三维可视化穿刺置管辅助经椎间孔入路经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎椎间盘突出症

目的 探讨三维可视化穿刺置管技术辅助经椎间孔入路经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术(PETD)治疗腰椎椎间盘突出症(LDH)的临床疗效.方法 回顾性分析2017年1月—2019年9月在南京中医药大学附属张家港医院接受PETD治疗的42例单节段LDH患者临床资料,采用半随机法分为观察组与对照组,观察组(20例)术前使用Mimi...     

超声引导下X线定位穿刺置管在经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术中的应用

腰椎椎间盘突出症(LDH)是骨科常见疾病,也是成年人腰腿痛的主要病因之一.非手术治疗是大多数LDH患者的首选治疗方案,但仍有10％ ～ 20％的患者因非手术治疗达不到理想效果或症状反复发作不得不选择手术摘除突出髓核以解除神经压迫[1].经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术(PELD)是治疗LDH的经典微创术式,在把握适应证的基...     

经椎间孔入路经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术治疗高原地区高/低位腰椎椎间盘突出症

目的 探讨经椎间孔入路经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术(PETD)治疗高原地区高/低位腰椎椎间盘突出症(LDH)的临床疗效.方法 2018年3月—2020年3月,本院收治高原地区LDH患者88例,按椎间盘突出节段分为高位组(L1～4,A组,42例)和低位组(L4～S1,B组,46例),均采用PETD治疗.记录并比较2组患者...     

不同术式治疗腰椎椎间盘突出症的疗效对比

目的 比较经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术(PELD)、后路显微内窥镜下椎间盘切除术(MED)及后路小切口椎间盘切除术(MD)治疗腰椎椎间盘突出症(LDH)的疗效.方法 回顾性分析2016年8月—2018年10月在重庆医科大学附属永川医院接受手术治疗的96例LDH患者临床资料,按照手术方式分为PELD组、MED组和MD组,...     

经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术与椎板开窗椎间盘切除术治疗青少年腰椎椎间盘突出症

目的　比较经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术(PELD)与椎板开窗椎间盘切除术治疗青少年腰椎椎间盘突出症(LDH)的临床疗效。方法 2012年1月—2016年12月,海军军医大学附属长征医院收治青少年LDH患者82例,其中40例(A组)采用PELD治疗,42例(B组)采用椎板开窗椎间盘切除术治疗。记录并比较2组患者手术时间、术中出血量、术后卧床时间、咬骨体积,以及术前、术后1个月和末次随访时疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)。结果所有手术顺利完成,所有患者随访12个月。A组手术时间、术中出血量、术后卧床时间及咬骨体积均低于B组,差异有统计学意义(P 0.05)。2组患者术后VAS评分和ODI均较术前明显改善,差异有统计学意义(P 0.05);组间比较术后VAS评分和ODI,差异均无统计学意义(P 0.05)。末次随访时MacNab疗效评定优良率A组为92.50%(37/40),B组为90.48%(38/42),差异无统计学意义(P 0.05)。A组并发症发生率为5.0%(2/40),B组为7.1%(3/42),差异无统计学差异(P 0.05)。结论 PELD可取得与传统椎板开窗椎间盘切除术相近的临床疗效,且可降低出血量,减少骨性结构破坏,缩短患者术后卧床及康复时间,是较为理想的治疗青少年LDH的微创方法。     

单侧双通道内窥镜下椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎术后退行性变1例报告

腰椎术后邻近节段退行性变(ASD)是腰椎后路融合术后的常见远期并发症^[1-2],其发生率为4%~31%^[3-5]。ASD由多种因素引起,继而产生新的神经压迫症状。Kambin等^[6]于1986年提出单侧双通道内窥镜下椎间盘切除术(UBED)治疗腰椎椎间盘突出症(LDH)^[7],其兼具了开放手术与微创手术的优点^[8]。本院采用UBED治疗腰椎术后ASD患者1例,现将诊疗过程报告如下。     

