微创单孔分体内镜技术联合经皮椎弓根螺钉术治疗多节段腰椎管狭窄症疗效分析

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (2)

全文: PDF (3689 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的〓本研究回顾性分析微创单孔分体内镜技术(one-hole split endoscope，OSE)联合经皮椎弓根螺钉术(percutaneous pedicle screw fixation，PPSF)治疗多节段腰椎管狭窄症(multi-segments lumbar spinal stenosis，MLSS)的临床疗效。方法〓回顾性分析2021年1月至2023年3月北京民航总医院收治的52例MLSS患者资料，伴有腰椎不稳行OSE减压融合联合PPSF术(OSE融合组)，不伴有腰椎不稳行OSE单纯减压术(OSE减压组)。OSE融合组共30例，男10例，女20例；年龄51~82岁，平均(61.54±14.62)岁；OSE减压组共22例，男7例，女15例；年龄52~85岁，平均(62.37±15.23)岁；对比两组手术时间、术中透视次数、术中出血量、术后伤口引流量、术后住院时间和手术并发症。记录手术前后腰背部和腿疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale，VAS)、Oswsetry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index，ODI)。影像学参数包括腰椎前凸角度(lumbar lordosis angle，LLA)和责任节段椎间隙高度(mean disc height，MDH)。结果〓患者均获随访，OSE融合组随访时间12~32个月，平均(18.36±9.45)个月；OSE减压组随访时间12~30个月，平均(17.94±10.23)个月。两组手术时间、术中透视次数、术中出血量、术后伤口引流量、术后住院时间比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05)。两组术后1周和末次随访腰背部及下肢VAS评分和ODI均显著低于术前，差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05)。OSE融合组术后1周和末次随访的MDH和LLA均显著高于术前，差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05)。手术并发症共3例，均为OSE融合组患者：2例患者术后出现一过性神经损伤症状加重，考虑为术中牵扯神经根所致，术后给予小剂量激素、脱水及营养神经等治疗，并加强康复锻炼，症状逐渐缓解；1例患者发生术中硬膜撕裂，术中严密缝合撕裂口，术后头低脚高卧床，放置伤口引流管后好转。结论〓本研究的初步结果显示，OSE单纯减压术和OSE减压融合联合PPSF术，均可取得满意的临床疗效。OSE技术联合PPSF能够有效缓解MLSS患者的临床症状，具有术中创伤小、出血较少、术野清晰、操作灵活、术后恢复快等优点，需要严格把握适应证，根据MLSS患者的临床症状、体征和影像学检查来选择合适的手术方式，做到个体化精准微创治疗。

	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
	侯东坡
	黄卫国*
	王建光
	曹帅
	丁一
	许俊川

关键词 ：单孔分体内镜技术, 经皮椎弓根螺钉术, 多节段腰椎管狭窄症, 腰椎不稳

Abstract：Objective〓To retrospectively analyzed the clinical efficacy of one-hole split endoscope (OSE) combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) in the treatment of multi-segments lumbar spinal stenosis (MLSS).Methods〓A retrospective cohort study was designed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of 52 patients undergoing surgical interventions for multi-segmental lumbar spinal stenosis (MLSS) at Beijing Civil Aviation General Hospital from January 2021 to March 2023.The OSE fusion Group (n＝30)，comprising patients with preoperative lumbar instability who underwent a combined one-hole split endoscopy (OSE) decompression and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) for fusion；and the OSE decompression Group (n＝22)，consisting of patients without preoperative lumbar instability who underwent OSE decompression alone.Demographic characteristics，including age and gender，were recorded.Comparative analyses were conducted for surgical parameters such as surgical duration，intraoperative blood loss，postoperative hospital stay，wound drainage volume，intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency，and surgical complications.Additionally，preoperative，1-week postoperative，and final follow-up assessments were made using the visual analogue scale (VAS) for lower back and leg pain，and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).Imaging parameters，namely lumbar lordosis angle (LLA) and mean disc height (MDH) of the affected segment，were also evaluated.
Results〓All patients completed the follow-up period，with the OSE fusion group having a follow-up duration ranging from 12 to 32 months，averaging at (18.36±9.45) months，and the OSE decompression group being followed up for 12 to 30 months，averaging (17.94±10.23) months.Statistically significant differences (P＜0.05) were observed between the two groups regarding surgical time，intraoperative blood loss，postoperative wound drainage volume，postoperative hospital stay，and intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency.One week postoperatively and at the final follow-up，both groups demonstrated significantly reduced VAS scores and ODI for back and lower limb pain compared to preoperative levels，with these differences being statistically significant (P＜0.05).In the OSE fusion group，the MDH and LLA were significantly higher at 1 week and the last follow-up compared to preoperative values，displaying statistically significant differences (P＜0.05).A total of 3 surgical complications occurred，all within the OSE fusion group.Two patients experienced transient exacerbation of nerve damage symptoms，attributed to intraoperative nerve root involvement.These patients underwent postoperative low-dose hormone therapy，dehydration treatment，nerve nutrition，and intensified rehabilitation exercises，resulting in gradual symptom improvement.Additionally，one patient experienced an intraoperative dural tear，which was immediately repaired during surgery.Postoperatively，the patient was instructed to remain bedridden with the head lower than the feet and a wound drainage tube was placed，leading to subsequent improvement.Conclusion〓The preliminary findings of this study suggest that both OSE decompression alone and the combined approach of OSE fusion with PPSF demonstrate promising clinical outcomes.Notably，the integration of OSE with PPSF effectively mitigates the clinical symptoms in patients with MLSS，showcasing advantages such as minimized intraoperative trauma，reduced blood loss，clear surgical visualization，procedural flexibility，and accelerated postoperative recovery.Hence，it is imperative to meticulously assess the indications and select the appropriate surgical approach tailored to the individual patient’s clinical presentation，signs，and imaging findings，thereby achieving personalized and precise minimally invasive treatment for MLSS.

