微创颈椎后路椎板切除术与颈椎前路椎间盘切除术和融合术在单侧单水平颈椎病患者治疗中的对比。

IF 3.3 4区 医学 Q1 Medicine
R Yang, Y-X Hu, J Huang, X-F Liu, S-M Liu, H Wang
{"title":"微创颈椎后路椎板切除术与颈椎前路椎间盘切除术和融合术在单侧单水平颈椎病患者治疗中的对比。","authors":"R Yang, Y-X Hu, J Huang, X-F Liu, S-M Liu, H Wang","doi":"10.26355/eurrev_202407_36573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to observe the clinical efficacy and safety of minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy (SLUCR).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed 81 patients with SLUCR in two hospitals from February 2020 to February 2022, including the MI-PCF group (n=40) and the ACDF group (n=41). The differences in neck and shoulder pain, visual analog score (VAS), upper limb radiating pain (VAS), and neck disability index (NDI) were compared. Operative time, intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay, and complications were also compared between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The degree of neck and shoulder pain relief at 1 day postoperatively was better in the ACDF group than in the MI-PCF group (p<0.05), while there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of neck and shoulder pain relief at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively, (p>0.05). There were no significant differences in the relief of upper limb radiating pain and the decrease of NDI scores between the two groups at 1 day, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery (p>0.05). The patients in MI-PCF group had shorter operative time, less bleeding, and shorter hospital stay, which were statistically different (p<0.05). There was no statistical difference in the complication rate between the two groups, (p>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The clinical efficacy and safety of MI-PCF and ACDF in the treatment of SLUCR are satisfactory, meanwhile, MI-PCF has shorter operative time, less bleeding and shorter hospital stay than ACDF, which is worthy of clinical promotion.</p>","PeriodicalId":12152,"journal":{"name":"European review for medical and pharmacological sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy vs. anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the treatment of patients with single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy.\",\"authors\":\"R Yang, Y-X Hu, J Huang, X-F Liu, S-M Liu, H Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.26355/eurrev_202407_36573\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to observe the clinical efficacy and safety of minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy (SLUCR).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed 81 patients with SLUCR in two hospitals from February 2020 to February 2022, including the MI-PCF group (n=40) and the ACDF group (n=41). The differences in neck and shoulder pain, visual analog score (VAS), upper limb radiating pain (VAS), and neck disability index (NDI) were compared. Operative time, intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay, and complications were also compared between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The degree of neck and shoulder pain relief at 1 day postoperatively was better in the ACDF group than in the MI-PCF group (p<0.05), while there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of neck and shoulder pain relief at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively, (p>0.05). There were no significant differences in the relief of upper limb radiating pain and the decrease of NDI scores between the two groups at 1 day, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery (p>0.05). The patients in MI-PCF group had shorter operative time, less bleeding, and shorter hospital stay, which were statistically different (p<0.05). There was no statistical difference in the complication rate between the two groups, (p>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The clinical efficacy and safety of MI-PCF and ACDF in the treatment of SLUCR are satisfactory, meanwhile, MI-PCF has shorter operative time, less bleeding and shorter hospital stay than ACDF, which is worthy of clinical promotion.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12152,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European review for medical and pharmacological sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European review for medical and pharmacological sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202407_36573\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European review for medical and pharmacological sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202407_36573","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究旨在观察微创颈椎后路椎板切除术(MI-PCF)和颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)治疗单侧单水平颈椎病(SLUCR)的临床疗效和安全性:我们回顾性分析了2020年2月至2022年2月期间两家医院的81例SLUCR患者,包括MI-PCF组(40例)和ACDF组(41例)。比较了颈肩疼痛、视觉模拟评分(VAS)、上肢放射痛(VAS)和颈部残疾指数(NDI)的差异。两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间和并发症也进行了比较:结果:ACDF组术后1天的颈肩疼痛缓解程度优于MI-PCF组(P0.05)。两组患者在术后1天、1个月、3个月、6个月和12个月的上肢放射痛缓解程度和NDI评分下降情况无明显差异(P>0.05)。MI-PCF组患者手术时间短、出血少、住院时间短,差异有统计学意义(P0.05):结论:MI-PCF 和 ACDF 治疗 SLUCR 的临床疗效和安全性均令人满意,同时 MI-PCF 比 ACDF 的手术时间短、出血少、住院时间短,值得临床推广。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy vs. anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the treatment of patients with single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy.

Objective: The aim of this study was to observe the clinical efficacy and safety of minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy (SLUCR).

Patients and methods: We retrospectively analyzed 81 patients with SLUCR in two hospitals from February 2020 to February 2022, including the MI-PCF group (n=40) and the ACDF group (n=41). The differences in neck and shoulder pain, visual analog score (VAS), upper limb radiating pain (VAS), and neck disability index (NDI) were compared. Operative time, intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay, and complications were also compared between the two groups.

Results: The degree of neck and shoulder pain relief at 1 day postoperatively was better in the ACDF group than in the MI-PCF group (p<0.05), while there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of neck and shoulder pain relief at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively, (p>0.05). There were no significant differences in the relief of upper limb radiating pain and the decrease of NDI scores between the two groups at 1 day, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery (p>0.05). The patients in MI-PCF group had shorter operative time, less bleeding, and shorter hospital stay, which were statistically different (p<0.05). There was no statistical difference in the complication rate between the two groups, (p>0.05).

Conclusions: The clinical efficacy and safety of MI-PCF and ACDF in the treatment of SLUCR are satisfactory, meanwhile, MI-PCF has shorter operative time, less bleeding and shorter hospital stay than ACDF, which is worthy of clinical promotion.

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
5.30
自引率
6.10%
发文量
906
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, a fortnightly journal, acts as an information exchange tool on several aspects of medical and pharmacological sciences. It publishes reviews, original articles, and results from original research. The purposes of the Journal are to encourage interdisciplinary discussions and to contribute to the advancement of medicine. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences includes: -Editorials- Reviews- Original articles- Trials- Brief communications- Case reports (only if of particular interest and accompanied by a short review)
×
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