与术后疗效;疗效按照术前及术后疼痛感觉类比评分(VAS)和MacNab疗效评定标准进行评定.[结果]术前VAS评分为6.89±0.80,术后1 d VAS评分为0.90±0.79,术后3d为1.20±0.85,术后1周为(1.02±0.78);术后3、12、18个月的腰腿痛VAS评分都在0～2范围;腰腿痛VAS评分较术前均显著降低,术后不同时间节点与术前比较均差异显著(P＜0.01).[结论]经皮椎间孔镜下髓核摘除、减压术治疗椎间盘突出症的中远期效果可靠.     

椎间孔镜BEIS技术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效

[目的]探讨经皮椎间孔镜BEIS技术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效并总结经验。[方法]自2016年09月～2018年09月,采用椎间孔镜BEIS技术治疗椎间盘突出症52例,分析临床疗效;评估指标包括直腿抬高角度、疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)、改良MacNab评定标准。[结果]患者手术顺利完成,术后直腿抬高度数、VAS评分、ODI较术前明显改善、差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后改良MacNab标准为优35例、良14例、可3例。[结论]经皮椎间孔镜BEIS技术是一种微创、安全有效的腰椎间盘突出症治疗方法。     

椎间孔镜微创治疗腰椎间盘突出症近期疗效观察

目的：应用经皮椎间孔镜技术微创治疗腰椎间盘突出症,观察其临床治疗效果。方法;应用经皮椎间孔镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症患者28例,康复策略采用早期功能锻炼与腰椎稳定的原则进行,手术效果按照视疼痛模拟评分（VAS）和改良MacNab标准进行评定。结果：所有患者均成功实施手术,术后随访时间3个月,腰腿痛VAS评分较术前明显改善;根据改良MacNab标准优良率89.3％。结论：经皮椎间孔镜技术是治疗腰椎间盘突出症安全、有效的微创治疗办法：采用有效的康复手段,可以最大限度的减少复发,取得最大的治疗效果。     

侧后路椎间孔镜与后路椎间孔镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效观察

目的探讨侧后路椎间孔镜(PTED)与后路椎间孔镜(PEID)治疗腰椎间盘突出症(LDH)的效果。方法选择2017-08—2018-08间陆军第83集团军医院收治的66例LDH患者,按照不同手术方法分为PTED组和PEID组,各33例。回顾性分析患者的临床资料。结果 (1)PEID组手术时间、透视次数显著少于PTED组,术中出血量、住院时间显著多于PTED组。差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。(2)PTED组总有效率高于PEID组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。(3)手术前后2组患者组间VAS、ODI评分均差异无统计学意义(P0.05);组内比较,VAS、ODI评分均较术前显著改善,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 PTED与PEID手术均为微创、有效、安全的LDH治疗方法。PTED术中出血量更少,更符合微创手术理念,有助于缩短患者康复时间。可根据患者具体情况合理选择。     

经皮椎间孔镜治疗青年钙化型腰椎间盘突出症的临床研究

目的 探讨运用经皮椎间孔镜下髓核摘除术(percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy,PTED)治疗青年钙化型腰椎间盘突出症(calcified lumbar disc herniation,CLDH)的临床疗效.方法 自2015年12月～2017年3月,本院采用P...     

经皮椎间孔镜微创手术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效

目的探讨经皮椎间孔镜微创手术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法经皮椎间孔镜微创手术治疗非手术治疗无效的62例腰椎间盘突出症患者,采用疼痛VAS评分、ODI和改良MacNab标准评价临床疗效。结果患者均获得随访,时间6~12(7.8±3.4)个月。无硬膜破裂、神经根损伤等并发症发生。术后1 d和术后1、3、6个月腰腿痛VAS评分、ODI较术前均明显降低(P<0.01)。末次随访时改良MacNab标准评价疗效优良率为91.93%(57/62)。结论经皮椎间孔镜微创手术治疗腰椎间盘突出症创伤小,并发症少,术后恢复快,近期疗效可靠。     

经皮内窥镜腰椎间盘切除术与开放腰椎间盘摘除术治疗的临床对比研究

目的比较经皮内窥镜腰椎间盘切除术(PELD)和开放腰椎间盘摘除术(OLD)的临床疗效。方法对100例腰椎间盘突出症根据手术方法不同,分为PELD组和OLD组。手术效果按照Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)、疼痛视觉类比评分(VAS)和改良的MacNab标准评定。结果PELD组平均随访24.3个月,单个节段平均手术时间60min,失血11ml,术后卧床24h。OLD组平均随访24.5个月,单个节段平均手术时间50min,失血30ml,术后卧床120h。两组采用改良MacNab标准评定随访结果,PELD组优良率为92%,OLD组96%。PELD组和OLD组术后ODI、VAS与术前比较,明显改善(P<0.05)。结论在严格选择手术适应证的情况下,PELD和OLD具有相似的近期临床疗效,但是PELD具有切口小、创伤小和术后恢复较快等优点。     

