治疗腰椎间盘突出症三种术式的疗效比较

目的 比较经皮腰椎间盘髓核摘除术(automated pereutaneous lumbardiscectomy，APLD)、经后路显微内窥镜椎间盘髓核摘除术(microendoscopic discectomy，MED)、传统开窗椎间盘髓核摘除术3种术式对腰椎间盘突出症的治疗效果。方法 在相同时间段内，3组病例采用统一的选择标准、疗效评定标准、手术由专人操作。结果 均获12个月以上的随访，用Ridit分析法对3种治疗结果进行比较。结论 APLD是治疗包容性腰椎间盘突出症的较好方法；MED治疗腰椎间盘突出症是传统手术的微创化，其手术技能基本同传统开窗椎间盘髓核摘除术，可作为单间隙旁侧型腰椎间盘突出症手术治疗的首选术式。     

经皮穿刺技术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的进展

腰椎间盘突出症的微创治疗是微创脊柱外科开展最为活跃的领域，根据手术路径和减压方式不同，可以分为经皮穿刺腰椎间盘减压术和腰椎间盘显微切除术两类手术。前者包括化学溶核术(CNL)、各种经皮椎间盘切除术(PLD)、激光椎间盘减压(PLDD)、椎间盘内电热疗法(IDET)和髓核成形术(NP)；后者包括显微镜下椎间盘切除术和后路显微内镜椎间盘切除术。本文对经皮穿刺技术在腰椎间盘突出症治疗中的进展作一综述。     

经皮内镜下腰椎间盘髓核切除术的应用进展

<正>开放手术治疗腰椎间盘突出症创伤大、恢复慢、费用高,随着新技术及新材料的发展,在保证/提高疗效的前提下,先后出现经皮椎间盘切吸术、经皮激光汽化椎间盘减压术、经皮低温等离子射频消融髓核成形术、臭氧髓核消融术、胶原酶溶解术、显微内镜椎间盘切除术(micro endoscopic discectomy,MED)等,但以上方法适应证窄,疗效不确定,临床应用不广泛。经皮内镜下腰椎间盘髓核切除术     

经皮穿刺髓核摘除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症64例

经皮穿刺髓核摘除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症６４例上海长征医院（２００００３）王晨光，肖湘生，董生，贾连顺，陈德玉本文总结了经皮椎间盘穿刺髓核摘除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症６４例，对手术的临床价值进行初步评价。材料与方法１．一般资料：６４例中男４９例，女１５例；年...     

经皮椎间孔镜与椎板开窗术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效对比

目的比较经皮内镜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。方法回顾性分析自2011-01—2014-01诊治的278例腰椎间盘突出症,采用经皮内镜腰椎间盘切除术治疗142例,采用椎板开窗髓核摘除术治疗136例。结果椎板开窗髓核摘除术出血量多和时间短,并发症多,2组比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05);术后2周、3个月和6个月Macnab标准优良率2组比较,经皮内镜腰椎间盘切除术优于椎板开窗髓核摘除术,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 2种术式都能有效缓解腰椎间盘突出症患者的症状,但经皮内镜腰椎间盘切除术后并发症发生率低,是理想的微创治疗腰椎间盘突出症的方法。     

经皮椎间盘镜腰椎间盘突出髓核摘除术108例报告

本文报告用经皮椎间盘镜腰椎间盘摘除系统行腰椎间盘髓核摘除术１０８例的临床经验。本组穿刺成功率１００％，近期随访优良率９１．６％。该手术具有创伤小、出血少、恢复快、对脊柱稳定性无影响的优点。为腰椎间盘突出的治疗开辟了一条新的途径。     

经皮椎间盘镜腰椎间盘突出髓核摘除术108例报告

本文报告用经皮椎间盘镜腰椎间盘摘除系统行腰椎间盘髓核摘除术108例的临床经验.本组穿刺成功率100%,近期随访优良率91.6%.该手术具有创伤小、出血少、恢复快、对脊柱稳定性无影响的优点.为腰椎间盘突出的治疗开辟了一条新的途径.     

后路经皮脊柱内镜下手术治疗神经根型颈椎病

目的 探讨后路经皮脊柱内镜下椎间盘髓核摘除术治疗神经根型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法 采用后路经皮脊柱内镜下椎间盘髓核摘除术治疗41例神经根型颈椎病患者。记录疼痛VAS评分、NDI及并发症发生情况，采用改良MacNab标准评价临床疗效。结果 患者均获得随访，时间12～25个月。切口均一期愈合，未出现感染、硬膜囊撕裂、颈脊髓损伤及颈椎不稳等严重并发症，无翻修手术者。疼痛VAS评分及NDI:术后1 d及1、6、12个月均较术前降低(P<0.05)。术后1年采用改良MacNab标准进行疗效评价：优14例，良24例，可3例，优良率92.7%(38/41)。结论 后路经皮脊柱内镜下椎间盘髓核摘除术可有效改善神经根型颈椎病症状，是一种安全、有效的微创手术方式，早期疗效可靠。     

经皮椎间盘臭氧+髓核摘除微创介入联合治疗椎间盘突出症

目的:评价经皮椎间盘臭氧+髓核摘除微创介入治疗术(03+APLD)联合治疗椎间盘突出症的疗效.方法:在X线引导下经皮穿刺至病变椎间盘,共治疗30例,36节椎间盘.结果:本组技术成功率100％,术中无严重并发症发生.随访1-4个月,30例中18例为显效,占60％,12例为有效,占40％,无一例无效.结论:O3+APLD治疗椎间盘突出症疗效更佳,创伤小,痛苦少,安全性高,值得临床推广.     

