Yao Zhang, Wancheng Lin, Xin Lian, Lixiang Ding, Jipeng Song
{"title":"单纯经椎间孔内窥镜减压术与有限减压/融合术治疗成人退行性脊柱侧凸:回顾性研究。","authors":"Yao Zhang, Wancheng Lin, Xin Lian, Lixiang Ding, Jipeng Song","doi":"10.1177/21925682241288189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>A retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate and compare the clinical and radiographical outcomes of endoscopic decompression alone and limited decompression/fusion surgery in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Follow-up data of 53 patients with lower limb radiculopathy associated with ADS who underwent focal surgical treatment were collected (endoscope group: 31 patients treated by transforaminal endoscopic decompression alone; fusion group: 22 patients who underwent limited decompression/fusion). The following data were retrospectively analyzed and compared between the two group: the demographics, Lenke-Silva level, radiographic parameters, surgical data, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back/leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the modified MacNab criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean follow-up period was 15.68 ± 3.26 months. The most frequent Lenke-Silva level was I in the endoscope group, and III in the fusion group. Preoperative Cobb angle in the endoscope group was significantly lower than that in the fusion group (23.92 ± 9.06 vs 39.58 ± 13.12, <i>P</i> < 0.05). All patients exhibited improved VAS and ODI scores postoperatively (<i>P</i> < 0.05). At the last follow-up, the Cobb angle had progressed by 1.51° in the endoscope group, whereas radiographic parameters were significantly improved in the fusion group. The reoperation and complication rate in the endoscope group were lower than those in the fusion group. The satisfaction rate post-surgery was comparable between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For patients with focal ADS, both limited decompression/fusion and transforaminal endoscopic decompression are viable treatment options. Advanced transforaminal endoscopic techniques enable effective decompression of the symptomatic foramen with minimal complication risk and negligible deformity progression, even in cases of significant scoliosis. While limited fusion surgery can achieve comparable clinical outcomes, it offers inferior deformity correction.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11559781/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression Alone Versus Limited Decompression/Fusion in the Treatment of Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: A Retrospective Study.\",\"authors\":\"Yao Zhang, Wancheng Lin, Xin Lian, Lixiang Ding, Jipeng Song\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/21925682241288189\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>A retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate and compare the clinical and radiographical outcomes of endoscopic decompression alone and limited decompression/fusion surgery in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Follow-up data of 53 patients with lower limb radiculopathy associated with ADS who underwent focal surgical treatment were collected (endoscope group: 31 patients treated by transforaminal endoscopic decompression alone; fusion group: 22 patients who underwent limited decompression/fusion). The following data were retrospectively analyzed and compared between the two group: the demographics, Lenke-Silva level, radiographic parameters, surgical data, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back/leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the modified MacNab criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean follow-up period was 15.68 ± 3.26 months. The most frequent Lenke-Silva level was I in the endoscope group, and III in the fusion group. Preoperative Cobb angle in the endoscope group was significantly lower than that in the fusion group (23.92 ± 9.06 vs 39.58 ± 13.12, <i>P</i> < 0.05). All patients exhibited improved VAS and ODI scores postoperatively (<i>P</i> < 0.05). At the last follow-up, the Cobb angle had progressed by 1.51° in the endoscope group, whereas radiographic parameters were significantly improved in the fusion group. The reoperation and complication rate in the endoscope group were lower than those in the fusion group. The satisfaction rate post-surgery was comparable between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For patients with focal ADS, both limited decompression/fusion and transforaminal endoscopic decompression are viable treatment options. Advanced transforaminal endoscopic techniques enable effective decompression of the symptomatic foramen with minimal complication risk and negligible deformity progression, even in cases of significant scoliosis. While limited fusion surgery can achieve comparable clinical outcomes, it offers inferior deformity correction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11559781/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682241288189\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682241288189","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
研究设计回顾性研究:调查和比较单纯内窥镜减压术和局限性减压/融合手术治疗成人退行性脊柱侧凸(ADS)的临床和影像学结果:收集了53例接受病灶手术治疗的下肢根性脊柱侧凸患者的随访数据(内窥镜组:31例,经椎间孔镜治疗组:1例,经椎间孔镜治疗组:1例,经椎间孔镜治疗组:1例):融合组:22 名患者接受了局限性减压/融合治疗)。对两组患者的以下数据进行了回顾性分析和比较:人口统计学、Lenke-Silva水平、放射学参数、手术数据、腰腿痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)、Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)和改良MacNab标准:平均随访时间为(15.68 ± 3.26)个月。内窥镜组最常见的 Lenke-Silva 水平为 I 级,融合组为 III 级。内窥镜组术前 Cobb 角明显低于融合组(23.92 ± 9.06 vs 39.58 ± 13.12,P < 0.05)。所有患者术后的 VAS 和 ODI 评分均有所改善(P < 0.05)。在最后一次随访时,内窥镜组患者的 Cobb 角增加了 1.51°,而融合组患者的放射学参数则明显改善。内窥镜组的再手术率和并发症发生率低于融合组。两组患者的术后满意度相当:结论:对于病灶性 ADS 患者,有限减压/融合术和经椎间孔内窥镜减压术都是可行的治疗方案。先进的经椎间孔内窥镜技术可对症状孔进行有效减压,且并发症风险极低,畸形进展可忽略不计,即使是严重脊柱侧凸的病例也是如此。虽然有限的融合手术可以达到类似的临床效果,但其畸形矫正效果较差。
Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression Alone Versus Limited Decompression/Fusion in the Treatment of Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: A Retrospective Study.
Study design: A retrospective study.
Objectives: To investigate and compare the clinical and radiographical outcomes of endoscopic decompression alone and limited decompression/fusion surgery in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS).
Methods: Follow-up data of 53 patients with lower limb radiculopathy associated with ADS who underwent focal surgical treatment were collected (endoscope group: 31 patients treated by transforaminal endoscopic decompression alone; fusion group: 22 patients who underwent limited decompression/fusion). The following data were retrospectively analyzed and compared between the two group: the demographics, Lenke-Silva level, radiographic parameters, surgical data, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back/leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the modified MacNab criteria.
Results: The mean follow-up period was 15.68 ± 3.26 months. The most frequent Lenke-Silva level was I in the endoscope group, and III in the fusion group. Preoperative Cobb angle in the endoscope group was significantly lower than that in the fusion group (23.92 ± 9.06 vs 39.58 ± 13.12, P < 0.05). All patients exhibited improved VAS and ODI scores postoperatively (P < 0.05). At the last follow-up, the Cobb angle had progressed by 1.51° in the endoscope group, whereas radiographic parameters were significantly improved in the fusion group. The reoperation and complication rate in the endoscope group were lower than those in the fusion group. The satisfaction rate post-surgery was comparable between the two groups.
Conclusions: For patients with focal ADS, both limited decompression/fusion and transforaminal endoscopic decompression are viable treatment options. Advanced transforaminal endoscopic techniques enable effective decompression of the symptomatic foramen with minimal complication risk and negligible deformity progression, even in cases of significant scoliosis. While limited fusion surgery can achieve comparable clinical outcomes, it offers inferior deformity correction.