经皮椎间孔镜治疗不同年龄段腰椎间盘突出症的短期疗效对比

目的 分析比较经皮椎间孔镜间盘切除术(percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy,PELD)治疗不同年龄段腰椎间盘突出症(lumbar disc herniation,LDH)的短期疗效.方法 2018年1月至8月,前瞻性纳入需行PELD治疗的107例LDH病人,以年龄为依据分组...     

椎间孔镜下纤维环缝合术治疗青少年腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效研究

目的 探讨经皮椎间孔镜技术（PTED）联合纤维环缝合术治疗青少年腰椎间盘突出症（ALDH）的临床疗效。方法 对2017年1月至2021年12月在湖北省中西医结合医院骨科行手术治疗的67例ALDH病人的临床资料进行回顾性分析,其中行PTED联合纤维环缝合术治疗的37例纳入观察组,同期行常规PTED的30例纳入对照组。比较两组术前、术后6个月和术后1年的腰腿痛视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）,以及胫神经、腓总神经的潜伏期与神经传导速度;比较两组术后1年的改良MacNab评分优良率与复发率。结果 病人随访（14.2±1.7）个月（12~24个月）。观察组术后6个月、术后1年的VAS评分、ODI指数均优于对照组;胫神经、腓总神经的潜伏期均低于对照组,神经传导速度均高于对照组;两组比较,差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。观察组和对照组术后的复发率分别为5.41%、6.67%,术后1年手术优良率分别为94.59%、93.33%,两组比较,差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 PTED联合纤维环缝合术治疗ALDH病人可取得满意的手术效果,可有效降低医源性组织损伤,改善腰腿痛症状及腰椎功能,促进术后脊髓神经功能快速恢复。     

Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Using a Double‐Cannula Guide Tube for Large Lumbar Disc Herniation

ObjectiveTo compare the effect of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) using a double‐cannula guide tube (DGT), traditional PELD, and open lumbar discectomy (OLD) to treat large lumbar disc herniations (LLDHs).MethodsSeventy patients who presented with LLDH without cauda equina syndrome and were treated with surgery in our hospital from October 2015 to October 2017 were included. The detailed index included the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and radicular leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in the immediate preoperative period and at the final follow‐up. The operation time, radiation exposure time, surgical satisfaction rate, and modified MacNab criteria score were also recorded.ResultsThe leg and back pain of the patients in these groups improved significantly in the postoperative period. No significant differences were observed in leg pain improvement between the other two groups; however, patients in the PELD group (with or without DGT) presented with significantly higher improvement in back pain than the OLD group (t = 9.965, p < 0.001). The final ODI scores were 12.1 ± 4.9, 11.2 ± 2.9, and 16.4 ± 3.6 in the PELD, PELD‐DGT, and OLD groups, respectively. Patients in the PELD and PELD‐DGT groups presented with significantly lower postoperative ODI scores than those in the OLD group (t = 20.834, p < 0.001). The mean postoperative hospital stays were significantly shorter in the PELD group and PELD with DGT group than in the OLD group (t = 46.688, p < 0.001). The mean operation time was significantly shorter in the PELD‐DGT group than those in the PELD group (t = 25.281, p = 0.001). No perioperative complications were observed in either group. Based on the modified MacNab criteria, excellent and good outcomes were achieved in 20 out of 21 patients (95.2%) in the PELD group, 23 out of 24 patients (95.8%) in the PELD‐DGT group, and 22 out of 25 patients (88.0%) in the OLD group. The rates of excellent and good outcomes were higher in the PELD and PELD‐DGT groups than in the OLD group, but there were no significant differences (χ ² = 1.454, p = 0.835).ConclusionsPELD using DGT is a safe and effective option for LLDH and features advantages such as improvements in back pain, a lower hospitalization cost than OLD, a shorter operation time, and less fluoroscopy than traditional PELD.     

