显微外科微创技术与传统手术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的比较观察

目的 探讨与传统椎间盘摘除术相比,显微外科微创技术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的手术疗效和优缺点.方法 回顾性分析2008年1月至2010年1月因腰椎间盘突出症采用显微腰椎间盘摘除术(40例)和传统后路椎板开窗术(48例)病例的手术时间、术中出血、术后住院天数和手术疗效.突出间隙:L3～L4突出12例,L4～L5突出46例,L5～S1突出30例.常规术式术前腰椎JOA评分8～19分,平均12.2分.显微外科术式术前腰椎JOA评分7～19分,平均12.7分.结果 2例常规术式术中出现硬脊膜破裂,予缝合修复.所有病例经10～34个月(平均18个月)随访,无神经根损伤、马尾神经损伤及感染等并发症.常规术式术后10个月JOA评分(24.0±2.6)分,优良率为87.5%.显微外科术式术后10个月JOA评分(24.2±2.8)分,优良率为90%.结论 显微技术下单节段腰椎间盘突出症与传统后路椎板开窗手术疗效相近,具有创伤小、术后住院时间短、手术效果确切等优点,同时进一步减少了术中出血量.是一种治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症的理想的微创术式.

Abstract：

Objective To discuss the surgical outcome of fenestration assistant by microscopy for single-level lumbar disc protrusion (LDH), compared with tradition laminotomy and discectomy. Methods From January 2008 to January 2010, forty-eight patients underwent traditional open discectomy and 40 underwent microscopy surgery. The lumbar disc protrusion involved L3- L4 level in 12 cases, L4-L5 level in 46 cases, and L5-S1 level in 30 cases; preoperative JOA score was 8-19 points (average 12.9 points) for traditional open discectomy patients and 7-19 points (average 12.7 points) for microscopy surgery patients. Results Cauda equina injury was occurred and repaired in 2 cases in traditional surgery group. The follow-up period was 10-34 months (average 18 months) for all patients. No complications such as wrong orientation, nerve root injury, and infection occurred. The JOA score 10 months after operation was (24.0 ± 2.6) for traditional surgery patients with 87.5% success rate and (24.2 ± 2.8) for microscopy surgery patients with 90% success rate. Conclusion Two methods have similar clinical outcomes, but microscopy assistant fenestration for LDH has advantages of minimal invasion, shorter operative time, shorter length of hospital stay and less intraoperative blood loss. It is one of ideal minimally invasive operations for single-level lumbar disc protrusion.

Treatment of the lumbar disc herniation by minimally invasive microscopy surgery compare with traditional operation

Objective To discuss the surgical outcome of fenestration assistant by microscopy for single-level lumbar disc protrusion (LDH), compared with tradition laminotomy and discectomy. Methods From January 2008 to January 2010, forty-eight patients underwent traditional open discectomy and 40 underwent microscopy surgery. The lumbar disc protrusion involved L3- L4 level in 12 cases, L4-L5 level in 46 cases, and L5-S1 level in 30 cases; preoperative JOA score was 8-19 points (average 12.9 points) for traditional open discectomy patients and 7-19 points (average 12.7 points) for microscopy surgery patients. Results Cauda equina injury was occurred and repaired in 2 cases in traditional surgery group. The follow-up period was 10-34 months (average 18 months) for all patients. No complications such as wrong orientation, nerve root injury, and infection occurred. The JOA score 10 months after operation was (24.0 ± 2.6) for traditional surgery patients with 87.5% success rate and (24.2 ± 2.8) for microscopy surgery patients with 90% success rate. Conclusion Two methods have similar clinical outcomes, but microscopy assistant fenestration for LDH has advantages of minimal invasion, shorter operative time, shorter length of hospital stay and less intraoperative blood loss. It is one of ideal minimally invasive operations for single-level lumbar disc protrusion.