腰椎间盘突出症的经皮内窥镜腰椎间盘切除术与开放式椎间孔镜腰椎间盘切除术:一项超过 5 年随访的倾向评分匹配回顾性研究。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Tusheng Li, Junyou Zhang, Zhili Ding, Qiang Jiang, Yu Ding
{"title":"腰椎间盘突出症的经皮内窥镜腰椎间盘切除术与开放式椎间孔镜腰椎间盘切除术:一项超过 5 年随访的倾向评分匹配回顾性研究。","authors":"Tusheng Li, Junyou Zhang, Zhili Ding, Qiang Jiang, Yu Ding","doi":"10.1186/s13018-024-05239-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We compared the long-term outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) with those of open fenestration discectomy (OFD) in treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>281 patients were included from January 2013 to December 2018, of whom 228 underwent PELD and 53 underwent OFD. General information of patients was collected and imbalances in covariates between groups were corrected using propensity score matching (PSM). Then, the clinical function scores, imaging data, and complications were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among participants, 102 patients were successfully matched and were followed for 62-128 months. Compared to the OFD group, the PELD group indicated greater improvements in visual analog scale score of low back pain (VAS-BP), Japanese orthopedic association (JOA), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 7 days postoperatively and the last follow-up (P < 0.05). At 24 months postoperatively and the last follow-up, the disc height index (DHI), ratio of grays (RVG), and range of motion (ROM) were higher and the compass value was lower (P < 0.05) in the PELD group compared to the OFD group, suggesting that the PELD procedure better maintained the mobility and stability of the responsible segment after surgery. The recurrence rates between the PELD (9.80%) and OFD (7.84%) groups did not reveal statistical differences (P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PELD and OFD both provide acceptable clinical outcomes for LDH. However, PELD is superior to OFD in terms of relieving low back pain, delaying disc degeneration, and maintaining segmental stability.</p>","PeriodicalId":16629,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research","volume":"19 1","pages":"753"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11559210/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy versus open fenestration discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective propensity score-matched study with more than 5 years of follow-up.\",\"authors\":\"Tusheng Li, Junyou Zhang, Zhili Ding, Qiang Jiang, Yu Ding\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13018-024-05239-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We compared the long-term outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) with those of open fenestration discectomy (OFD) in treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>281 patients were included from January 2013 to December 2018, of whom 228 underwent PELD and 53 underwent OFD. General information of patients was collected and imbalances in covariates between groups were corrected using propensity score matching (PSM). Then, the clinical function scores, imaging data, and complications were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among participants, 102 patients were successfully matched and were followed for 62-128 months. Compared to the OFD group, the PELD group indicated greater improvements in visual analog scale score of low back pain (VAS-BP), Japanese orthopedic association (JOA), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 7 days postoperatively and the last follow-up (P < 0.05). At 24 months postoperatively and the last follow-up, the disc height index (DHI), ratio of grays (RVG), and range of motion (ROM) were higher and the compass value was lower (P < 0.05) in the PELD group compared to the OFD group, suggesting that the PELD procedure better maintained the mobility and stability of the responsible segment after surgery. The recurrence rates between the PELD (9.80%) and OFD (7.84%) groups did not reveal statistical differences (P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PELD and OFD both provide acceptable clinical outcomes for LDH. However, PELD is superior to OFD in terms of relieving low back pain, delaying disc degeneration, and maintaining segmental stability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16629,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"753\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11559210/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-05239-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-05239-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们比较了经皮内窥镜腰椎间盘切除术(PELD)与开放式椎间盘切除术(OFD)治疗腰椎间盘突出症(LDH)的长期疗效。方法:纳入了2013年1月至2018年12月的281例患者,其中228例接受了PELD,53例接受了OFD。收集患者的一般信息,并使用倾向得分匹配(PSM)纠正组间协变量的不平衡。然后,比较临床功能评分、影像学数据和并发症:结果:在参与者中,102 名患者成功配对,并接受了 62-128 个月的随访。与 OFD 组相比,PELD 组在术后 7 天和最后一次随访时,腰背痛视觉模拟量表评分(VAS-BP)、日本矫形协会(JOA)和 Oswestry 残疾指数(ODI)的改善幅度更大(P 0.05):结论:PELD 和 OFD 都能为 LDH 提供可接受的临床疗效。结论:PELD 和 OFD 都能为 LDH 带来可接受的临床疗效,但 PELD 在缓解腰痛、延缓椎间盘退变和保持节段稳定性方面优于 OFD。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy versus open fenestration discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective propensity score-matched study with more than 5 years of follow-up.

Objective: We compared the long-term outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) with those of open fenestration discectomy (OFD) in treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

Methods: 281 patients were included from January 2013 to December 2018, of whom 228 underwent PELD and 53 underwent OFD. General information of patients was collected and imbalances in covariates between groups were corrected using propensity score matching (PSM). Then, the clinical function scores, imaging data, and complications were compared.

Results: Among participants, 102 patients were successfully matched and were followed for 62-128 months. Compared to the OFD group, the PELD group indicated greater improvements in visual analog scale score of low back pain (VAS-BP), Japanese orthopedic association (JOA), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 7 days postoperatively and the last follow-up (P < 0.05). At 24 months postoperatively and the last follow-up, the disc height index (DHI), ratio of grays (RVG), and range of motion (ROM) were higher and the compass value was lower (P < 0.05) in the PELD group compared to the OFD group, suggesting that the PELD procedure better maintained the mobility and stability of the responsible segment after surgery. The recurrence rates between the PELD (9.80%) and OFD (7.84%) groups did not reveal statistical differences (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: PELD and OFD both provide acceptable clinical outcomes for LDH. However, PELD is superior to OFD in terms of relieving low back pain, delaying disc degeneration, and maintaining segmental stability.

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
4.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
494
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research is an open access journal that encompasses all aspects of clinical and basic research studies related to musculoskeletal issues. Orthopaedic research is conducted at clinical and basic science levels. With the advancement of new technologies and the increasing expectation and demand from doctors and patients, we are witnessing an enormous growth in clinical orthopaedic research, particularly in the fields of traumatology, spinal surgery, joint replacement, sports medicine, musculoskeletal tumour management, hand microsurgery, foot and ankle surgery, paediatric orthopaedic, and orthopaedic rehabilitation. The involvement of basic science ranges from molecular, cellular, structural and functional perspectives to tissue engineering, gait analysis, automation and robotic surgery. Implant and biomaterial designs are new disciplines that complement clinical applications. JOSR encourages the publication of multidisciplinary research with collaboration amongst clinicians and scientists from different disciplines, which will be the trend in the coming decades.
×
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