快速康复内窥镜椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床观察

目的:探讨快速康复外科理念联合内窥镜椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效。方法:选取2018年4月—2019年4月本院收治的86例腰椎间盘突出症患者,随机分为两组,每组43例,对照组通过内窥镜椎间盘切除术治疗,观察组予以快速康复外科理念联合内窥镜椎间盘切除术治疗,对比两组疗效和并发症发生情况。结果:观察组并发症发生率(4.65%)较对照组(18.60%)低,差异有统计学意义(P 0.05);观察组下床活动时间、住院时间较对照组短,术后7天的疼痛评分较对照组低,差异有统计学意义(P 0.05);术后3个月,观察组的Oswestry功能障碍指数问卷表评分较对照组低,日本骨科协会评估治疗分数较对照组高,差异有统计学意义(P 0.05)。结论:探讨快速康复外科理念联合内窥镜椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症可减少并发症,缩短术后恢复时间,进而促进患者功能有效康复。     

经皮椎间孔镜腰椎间盘摘除术与微创经椎间孔腰椎融合术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的前瞻性随机对照研究

目的比较经皮椎间孔镜腰椎间盘摘除术(percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy,PELD)与Quadrant通道辅助微创经椎间孔腰椎融合术(minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,Mis-TLIF)治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床效果。方法 2010年1月~2013年12月,选择经保守治疗无效的腰椎间盘突出症60例,按随机数字表中随机数的奇数和偶数分为2组,每组30例。2组年龄、性别、病变节段、临床诊断、影像学检查差异无统计学意义(P0.05),由同一组脊柱外科医师手术,分别行PELD(TESSYS椎间孔镜系统)和Quadrant通道辅助Mis-TLIF。随访12~24个月,平均16.2月,比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)、JOA评分、改良Mac Nab标准评定,以及并发症的种类和发生率。结果与Mis-TLIF组相比,PELD组的手术时间短[(72.0±18.7)min vs.(137.0±48.3)min,t=-6.857,P=0.000],术中出血少[(28.0±14.7)ml vs.(314.0±13.6)ml,t=-11.831,P=0.000],住院时间短[(4.0±1.0)d vs.(10.0±3.0)d,t=-9.298,P=0.000]。术后2周和术后3个月PELD组腰腿痛的VAS评分优于Mis-TLIF组(P0.05)。术后3、12个月PELD组ODI、JOA评分明显优于Mis-TLIF组(P0.05)。2组术后12个月Mac Nab评级无统计学差异(P0.05)。2组并发症发生率差异无显著性。结论 PELD和Quadrant通道辅助Mis-TLIF治疗腰椎间盘突出症均可取得满意的临床疗效,前者切口小,手术时间短,出血少。     

Comparison of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy and Microscope‐Assisted Tubular Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation

ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to compare the clinical outcomes and quality of life following percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and microscope‐assisted tubular discectomy (MTD) for lumbar disc herniation (LDH).MethodsThis study had a retrospective design. From June 2017 to June 2018, the clinical data of 120 patients with LDH treated with PTED (60 cases, PTED group) and MTD (60 cases, MTD group) were analyzed and followed up for at least 20 months. There were 59 men and 61 women. Patients were aged between 22 and 80 years. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopy, cost, hospital stay, types of herniated discs, complications, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the modified Macnab criteria. Short‐Form 36 (SF‐36) and the EQ‐5D‐5L were used to evaluate the quality of life of patients. The data between the two groups were compared by independent sample t‐tests. Multiple comparisons between samples were analyzed by analysis of variance.ResultsCompared with the MTD group, the PTED group had shorter incision length (9.20 ± 1.19 mm vs 26.38 ± 1.82 mm), less intraoperative blood loss (18.00 ± 4.97 mL vs 39.83 ± 6.51 mL), and shorter hospital stay (5.42 ± 5.08 days vs 10.58 ± 3.69 days) (P = 0.00). PTED was much more appropriate for foraminal and extraforaminal disc herniation. The incidence of paresthesia was lower in the PTED group (6.67% vs 16.67%). At each follow up, the VAS and ODI scores of all patients were significantly improved compared with those before surgery (P = 0.00). At 3 days postoperatively, the lumbar VAS score of the PTED group was significantly lower (1.58 ± 1.00 vs 2.37 ± 1.10, P = 0.00). The excellent rate of the PTED group reached 91.67%, and that of the MTD group reached 93.33%. Compared with the preoperative SF‐36 scores for physiological function, mental health, and social function, the postoperative scores were significantly improved in both groups (P = 0.00). The EQ‐5D‐5L in the PTED group increased from 0.30 ± 0.17 before the operation to 0.69 ± 0.13 after 6 months of follow up (P = 0.00) and 0.73 ± 0.14 after 20 months of follow up. The EQ‐5D‐5L in the MTD group increased from 0.28 ± 0.17 before the operation to 0.68 ± 0.13 after a 6‐month follow up (P = 0.00), and 0.73 ± 0.12 after a 20‐month follow up.ConclusionAlthough both PTED and MTD are effective for LDH, PTED is much more appropriate for various types of LDH and has the advantages of the low incidence of low back pain, fewer complications, and early recovery.     