经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术手术入路分析

目的探讨经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术(percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy,PELD)治疗L_4/L_5、L_5/S_1椎间盘突出症的入路选择、手术操作特点和适应证。方法 2013年9月~2014年10月,137例腰椎椎间盘突出症患者在本院接受PELD治疗,其中L_4/L_5节段75例,L_5/S_1节段62例。根据椎间盘突出的类型,L_4/L_5节段中央型21例,旁中央型48例,远外侧型6例;L_5/S_1节段中央型26例,旁中央型20例,远外侧型16例。75例L_4/L_5腰椎椎间盘突出病例采用侧后方经椎间孔入路经皮内窥镜下椎间盘切除术(percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy,PETD),46例L_5/S_1节段中央型和旁中央型病例采用后方经椎板间入路经皮内窥镜下椎间盘切除术(percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy,PEID),16例L_5/S_1节段远外侧型病例采用侧后方PETD。比较不同术式的手术时间、透视次数、术中患者耐受情况,通过手术前后疼痛视觉模拟量表(visual analogue scale,VAS)对下肢放射痛进行评分,Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)评估患者术后改善情况。结果所有患者手术顺利完成。L_5/S_1后方PEID手术时间为(52.6±10.3)min,短于L_4/L_5和L_5/S_1侧后方PETD的(92.6±17.3)min及(91.5±15.5)min,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。L_5/S_1后方PEID术中透视次数(5.5±1.2)次,明显少于L_4/L_5和L_5/S_1侧后方PETD的(18.2±3.3)次及(20.5±4.2)次,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后卧床时间、住院时间各术式之间相比,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。各术式术后即刻、术后3个月VAS评分和ODI与术前相比,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论对于L_5/S_1节段病例,中央型、旁中央型突出以及髂嵴高者适合采用后方PEID,手术时间短、术中透视次数少,但术中易损伤神经根;远外侧型突出者适合采用侧后方PETD。各种类型L_4/L_5椎间盘突出症患者均适合采用侧后方PETD。     

经椎间孔入路经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术治疗高位腰椎椎间盘突出症

目的探讨经椎间孔入路经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术(PETD)治疗高位腰椎椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2010年8月—2014年5月本院采用PETD治疗的24例高位腰椎椎间盘突出症患者临床资料。记录手术时间、术中出血量、住院天数,术前及术后12个月腰腿疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分及Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI),采用Macnab标准评价临床疗效。结果所有患者手术顺利完成。手术时间60~100 min,平均74.6 min;手术出血量15~40 m L,平均24.0 m L;住院天数3~7 d,平均4.3 d;随访时间14~36个月,平均21.1个月。术前腰痛VAS评分为(6.88±1.33)分,术后12个月为(1.96±0.91)分,差异有统计学意义(P0.01);术前腿痛VAS评分为(7.67±1.27)分,术后12个月为(1.83±0.76)分,差异有统计学意义(P0.01)。术前ODI值为(68.8±8.4)%,术后12个月为(20.4±5.6)%,差异有统计学意义(P0.01)。根据Macnab标准,术后12个月随访时优16例、良5例、可2例,差1例,优良率为87.5%。结论 PETD治疗高位腰椎椎间盘突出症能够取得较为满意的疗效,是治疗高位腰椎椎间盘突出症的有效方法。     

经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术治疗双节段腰椎椎间盘突出症

目的探讨经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术(PELD)治疗双节段腰椎椎间盘突出症的安全性和有效性。方法回顾性分析2012年5月—2014年1月本院收治的33例双节段腰椎椎间盘突出症患者资料,均为L4/L5/S1椎间盘突出,男27例,女6例;年龄17~52岁,平均34.5岁;椎间盘突出在同侧14例,不同侧19例。局麻后在C形臂X线机透视监护下分节段行靶向穿刺,应用PELD行椎间盘髓核摘除。采用疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)和Mac Nab标准评估手术疗效。结果所有病例手术均顺利完成,手术时间50~110 min,平均75 min;出血量25~55 m L,平均25 m L;所有患者随访12~22个月,平均18.5个月。术后1周、3个月、6个月、12个月的VAS评分均较术前明显下降,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后12个月,ODI由术前平均48.8%降至平均9.7%,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05),按Mac Nab标准评定疗效优良率为96.9%(31/33)。结论 PELD治疗双节段腰椎椎间盘突出症具有创伤小、并发症少、对脊柱稳定性影响小、术后恢复快等优点,近期疗效可靠。     