显微内镜下腰椎间盘切除术围手术期的并发症与处理

目的探讨显微内镜椎间盘切除术(microendoscopic discectomy,MED)围手术期的并发症处理对策。方法回顾性分析我院1999年10月~2006年10月1852例MED治疗腰椎间盘突出症中出现的140例(7.6%)手术并发症的临床资料。结果椎管内静脉丛出血48例:42例通过镜下止血后完成MED,6例改为开放椎间盘摘除术;定位错误47例,术中发现后调整腔镜位置完成手术;硬脊膜破裂21例,2例改为开放手术;髓核遗漏13例,二期再次行MED髓核摘除;神经根损伤6例,经1个月后完全恢复;术后椎间盘炎5例,1例保守治愈,其余4例行椎间病灶清除术后痊愈。结论采用适当的处理措施可有效的防止或减小MED并发症或失误后给患者造成的损害。     

两种方法治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效比较

目的比较显微内窥镜下椎间盘切除术(MED)和经皮椎间孔镜下椎间盘切除术(PTED)治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法将96例单节段腰椎间盘突出患者按治疗方法不同分为MED组(48例,采用MED治疗)和PTED组(48例,采用PTED治疗)。比较两组手术情况,采用疼痛VAS评分及改良MacNab标准评价疗效。结果手术时间和住院费用PTED组长(多)于MED组(P<0.05)。住院时间两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后并发症MED组2例、PTED组3例。患者均获得6个月随访。VAS评分:两组术后第1天均较术前明显降低(P<0.05),两组术后第1天比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后3个月采用改良MacNab标准评价临床疗效:MED组优良率为87.50%,PTED组优良率为89.58%,两组优良率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论MED和PTED治疗腰椎间盘突出症均有良好的效果,MED手术时间短、住院费用低,但PTED更微创。     

经皮椎间盘镜与传统开窗髓核摘除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症疗效比较

目的比较椎间盘镜下髓核摘除术(MED)和传统椎板开窗髓核摘除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法对125例腰椎间盘突出症患者根据其临床表现、影像学检查及患者的选择确定手术方式,MED组65例,传统手术组60例。对两组的切口长度、手术时间、术中出血量、术后卧床时间进行比较分析。按JOA腰痛评分标准评估疗效。结果两组的切口长度、术中出血量、手术时间、术后卧床时间两组比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组均顺利完成手术。术后两组JOA评分均较术前明显改善,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);两组间各时段JOA评分优良率比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。MED组出现3例脑脊液漏、传统手术组2例脑脊液漏。MED组出现3例腰椎间盘突出复发,传统手术组1例复发。两组并发症比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 MED与传统手术治疗腰椎间盘突出症均可以获得较好的临床疗效。     

显微内窥镜下椎间盘切除术与传统开放术式治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效比较

目的：比较显微内窥镜下椎间盘切除术（MED）与传统开放式腰椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法：2001年1月～2004年3月采用临床同期、随机化、病例对照研究。将97例单纯性腰椎间盘突出症患者分为2组，治疗组50例采用后路MED治疗，对照组47例采用传统开放手术方式治疗，分析比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、术后下地活动时间、恢复日常生活时间、住院费用及术后并发症情况，按1994年中华医学会骨科分会脊柱外科学组制定的手术疗效标准评价术后出院时疗效，并按照腰痛疗效评分方法评价其术后6、12和24个月时的临床效果。结果：MED组有2例发生脑脊液漏，对照组有2例定位错误、3例脑脊液漏和1例马尾神经损伤。MED组比对照组手术时间缩短1／3，术中出血量减少100ml，术后住院时间缩短5．8d。术后下地活动时间缩短9d，恢复日常生活时间减少24．2d，住院费用减少737元。MED组患者出院时的优良率为92．0％，对照组为91．5％，差异无显著性（P〉0．05）。MED组术后6、12和24个月时临床疗效评价优良率分别为88．0％、86．0％和84．0％，对照组分别为91．5％、91．5％和89.4％，各时间点两组之间差异无显著性（P〉0．05）。结论：两种手术方法在术后2年内效果相近，但MED安全可靠，具有术中出血少、手术时间和住院时间短、术后下地活动时间以及恢复日常生活时间早、且费用较少的优点，是治疗单纯腰椎间盘突出症的较好方法。     