腰椎间孔镜不良事件原因分析

目的分析腰椎间孔镜技术不良事件的原因。方法回顾性分析2015年3月~2018年3月椎间孔镜179例资料,16例共发生不良事件19例次(10.6%),其中Ⅱ级事件1例(神经根损伤),Ⅲ~Ⅳ级事件18例(硬膜囊撕裂3例,类脊髓高压综合征3例,椎间盘突出复发4例,术中减压不充分2例,导丝断裂1例,术后形成椎间盘囊肿1例,中转开放手术4例)。结果随访12~30个月,(15.2±1.2)月,除1例神经根损伤无恢复外,余均恢复。结论椎间孔镜治疗腰椎疾患初期有一定的不良事件发生率,良好清晰的镜下解剖结构、开放手术的经验、规范的培训以及术中及时的备选方案是防止不良事件发生、发挥椎间孔镜优势的关键。     

经皮穿刺臭氧髓核消融术治疗腰椎间盘突出症

目的探讨经皮穿刺腰椎间盘髓核臭氧消融术的手术方法、临床疗效及手术适应证。方法选择300例腰椎间盘突出症患者,采用经皮穿刺髓核臭氧消融术治疗,根据髓核突出程度分类,分为A组：膨出型91例;B组：突出型127例;C组：脱出型82例,分别采用安全三角区入路、安全三角区入路＋选择性神经根阻滞和小关节内侧缘入路,行经皮穿刺腰椎间盘髓核臭氧消融术,经6～18个月随访,采用Macnab疗效评定标准,评价其临床疗效。结果 A组有效率82.6%,B组有效率85.7%,C组有效率80.4%,明显高于文献报道,三组间差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论不同类型腰椎间盘突出症采用不同入路方法的经皮穿刺髓核臭氧消融术,其治疗效果对比无显著性差异,应根据患者腰椎间盘突出症类型选择适合的手术入路方法。     

Evaluation of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy in the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Study

ObjectiveThe objective of the present study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and open fenestration discectomy (OFD) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH).MethodsPatients in our hospital with LDH who received PTED (n = 71) and OFD (n = 39) from 2013 to 2014 were retrospectively studied. Patient information, including age, gender, visual analogue scale (VAS) score for low back pain and leg pain, body weight, height, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA), and recurrence, was collected. The patients in the two groups were followed up for an average of 63 months after surgery.ResultsA total of 136 patients completed the operation and 110 patients were followed up completely. There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups (P > 0.05). The postoperative low back pain, leg pain, ODI, and JOA of the two groups were better than those preoperatively (P < 0.05). One week after surgery, the recovery of PTED patients was better than that of OFD. The ODI score of the PTED group was lower than that of the OFD group (10 [8, 12] vs 14 [11, 16]; P < 0.05), the waist VAS score of the PTED group was lower than that of the OFD group (2 [2, 3] vs 3 [2, 4]; P < 0.05), the leg VAS score of the PTED group was lower than that of the OFD group (1 [0,1] vs 1 [1, 2]; P < 0.05), while the JOA score of the PTED group was higher than that of OFD group [19(16, 20) vs 12(10, 17); P < 0.05]. There were no significant differences in ODI, JOA, waist and leg VAS scores between the two groups at 1 month after surgery and at subsequent follow‐up (P > 0.05). At the end of the follow up, 89.7% (35/39) of patients in the OFD group had excellent improvement in the JOA score, and 88.7% (63/71) of patients in the PTED group had an excellent improvement. There was no significant difference between the two (P > 0.05). There was also no significant difference in the recurrence rate between the two groups [(5/71) vs (3/39); P > 0.05]. [Correction added on 05 March 2021, after first online publication: “3/29” was amended to “3/39” in the preceding sentence.]ConclusionBoth PTED and OFD can achieve good mid‐term efficacy in the treatment of LDH but PTED has certain advantages, including the small incision, a shorter hospital stay, and quicker, earlier recovery. However, prospective randomized controlled studies with a larger sample size are needed.