腰椎椎间盘突出症椎间盘切除术后复发的危险因素

腰椎椎间盘突出症（LDH ）是指腰椎椎间盘发生退行性改变,在外力作用下,纤维环部分或全部破裂,单独或者连同髓核、软骨终板向外突出,刺激或压迫窦椎神经和神经根引起的以腰腿痛为主要症状的一种病变。对于腰腿痛症状严重、反复发作、经6个月以上非手术治疗无效、有明显的神经受累或马尾神经综合征、括约肌功能障碍者,均须手术治疗。常用的非融合内固定手术方法有传统开放手术,如全椎板切除髓核摘除术、半椎板切除髓核摘除术及椎板开窗髓核摘除术;随着技术的发展,出现了显微内窥镜下椎间盘切除术（MED）和经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术（PELD）等。LDH复发加重患者负担,探讨其危险因素具有重要意义。本文围绕复发性LDH的定义、发生率和危险因素等方面进行综述,以便于系统掌握复发性LDH的高危因素及应对策略,以期减少LDH复发。     

单侧双通道内窥镜技术与经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术治疗单节段腰椎椎间盘突出症的早期疗效比较

目的 对比单侧双通道内窥镜（UBE）技术与经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术（PELD）治疗单节段腰椎椎间盘突出症（LDH）的早期临床疗效。方法 回顾性分析2020年10月—2021年4月接受手术治疗的77例单节段LDH患者临床资料,其中采用UBE技术治疗30例（UBE组）,采用PELD治疗47例（PELD组）。记录2组手术时间、术中出血量、透视次数、住院时间及并发症发生情况。术前及术后1、3、6、12个月和末次随访时采用疼痛视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分评估腰腿痛程度,采用Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）评估腰椎功能。末次随访时采用改良MacNab标准评价临床疗效。结果 所有手术顺利完成,患者随访> 12个月。UBE组手术时间长于PELD组,术中出血量、透视次数少于PELD组,差异均有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。2组患者术后腰腿痛VAS评分及ODI较术前显著改善,差异均有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。UBE组术后1、3、6个月的腰痛VAS评分高于PELD组,差异均有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。2组术后各随访时间点腿痛VAS评分、ODI组间差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。末次随访时按照改良MacNab标准,UBE组疗效优良率为90.0%,PELD组为89.4%,差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。UBE组发生术中硬膜撕裂2例,术后复发2例;PELD术后复发1例。 结论 UBE和PELD治疗单节段LDH均可获得良好的早期临床疗效,各有优势,UBE适应证更广泛,学习曲线平缓;PELD创伤更小,患者术后早期腰痛程度更轻。     

A retrospective study of epidural and intravenous steroids after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for large lumbar disc herniation

Objective: To assess the early curative effect of epidural or intravenous administration of steroids during a percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD). Methods: 28 consecutive patients who underwent PELD due to large lumbar disc herniation between November 2014 and January 2016 were followed up for 6 months. These patients were divided into two groups according to the treatment they received after PELD. 14 patients (Group A) were treated by PELD and epidural steroids, while the other 14 patients (Group B) were treated by PELD and intravenous steroids. We evaluated the effectiveness by the preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, and the postoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 3 weeks after surgery via the clinical charts and telephone interview. Postoperative hospital stay and time return to work were investigated as well. Results: There is a significant decrease in VAS (back, leg), ODI, and time return to work (p < 0.05). For VAS (back), Group A showed a significant decrease compared with Group B at 1 day and 1 week after surgery (p=0.011, p=0.017). As for VAS (leg), Group A showed a significant decrease compared with Group B at 1 day, 1 week, 3 weeks, and 3 months follow-up examinations (p=0.002, p=0.006, p < 0.001, p < 0.001). For ODI, Group A showed a notable decrease compared with Group B (p < 0.001). The postoperative hospital stay in two groups was not statistically different (p=0.636). But the time return to work in Group A was significantly shorter than that in Group B (p=0.023). Conclusion: Patients who underwent PELD with epidural steroid administration for large lumbar disc herniation showed favorable curative effect compared with those who underwent PELD with intravenous steroid administration.     