Key words： one-hole split endoscope percutaneous pedicle screw fixation multi-segments lumbar spinal stenosis lumbar instability

通讯作者: 黄卫国

作者简介: 侯东坡(1992－ )，男，主治医师，北京大学附属民航临床医学院民航总医院骨科，15901591736@163.com

引用本文:

侯东坡，黄卫国*，王建光，曹帅，丁一，许俊川. 微创单孔分体内镜技术联合经皮椎弓根螺钉术治疗多节段腰椎管狭窄症疗效分析[J]. 实用骨科杂志, 2024, 30(7): 587-.
Hou Dongpo，Huang Weiguo*，Wang Jianguang，Cao Shuai，Ding Yi，Xu Junchuan. Clinical Efficacy Assessment of Single-Hole Split Endoscopy Integrated with Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation for Multi-Segmental Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment. sygkzz, 2024, 30(7): 587-.

链接本文:

http://www.sygkzz.com/CN/ 或 http://www.sygkzz.com/CN/Y2024/V30/I7/587

［1］岳兵，叶志方，王泽昊，等.经皮内窥镜技术治疗老年多节段腰椎管狭窄症［J］.中华老年医学杂志，2017，36(12)：1349-1352.
［2］Katz JN，Zimmerman ZE，Mass H，et al.Diagnosis and Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis：A Review［J］.JAMA，2022，327(17)：1688-1699.
［3］Kim HS，Raorane HD，Wu PH，et al.Evolution of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar approach for degenerative lumbar disease［J］.J Spine Surg，2020，6(2)：424-437.
［4］Heo DH，Hong YH，Lee DC，et al.Technique of Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion［J］.Neurospine，2020，17(Suppl 1)：S129-S137.
［5］Ahn Y，Youn MS，Heo DH.Endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion：A comprehensive review［J］.Expert Rev Med Devices，2019，16(5)：373-380.
［6］沈天宇，柏刚，陈瑞，等.单侧双通道内镜技术与显微内镜技术治疗退变性腰椎管狭窄症的Meta分析［J］.临床荟萃，2022，37(8)：691-698.
［7］Hong YH，Kim SK，Hwang J，et al.Water dynamics in unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery and its related factors：An in vivo proportional regression and proficiency-matched study［J］.World Neurosurg，2021(149)：e836-e843.
［8］张玉红，张民，戴国华，等.单孔分体内镜治疗中重度腰椎管狭窄症的早期临床疗效［J］.中国脊柱脊髓杂志，2023，33(1)：37-44.
［9］Wu AM，Zheng YJ，Lin Y，et al.Transforaminal decompression and interbody fusion in the treatment of thoracolumbar fracture and dislocation with spinal cord injury［J］.PLoS One，2014，9(8)：e105625.
［10］Deyo RA，Mirza SK，Martin BI，et al.Trends，major medical complications，and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults［J］.JAMA，2010，303(13)：1259-1265.
［11］Badhiwala JH，Leung SN，Jiang F，et al.In-hospital course and complications of laminectomy alone versus laminectomy plus instrumented posterolateral fusion for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis：A retrospective analysis of 1804 patients from the NSQIP database［J］.Spine (Phila Pa 1976)，2021，46(9)：617-623.
［12］Sastry RA，Chen JS，Shao B，et al.Patterns in decompression and fusion procedures for patients with lumbar stenosis after major clinical trial results，2016 to 2019［J］.JAMA Netw Open，2023，6(7)：e2326357.
［13］Mobbs RJ，Phan K，Malham G，et al.Lumbar interbody fusion：Techniques，indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF，TLIF，MI-TLIF，OLIF/ATP，LLIF and ALIF［J］.J Spine Surg，2015，1(1)：2-18.
［14］Machado GC，Ferreira PH，Yoo RI，et al.Surgical options for lumbar spinal stenosis［J］.Cochrane Database Syst Rev，2016，11(11)：D12421.
