偏心导杆结合可视化椎间孔成形技术在腰椎间盘切除术中的临床应用

doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-7041.2019.05.008

摘要
图/表
参考文献(14)
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (1139 KB) HTML (2 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的探讨偏心导杆结合可视化椎间孔成形技术在经皮内镜下腰椎间盘切除术(PELD)中的临床应用价值。方法回顾性分析2017年1—10月河北医科大学第三医院脊柱外科采用PELD治疗腰椎间盘突出症患者的临床资料。其中男15例,女15例;年龄39～61(48.57±5.91)岁。病变部位:L_4～5 17例, L₅～S₁ 13例。按手术方式不同分为TESSYS组和I see组:采用椎间孔入路脊柱内镜系统技术15例纳入TESSYS组,采用偏心导杆结合可视化椎间孔成形技术15例纳入I see组。比较两组患者导管置入时间、术中放射线暴露时间、减压操作时间、上关节突切除率,术前、术后即刻及术后3、6、12个月腰、腿部视觉模拟评分(VAS)、Oswertry功能障碍指数(ODI)、日本骨科协会(JOA)评分,以及术后12个月MacNab标准评定的疗效。结果两组患者均顺利完成手术。I see组的导管置入时间和术中放射线暴露时间分别为(16.73±2.46)min、(38.15±5.72)s,均少于TESSYS组的(19.87±3.79)min、(49.79±7.40)s;I see组上关节突切除率为32.25%±1.12%,大于TESSYS组的12.02%±0.67%:差异均有统计学意义(t=2.682、4.820、38.890,P值均＜0.05)。两组术中减压操作时间差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05)。两组组内比较:术后不同时间腰、腿痛的VAS以及ODI均比术前减少,JOA评分均比术前增加,差异均有统计学意义(F_{I see组}=167.298、268.815、7 271.864、316.342,F_TESSYS组=168.759、341.300、1 368.354、141.090,P值均＜0.01)。I see组与TESSYS组比较:术后不同时间腰、腿痛的VAS、ODI、JOA评分差异均无统计学意义(P值均＞0.05)。术后12个月采用MacNab评定标准评定疗效,I see组优8例、良4例、可3例,TESSY组优7例、良6例、可6例,两组间比较差异无统计学意义(Z=0.114,P＞0.05)。结论对于腰椎间盘突出症,偏心导杆结合可视化椎间孔成形技术是一个有效且安全的椎间孔成形方法;采用该技术行PELD,可获得与TESSYS技术相同的疗效,同时减少术中导管置入时间、放射线暴露时间、上关节突切除率。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	王宪正
	李佳奇
	孙亚彭
	张飞
	李泽阳
	崔浩
	高原
	张为

关键词 ：椎间盘移位, 腰椎, 椎间盘切除术,经皮, 内窥镜, 椎间孔成形术

Abstract：Objective To evaluate clinical application value of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression (PELD) by visualization foraminoplasty with off-center rod.Methods The clinical data of 30 patients from the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University with lumbar degenerative disease who underwent transforaminal endoscopic spine system (TESSYS group,15) and visualization foraminoplasty with off-centered rod (I see group,15) separately were retrospectively reviewed and selected, including 15 males and 15 females with an age of 39-61(48.57±5.91) years. Among them, the lesion spine level was located at L_4-5 segment in 17 patients and L₅-S₁ in 13 patients. The catheter placement time, intraoperative radiation exposure time, decompression time, and superior articular process removal rate were compared between the two groups. visual analog scale(VAS), Oswestry disability index(ODI) and Japanese Orthopedics Association(JOA) scores of waist and leg were compared before and immediately after surgery and 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. MacNab was used to evaluate the efficacy 12 months after the operation.Results The operation was performed successfully for all patients. The catheter placement time and intraoperative radiation exposure time in the I see group were (16.73±2.46) min and (38.15±5.72) s, respectively, which were significantly lower than those in TESSYS group [(19.87±3.79) min and (49.79±7.40) s, respectively]. The percentage of superior articular process resection in the I see group was 32.25%±1.12%, which was higher than that in the TESSYS group (12.02%±0.67%). The differences were statistically significant (t=2.682, 4.820, 38.890, all P values＜0.05). There was no significant difference in intraoperative decompression time between the two groups (P＞0.05). In the two groups, VAS and ODI of lumbar and leg pain at different postoperative time were significantly decreased, and JOA score was significantly increased compared with that before surgery, with statistically significant differences (F_{I see group}=167.298, 268.815, 7271.864, 316.342, F_{TESSYS group}=168.759, 341.300, 1368.354, 141.090, all P values＜0.05).Compared the I see group with the TESSYS group, VAS, ODI and JOA scores of lumbago and leg pain at different postoperative time were not statistically significant(all P values＞0.05). Twelve months after the operation, MacNab evaluation criteria were used to evaluate the efficacy. There were 8 excellent cases, 4 good cases and 3 acceptable cases in the I see group, and 7 excellent cases, 6 good cases and 6 acceptable cases in the TESSY group. The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (Z=0.114, P＞0.05).Conclusions For lumbar disc herniation, off-center rod with ISEE is a safe and effective foraminoplasty. It can reduce intraoperative radiation frequency, minimize the intraoperative radiation exposure and increase the superior articular process resection rate.