经椎间孔入路经皮内窥镜下椎间盘切除术治疗旁中央型腰椎椎间盘突出症

目的比较BEIS(broad easy immediate surgery)技术经椎间孔入路经皮内窥镜下椎间盘切除术(PETD)和传统椎板间开窗椎间盘切除术治疗旁中央型腰椎椎间盘突出症(LDH)的临床效果。方法 2015年1月—2017年1月,亳州市人民医院收治中央型LDH患者78例,接受BEIS技术PETD治疗40例(A组),接受椎板间开窗椎间盘切除术治疗38例(B组)。比较2组的切口长度、出血量、手术时间、日本骨科学会(JOA)评分、疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)、住院时间、并发症及复发率。结果所有手术均顺利完成,患者随访1222个月。2组手术时间差异无统计学意义(P 0.05);A组在切口长度、出血量及住院时间上均优于B组,差异均有统计学意义(P 0.05)。2组患者术后ODI、VAS评分及JOA评分与术前相比均明显改善,差异均有统计学意义(P 0.05)。2组JOA评分改善率差异无统计学意义(P 0.05)。2组各有3例出现并发症,各有1例于术后随访时复发。结论 2种术式治疗旁中央型LDH效果相当,与传统的椎板开窗椎间盘切除术相比,BEIS技术行PETD具有手术切口小、出血量少、住院时间短等优点,值得临床推广应用。     

显微腰间盘切除术与椎间盘镜治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症对比体会

[目的]通过比较显微腰间盘切除术（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，为微创治疗提供经验参考和治疗依据。[方法]回顾性分析本院单节段LDH微创治疗病例，其中MSLD治疗45例，MED治疗32例，比较手术时间、术中情况、并发症、住院日、疗效等指标。[结果]2组疗效优良率均达到了90％以上，无显著差异，MED切口长度明显短于MSLD，而后者在手术时间上明显少于前者。[结论]此两种微创方法疗效满意，但比较之下MED适应证明显受限，技术方法未见明显优势，MSLD是目前更为理想的微创手术方法。     

脊柱内窥镜技术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的进展

近年来,微创脊柱外科发展迅速,脊柱内窥镜技术在腰椎间盘突出症的手术治疗中具有损伤小、恢复期短、疗效确切、保持脊柱的稳定性等优势,其应用越来越广泛。目前应用于腰椎间盘突出症LDH的脊柱内窥镜技术包括：后路椎间盘镜下腰椎间盘摘除术（MED）、经皮穿刺椎间孔镜下椎间盘摘除术（PELD）及完全内窥镜下腰椎间盘摘除术（FLD）等。正确认识脊柱内窥镜技术,严格适应证和熟练的操作技巧是取得良好疗效的关键。本文将总结各种脊柱内窥镜手术方法在腰椎间盘突出症治疗中应用的现状与进展。     

Comparison of full-endoscopic foraminoplasty and lumbar discectomy (FEFLD), unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) discectomy,and microdiscectomy (MD) for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of full-endoscopic foraminoplasty and lumbar discectomy (FEFLD), unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) discectomy, and microdiscectomy (MD) in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

Methods

From January 2020 and May 2021, 128 patients with single-level LDH at L4-5 or L5-S1 received FEFLD, UBE discectomy or MD. Patients were divided into three groups according to surgical method: the FEFLD group (n = 43), the UBE group (n = 42), and the MD group (n = 43). Operative time, fluoroscopy frequency, in-bed time, length of hospital stays, total expenses, complications, visual analogue scale (VAS, 0–10), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI, 0–100%) were assessed and compared among three groups.