［15］Zaina F，Tomkins-Lane C，Carragee E，et al.Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis［J］.Spine (Phila Pa 1976)，2016，41(14)：E857-E868.
［16］Li Y，Cheng X，Chen B.Comparison of 270-degree percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression under local anesthesia and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of geriatric lateral recess stenosis associated with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis［J］.J Orthop Surg Res，2023，18(1)：183.
［17］Hua W，Wang B，Ke W，et al.Comparison of lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression and minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for one-level lumbar spinal stenosis［J］.BMC Musculoskelet Disord，2020，21(1)：785.
［18］Keorochana G，Setrkraising K，Woratanarat P，et al.Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease：A systematic review and meta-analysis［J］.Neurosurg Rev，2018，41(3)：755-770.
［19］隆宇斌，王湘斌，刘东山.单侧双通道内镜技术在脊柱疾病中应用的研究进展［J］.中华医学杂志，2023，103(39)：3144-3148.
［20］Heo DH，Son SK，Eum JH，et al.Fully endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using a percutaneous unilateral biportal endoscopic technique：Technical note and preliminary clinical results［J］.Neurosurg Focus，2017，43(2)：E8.
［21］He D，Cheng X，Zheng S，et al.Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for lumbar disc herniation：A systematic review and meta-analysis［J］.World Neurosurg，2023，173：e509-e520.
［22］强蒋，宇丁，刘金玉，等.有限元模拟全内镜下精准椎板开窗减压术及生物力学分析［J］.中国组织工程研究，2020，24(12)：1891-1896.
［23］徐浩严，许卫兵.单侧双通道脊柱内镜与单通道脊柱内镜行ULBD治疗腰椎管狭窄症的疗效对比［D］.大连医科大学，2021.
［24］Liang HF，Liu SH，Chen Z X，et al.Decompression plus fusion versus decompression alone for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis：A systematic review and meta-analysis［J］.Eur Spine J，2017，26(12)：3084-3095.
［25］Sun W，Xue C，Tang X Y，et al.Selective versus multi-segmental decompression and fusion for multi-segment lumbar spinal stenosis with single-segment degenerative spondylolisthesis［J］.J Orthop Surg Res，2019，14(1)：46.
［26］Karlsson T，Forsth P，Skorpil M，et al.Decompression alone or decompression with fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis：A randomized clinical trial with two-year MRI follow-up［J］.Bone Joint J，2022，104-B(12)：1343-1351.
［27］Forsth P，Olafsson G，Carlsson T，et al.A Randomized，Controlled Trial of Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis［J］.N Engl J Med，2016，374(15)：1413-1423.
［28］Sharif S，Shaikh Y，Bajamal AH，et al.Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis：WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations［J］.World Neurosurg X，2020(7)：100077.
［29］Resnick DK，Schmidt BT.Update on spinal fusion［J］.Neurol Clin，2022，40(2)：261-268.
［30］Yang JY，Lee JK，Song HS.The impact of adjacent segment degeneration on the clinical outcome after lumbar spinal fusion［J］.Spine (Phila Pa 1976)，2008，33(5)：503-507.
［31］Lee CS，Chung SS，Shin SK，et al.Differences in post-operative functional disability and patient satisfaction between patients with long (three levels or more) and short (less than three) lumbar fusions［J］.J Bone Joint Surg (Br)，2011，93(10)：1400-1404.