全内窥镜椎板间腰椎间盘切除术与显微腰椎间盘切除术的比较分析。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Clinical Spine Surgery Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-18 DOI:10.1097/BSD.0000000000001733
Luay Şerifoğlu, Mustafa Umut Etli, Selçuk Özdoğan
{"title":"全内窥镜椎板间腰椎间盘切除术与显微腰椎间盘切除术的比较分析。","authors":"Luay Şerifoğlu, Mustafa Umut Etli, Selçuk Özdoğan","doi":"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective clinical study.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim is to assess and contrast the results of full endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) and lumbar microdiscectomy (LMD) for L5-S1 disc herniation, with a specific emphasis on postoperative pain reduction and surgical effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Although minimally invasive spine operations are becoming more popular, there is still little research on the comparative effectiveness of FELD and LMD.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The research had a total of 50 patients who received surgical intervention for L5-S1 disc herniation, with 25 patients getting full endoscopic interlaminar discectomy and the other 25 patients undergoing LMD. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale for low back and leg pain, collected preoperatively and at the end of 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months postsurgery. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using Odoms criteria at the same intervals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 50 patients (26 men, 24 women), with a mean age of 51.11 ± 13.76 years. The groups had no significant differences in demographic data. Back and leg pain Visual Analog Scale scores decreased more significantly in the FELD group after 1 week of surgery ( P < 0.001), although the declines at 3 months and 6 months were not significantly different between the two groups. According to Odoms criteria, patient satisfaction was favorable in both groups and significantly better in the FELD group than in the LMD group at 1 week postoperatively [excellent in 20 patients (80%) in the FELD group vs 9 patients (36%) in the LMD group ( P = 0.025)]. However, patient satisfaction at 3 months and 6 months did not differ between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrates that FELD offers significant early postoperative advantages over LMD at the L5-S1 level when compared with pain and satisfaction scales.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III.</p>","PeriodicalId":10457,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Spine Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"E312-E315"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Analysis of Full Endoscopic Interlaminar Lumbar Discectomy and Lumbar Microdiscectomy.\",\"authors\":\"Luay Şerifoğlu, Mustafa Umut Etli, Selçuk Özdoğan\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001733\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective clinical study.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim is to assess and contrast the results of full endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) and lumbar microdiscectomy (LMD) for L5-S1 disc herniation, with a specific emphasis on postoperative pain reduction and surgical effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Although minimally invasive spine operations are becoming more popular, there is still little research on the comparative effectiveness of FELD and LMD.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The research had a total of 50 patients who received surgical intervention for L5-S1 disc herniation, with 25 patients getting full endoscopic interlaminar discectomy and the other 25 patients undergoing LMD. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale for low back and leg pain, collected preoperatively and at the end of 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months postsurgery. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using Odoms criteria at the same intervals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 50 patients (26 men, 24 women), with a mean age of 51.11 ± 13.76 years. The groups had no significant differences in demographic data. Back and leg pain Visual Analog Scale scores decreased more significantly in the FELD group after 1 week of surgery ( P < 0.001), although the declines at 3 months and 6 months were not significantly different between the two groups. According to Odoms criteria, patient satisfaction was favorable in both groups and significantly better in the FELD group than in the LMD group at 1 week postoperatively [excellent in 20 patients (80%) in the FELD group vs 9 patients (36%) in the LMD group ( P = 0.025)]. However, patient satisfaction at 3 months and 6 months did not differ between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrates that FELD offers significant early postoperative advantages over LMD at the L5-S1 level when compared with pain and satisfaction scales.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Spine Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"E312-E315\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Spine Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001733\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001733","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计:回顾性临床研究。目的:目的是评估和对比全内窥镜腰椎间盘切除术(FELD)和腰椎微椎间盘切除术(LMD)治疗L5-S1椎间盘突出的结果,特别强调术后疼痛减轻和手术效果。背景:尽管微创脊柱手术越来越流行,但FELD和LMD的疗效对比研究仍然很少。材料与方法:本研究共纳入50例L5-S1椎间盘突出症手术干预患者,其中25例患者行内镜下全椎间盘切除术,25例患者行LMD。临床结果采用视觉模拟量表评估腰背痛和腿部疼痛,收集术前、术后1周、3个月和6个月的数据。在相同的时间间隔内使用Odoms标准评估患者满意度。结果:纳入50例患者(男26例,女24例),平均年龄51.11±13.76岁。两组在人口统计数据上没有显著差异。术后1周后,FELD组背部和腿部疼痛视觉模拟量表评分下降更明显(P < 0.001),尽管3个月和6个月时两组之间的下降无显著差异。根据Odoms标准,两组患者满意度均较好,术后1周,FELD组患者满意度明显优于LMD组[FELD组20例(80%)优秀,LMD组9例(36%)优秀(P = 0.025)]。然而,3个月和6个月的患者满意度在两组之间没有差异。结论:本研究表明,与疼痛和满意度量表相比,FELD在L5-S1水平上比LMD具有明显的术后早期优势。证据等级:三级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Analysis of Full Endoscopic Interlaminar Lumbar Discectomy and Lumbar Microdiscectomy.

Study design: Retrospective clinical study.

Objectives: The aim is to assess and contrast the results of full endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) and lumbar microdiscectomy (LMD) for L5-S1 disc herniation, with a specific emphasis on postoperative pain reduction and surgical effectiveness.

Background: Although minimally invasive spine operations are becoming more popular, there is still little research on the comparative effectiveness of FELD and LMD.

Materials and methods: The research had a total of 50 patients who received surgical intervention for L5-S1 disc herniation, with 25 patients getting full endoscopic interlaminar discectomy and the other 25 patients undergoing LMD. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale for low back and leg pain, collected preoperatively and at the end of 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months postsurgery. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using Odoms criteria at the same intervals.

Results: The study included 50 patients (26 men, 24 women), with a mean age of 51.11 ± 13.76 years. The groups had no significant differences in demographic data. Back and leg pain Visual Analog Scale scores decreased more significantly in the FELD group after 1 week of surgery ( P < 0.001), although the declines at 3 months and 6 months were not significantly different between the two groups. According to Odoms criteria, patient satisfaction was favorable in both groups and significantly better in the FELD group than in the LMD group at 1 week postoperatively [excellent in 20 patients (80%) in the FELD group vs 9 patients (36%) in the LMD group ( P = 0.025)]. However, patient satisfaction at 3 months and 6 months did not differ between the groups.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that FELD offers significant early postoperative advantages over LMD at the L5-S1 level when compared with pain and satisfaction scales.

Level of evidence: Level III.

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
Clinical Spine Surgery
Clinical Spine Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
236
期刊介绍: Clinical Spine Surgery is the ideal journal for the busy practicing spine surgeon or trainee, as it is the only journal necessary to keep up to date with new clinical research and surgical techniques. Readers get to watch leaders in the field debate controversial topics in a new controversies section, and gain access to evidence-based reviews of important pathologies in the systematic reviews section. The journal features a surgical technique complete with a video, and a tips and tricks section that allows surgeons to review the important steps prior to a complex procedure. Clinical Spine Surgery provides readers with primary research studies, specifically level 1, 2 and 3 studies, ensuring that articles that may actually change a surgeon’s practice will be read and published. Each issue includes a brief article that will help a surgeon better understand the business of healthcare, as well as an article that will help a surgeon understand how to interpret increasingly complex research methodology. Clinical Spine Surgery is your single source for up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for spine care.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信