Results

There were no significant differences in VAS or ODI scores at 12 months after surgery among three groups. In comparison with the MD group, the FEFLD and UBE group yield better VAS scores for back pain on the first day following surgery (P < 0.05). The FEFLD group was superior to the UBE group or MD group with less time in bed and shorter hospital stay (P < 0.05). The operation time and total expenses in the UBE group were significantly longer and higher than those in the FEFLD group or MD group (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

FEFLD and UBE discectomy yield comparable results to conventional MD concerning pain relief and functional outcomes. In addition, FEFLD and UBE discectomy enable less back pain in the immediate postoperative period. FEFLD offers advantages in rapid recovery. Conventional MD is still an efficient and cost-effective surgical procedure.

     

经皮椎间孔镜下椎间盘摘除术的临床应用分析与技巧探讨

目的：研究经皮椎间孔镜下椎间盘摘除术（percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy, PELD）治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效、并发症及手术技巧。方法回顾性分析2012年10月至2014年10月于我院接受PELD治疗重度腰椎间盘突出症的197例患者的临床资料。评价患者术前、术后3个月和术后1年的疼痛视觉模拟量表（visual analogue scale, VAS）评分及Oswestry功能障碍指数（Oswestry dis?ability index,ODI）,并进行比较;采用Macnab评价标准评定临床治疗效果。结果本组患者的手术时间为50～85 min,平均65 min：出血量为10～50 ml,平均20 ml;住院时间为5～7 d。4例患者术后改行开放手术。术后随访12～20个月,平均14.7个月。术后3个月和1年时的VAS评分、ODI与术前相比均有明显改善,差异有统计学意义（VAS：t=57.89,P=0.000;t=60.54,P=0.000;ODI：t=48.30,P=0.000;t=48.04,P=0.000）;而且术后1年的VAS评分和ODI较术后3个月时亦有改善,差异有统计学意义（t=14.89,P=0.000;t=11.64,P=0.000）。术后3个月的Macnab评价结果：优151例,良31例,可11例,优良率为94.3％（182/193）;术后1年时的Macnab评价：优155例,良30例,可8例,优良率为95.9％（185/193）。结论 PELD治疗腰椎间盘突出症具有创伤小、恢复快、疗效好、并发症低的优点,易被患者接受。     

Comparison of early and late percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for lumbar disc herniation

Background

The optimal timing for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) in cases of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is debatable. This retrospective study sought to determine which category of PELD surgical intervention time resulted in greater improvement in clinical outcomes.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 145 patients who underwent PELD for single-level LDH. The patients were divided into three categories according to the duration of leg pain before surgery, the early and late group being symptomatic for ≤3 months and >3 months, ≤6 months and >6 months, ≤12 months and >12 months. Surgical time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, hospitalization cost, rates of reoperation due to surgical failure, Macnab criteria assessment, visual analogue scale (VAS) of back pain, leg pain and numbness, Japanese orthopedic association low back pain score (JOA) before and after surgery were compared.

Results

No significant differences were found between the early and late groups according to different categories in patients’ demographics, surgical time, blood loss, preoperative and postoperative VAS (lower-back pain, leg pain and numbness) scores, JOA scores and distribution of Macnab criteria assessment. Early PELD surgical intervention did not result in greater improvement of clinical outcomes. Later surgical intervention resulted in about one-third surgical failure rates for patients being symptomatic for >6 months (≤6 months, 11/96, 11.5 %; >6 months, 2/49, 4.1 %; P?=?0.245) and >12 months (≤12 months, 12/120, 10.0 %; >12 months, 1/25, 4.0 %; P?=?0.568) of the early surgical intervention groups. Significant difference was observed between the comorbidities and non-comorbidities group in the rate of reoperation (P?=?0.040).

Conclusions

Early PELD surgical intervention did not result in greater improvement of clinical outcomes for patients with lumbar disc herniation. Later surgical intervention resulted in less failure rates for patients than the early surgical intervention groups. PELD performed when the leg pain before surgery being symptomatic for >6 months may be good for avoiding surgical failure and reducing the duration of leg pain.