Key words： Intervertebral disc displacement Diskectomy, percutaneous Lumbar vertebrae Endoscopes Foraminoplasty

收稿日期: 2018-12-27

通讯作者: 张为,Email:zworthopedics@163.com

引用本文:

王宪正, 李佳奇, 孙亚彭, 张飞, 李泽阳, 崔浩, 高原, 张为. 偏心导杆结合可视化椎间孔成形技术在腰椎间盘切除术中的临床应用[J]. 中华解剖与临床杂志, 2019, 24(5): 464-469.
Wang Xianzheng, Li Jiaqi, Sun Yapeng, Zhang Fei, Li Zeyang, Cui Hao, Gao Yuan, Zhang Wei. Clinical application of visualization foraminoplasty with off-center rod. Chinese Journal of Anatomy and Clinics, 2019, 24(5): 464-469.

链接本文:

http://www.cjac.com.cn/CN/10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-7041.2019.05.008 或 http://www.cjac.com.cn/CN/Y2019/V24/I5/464

[1]	Telfeian AE, Veeravagu A, Oyelese AA, et al. A brief history of endoscopic spine surgery[J]. Neurosurg Focus, 2016, 40(2): E2. DOI:10.3171/2015.11.focus 15429.
[2]	Xu T, Tian R, Qiao P, et al. Application of continuous epidural anesthesia in transforaminal lumbar endoscopic surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial[J]. J Int Med Res, 2019, 47(3): 1146-1153. DOI:10.1177/0300060518817218.
[3]	Lewandrowski KU. Incidence, management, and cost of complications after transforaminal endoscopic decompression surgery for lumbar foraminal and lateral recess stenosis: a value proposition for outpatient ambulatory surgery[J]. Int J Spine Surg, 2019, 13(1): 53-67. DOI:10.14444/6008.
[4]	Hoogland T, Schubert M, Miklitz B, et al. Transforaminal posterolateral endoscopic discectomy with or without the combination of a low-dose chymopapain: a prospective randomized study in 280 consecutive cases[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2006, 31(24): E890-E897. DOI:10.1097/01.brs.0000245955.22358.3a.
[5]	Zhang Y, Pan Z, Yu Y, et al. The modified transforaminal endoscopic technique in treating intracanalicular combining foraminal and/or extraforaminal lumbar disc herniations[J]. Quant Imaging Med Surg, 2018, 8(9): 936-945. DOI:10.21037/qims.2018.10.02.
[6]	Chen Z, Zhang L, Dong J, et al. Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy compared with microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: 1-year results of an ongoing randomized controlled trial[J]. J Neurosurg Spine, 2018, 28(3): 300-310. DOI:10.3171/2017.7.spine161434.
[7]	邓洪利, 高文杰, 朱金文, 等. 经皮椎间孔镜TESSYS技术治疗单节段双侧腰椎间盘突出症[J]. 中国骨伤, 2018, 31(11): 1041-1045. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1003-0034.2018.11.011.
[8]	Butler AJ, Alam M, Wiley K, et al. Endoscopic lumbar surgery: the state of the art in 2019[J]. Neurospine, 2019, 16(1): 15-23. DOI:10.14245/ns.1938040.020.
[9]	Yörükoˇglu AG, Göker B, Tahta A, et al. Fully endoscopic interlaminar and transforaminal lumbar discectomy: analysis of 47 complications encountered in a series of 835 patients[J]. Neurocirugia (Astur), 2017, 28(5): 235-241. DOI:10.1016/j.neucir.2017.03.003.
[10]	Choi KC, Lee JH, Kim JS, et al. Unsuccessful percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a single-center experience of 10 228 cases[J]. Neurosurgery, 2015, 76(4): 372-380. DOI:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000628.
[11]	Lee CW, Yoon KJ, Kim SW. Percutaneous endoscopic decompression in lumbar canal and lateral recess stenosis-the surgical learning curve[J]. Neurospine, 2019, 16(1): 63-71. DOI:10.14245/ns.1938048.024.
[12]	Li Z, Hou S, Shang W, et al. New instrument for percutaneous posterolateral lumbar foraminoplasty: case series of 134 with instrument design, surgical technique and outcomes[J]. Int J Clin Exp Med, 2015, 8(9): 14672-14679.
[13]	O'Toole JE, Eichholz KM, Fessler RG. Surgical site infection rates after minimally invasive spinal surgery[J]. J Neurosurg Spine, 2009, 11(4): 471-476. DOI:10.3171/2009.5.spine08633.
[14]	Ahn Y, Lee SG, Son S, et al. Transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy versus open lumbar microdiscectomy: a comparative cohort study with a 5-year follow-up[J]. Pain Physician, 2019, 22(3): 295-304.