经皮椎间孔内窥镜减压术与全内窥镜椎间孔减压术在治疗伴有单侧根性疼痛的退行性腰椎管狭窄症中的比较:一项回顾性研究。

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Annali italiani di chirurgia Pub Date : 2024-01-01
Liang Xiong, Fengping Liu, Hongwei Zhao, Mingyi Luo, Bin Lu, Yuxiang Deng, Zhenyu Zhou
{"title":"经皮椎间孔内窥镜减压术与全内窥镜椎间孔减压术在治疗伴有单侧根性疼痛的退行性腰椎管狭窄症中的比较:一项回顾性研究。","authors":"Liang Xiong, Fengping Liu, Hongwei Zhao, Mingyi Luo, Bin Lu, Yuxiang Deng, Zhenyu Zhou","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endoscopic decompression of the spinal canal is an emerging procedure for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, but there are few reports of comparative studies of endoscopic techniques for transforaminal and non-transforaminal approaches.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the clinical application of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) and full endoscopic lamina fenestration decompression (Endo-LOVE) for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with unilateral radicular pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 58 patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) with unilateral radicular pain in the lower extremities who underwent endoscopic decompression treatment from June 2020 to December 2021 were retrospectively identified and divided into two groups (PTED vs Endo-LOVE). The two groups' perioperative data were analyzed according to surgical modalities. The Visual Analogue Score (VAS) for pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), modified MacNab criteria, and dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCSA) were used to assess the post-operative outcomes of the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 58 patients completed the operation and received more than 12 months of follow-up. There was no significant difference in the operation time, number of intraoperative fluoroscopies, intraoperative bleeding, or postoperative hospitalization time between the two groups (p > 0.05); VAS scores and ODIs of the two groups at all postoperative time points were significantly lower than before the operation (p < 0.05), and there was no significant difference in the comparison of the clinical efficacy between the two groups (p > 0.05); the DSCSA of the two groups at the last postoperative follow-up was significantly larger than before the operation (p < 0.05), and there was no significant difference in the improvement of DSCSA between them (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both procedures are safe and effective in the treatment of DLSS with unilateral lower extremity radicular pain, and we should be specific about the choice of spinal stenosis treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":8210,"journal":{"name":"Annali italiani di chirurgia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression and Full Endoscopic Lamina Fenestration Decompression in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Unilateral Radicular Pain: A Retrospective Study.\",\"authors\":\"Liang Xiong, Fengping Liu, Hongwei Zhao, Mingyi Luo, Bin Lu, Yuxiang Deng, Zhenyu Zhou\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endoscopic decompression of the spinal canal is an emerging procedure for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, but there are few reports of comparative studies of endoscopic techniques for transforaminal and non-transforaminal approaches.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the clinical application of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) and full endoscopic lamina fenestration decompression (Endo-LOVE) for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with unilateral radicular pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 58 patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) with unilateral radicular pain in the lower extremities who underwent endoscopic decompression treatment from June 2020 to December 2021 were retrospectively identified and divided into two groups (PTED vs Endo-LOVE). The two groups' perioperative data were analyzed according to surgical modalities. The Visual Analogue Score (VAS) for pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), modified MacNab criteria, and dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCSA) were used to assess the post-operative outcomes of the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 58 patients completed the operation and received more than 12 months of follow-up. There was no significant difference in the operation time, number of intraoperative fluoroscopies, intraoperative bleeding, or postoperative hospitalization time between the two groups (p > 0.05); VAS scores and ODIs of the two groups at all postoperative time points were significantly lower than before the operation (p < 0.05), and there was no significant difference in the comparison of the clinical efficacy between the two groups (p > 0.05); the DSCSA of the two groups at the last postoperative follow-up was significantly larger than before the operation (p < 0.05), and there was no significant difference in the improvement of DSCSA between them (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both procedures are safe and effective in the treatment of DLSS with unilateral lower extremity radicular pain, and we should be specific about the choice of spinal stenosis treatment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8210,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annali italiani di chirurgia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annali italiani di chirurgia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annali italiani di chirurgia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:内窥镜椎管减压术是治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症的一种新兴术式,但有关经椎间孔和非椎间孔内窥镜技术比较研究的报道很少:目的:比较经皮穿孔内镜减压术(PTED)和全内镜椎板栅栏减压术(Endo-LOVE)在治疗伴有单侧根性疼痛的退行性腰椎管狭窄症中的临床应用:回顾性识别2020年6月至2021年12月期间接受内镜减压治疗的58例伴有单侧下肢根性疼痛的退行性腰椎管狭窄症(DLSS)患者,并将其分为两组(PTED组和Endo-LOVE组)。根据手术方式对两组患者的围手术期数据进行分析。采用疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)、改良MacNab标准和硬膜囊横截面积(DSCSA)来评估两组患者的术后效果:所有58名患者都完成了手术,并接受了12个月以上的随访。两组患者的手术时间、术中透视次数、术中出血量、术后住院时间均无明显差异(P > 0.05);两组患者术后各时间点的 VAS 评分和 ODI 均明显低于术前(P < 0.05),两组临床疗效比较无明显差异(P > 0.05);两组术后最后一次随访时的DSCSA明显大于术前(P < 0.05),两组DSCSA改善情况比较无明显差异(P > 0.05).结论:结论:两种手术在治疗单侧下肢根性疼痛的DLSS中都是安全有效的,我们在选择椎管狭窄治疗方法时应有针对性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression and Full Endoscopic Lamina Fenestration Decompression in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Unilateral Radicular Pain: A Retrospective Study.

Background: Endoscopic decompression of the spinal canal is an emerging procedure for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, but there are few reports of comparative studies of endoscopic techniques for transforaminal and non-transforaminal approaches.

Objective: To compare the clinical application of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) and full endoscopic lamina fenestration decompression (Endo-LOVE) for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with unilateral radicular pain.

Methods: A total of 58 patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) with unilateral radicular pain in the lower extremities who underwent endoscopic decompression treatment from June 2020 to December 2021 were retrospectively identified and divided into two groups (PTED vs Endo-LOVE). The two groups' perioperative data were analyzed according to surgical modalities. The Visual Analogue Score (VAS) for pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), modified MacNab criteria, and dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCSA) were used to assess the post-operative outcomes of the two groups.

Results: All 58 patients completed the operation and received more than 12 months of follow-up. There was no significant difference in the operation time, number of intraoperative fluoroscopies, intraoperative bleeding, or postoperative hospitalization time between the two groups (p > 0.05); VAS scores and ODIs of the two groups at all postoperative time points were significantly lower than before the operation (p < 0.05), and there was no significant difference in the comparison of the clinical efficacy between the two groups (p > 0.05); the DSCSA of the two groups at the last postoperative follow-up was significantly larger than before the operation (p < 0.05), and there was no significant difference in the improvement of DSCSA between them (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: Both procedures are safe and effective in the treatment of DLSS with unilateral lower extremity radicular pain, and we should be specific about the choice of spinal stenosis treatment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
116
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Annali Italiani di Chirurgia is a bimonthly journal and covers all aspects of surgery:elective, emergency and experimental surgery, as well as problems involving technology, teaching, organization and forensic medicine. The articles are published in Italian or English, though English is preferred because it facilitates the international diffusion of the journal (v.Guidelines for Authors and Norme per gli Autori). The articles published are divided into three main sections:editorials, original articles, and case reports and innovations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信