椎间盘镜手术与微创小切口手术治疗腰椎间盘突出症疗效比较

目的 比较椎间盘镜手术(MED)与微创小切口腰椎间盘手术(MTD)治疗腰椎间盘突出症的早、中期疗效.方法 将166例腰椎间盘突出症患者随机分为MED组83例和MTD组83例,分别行MED和MTD手术.对术中、术后反映手术创伤的指标进行监测和观察.结果 MED组在切口长度、术中出血及术后引流量均小于MTD组(P＜0.01).两组术后血清CRP均较术前增加,但术后MED组血清C-反应蛋白增加低于MTD组(P＜0.05).两组VAS术后评分均较术前改善(P＜0.01).患者均获随访,时间2～4年.按改良Macnab疗效评定标准:MED组优65例,良11例,可5例,差2例,优良率为91.6%;MTD组优66例,良13例,可4例,差0例,优良率为95.2%.结论 腰椎间盘突出症MED手术较MTD创伤小、术后恢复快,但两种方法早、中期疗效均较满意.     

Primary and revision lumbar discectomy: A three-year review from one center

Background:

Despite variations in technique, the results of primary and revision lumbar discectomy have been good. The aim of this study was to retrospectively review cases of primary and revision lumbar discectomy performed in our institute over a three-year period.

Materials and Methods:

The case records of 273 patients who underwent lumbar discectomy between January 2001-2004 and fulfilled our inclusion and exclusion criteria were reviewed. Of these, 259 were primary discectomies and 14 were revision surgeries. Recurrence was defined as ipsilateral disc herniation at the previously operated level. Demographic parameters, magnetic resonance imaging of the disc, patient satisfaction and rate of recurrence were analyzed.

Results:

The primary surgery group had 52 (20.08%) contained and 207 (79.92%) extruded or sequestered discs, while the numbers in the revision group were three (21.43%) and 11 (78.57%) respectively. “Satisfactory” outcome was noted in 96.5% of the primary surgeries, with a recurrence rate of 3.5%. In the revision group 78.6% had “satisfactory” outcome. In 9.4% of the primary group we encountered complications, while it was 21.43% in the revision group.

Conclusions:

Lumbar discectomy is a safe, simple and effective procedure with satisfactory outcome in 96.5% of primary disc surgery and 78.6% of revision disc surgery.     

椎间盘镜术与传统椎板间隙开窗术治疗青少年腰椎间盘突出症的比较研究

[目的]比较显微内窥镜腰椎间盘切除系统( microendoscopy discectomy,MED)与传统的后路椎板间隙开窗术治疗青少年腰椎间盘突出症的疗效.[方法]回顾分析130例青少年腰椎间盘突出症患者的临床资料,观察组为椎间盘镜术(MED)组64例,对照组为后路椎板间隙开窗术组66例,根据Nakai标准评价疗效,并观察两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后镇痛药物应用、术后下床活动时间、术后住院日及恢复正常生活或工作的时间情况.[结果]经术后6个月～11年的随访,椎间盘镜术(MED)组优良率为93.5％,后路椎板间隙开窗术组优良率90.6％,两组疗效比较,差异无显著性(P＞0.05),但MED组在术中出血量、术后镇痛药物的应用、术后下床活动时间、术后住院时间、恢复正常生活或工作时间优于后路椎板间隙开窗术组(P＜0.05).[结论]椎间盘镜术(MED)治疗青少年型腰椎间盘突出症疗效与后路椎板间隙开窗术相同,但椎间盘镜术(MED)具有创伤小、对腰椎稳定性破坏小、出血少、住院时间短、术后恢复快等优点,是治疗青少年腰椎间盘突出症的一种理想手术方法.     

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.     

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。     

Biomechanical changes of the lumbar intervertebral disc after automated and nonautomated percutaneous discectomy: an in vitro investigation

Summary A total of 40 human lumbar motion segments were prepared and tested in an electromechanical materials testing machine to investigate the biomechanical changes, i.e., intradiscal pressure, radial extension, and height of the intervertebral disc, after percutaneous discectomy. In 20 discs (group A) the nuclear material was excised using the nonautomated percutaneous lumbar discectomy technique (NAPLD). In the other 20 (group B) the material was removed with the automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy method (APLD). The results of the two groups were analyzed statistically and compared to each other. In the NAPLD group the removal of 0.1 g freeze-dried nucleus pulposus material reduced the height of the disc an average of 0.32 mm, versus 0.47 mm in the APLD group. The radial bulge increased in both groups after the removal of 0.1 g freeze-dried nucleus pulposus material, on average 0.10 mm versus 0.15 mm. The intradiscal pressure also decreased in both groups after the removal of 0.1 g freeze-dried nucleus pulposus material, on average 0.94 bar versus 1.88 bar. The differences between the biomechanical data of the two groups were statistically significant for all three parameters (P<0.05). Our results show that the mechanism for improving radicular pain in patients with herniated disc after treatment with percutaneous discectomy is still in question. We postulate that loss of height of the disc and, as a consequence, reduction of tension in the affected nerve root, plays a major role with regard to this improvement.