单侧双门静脉内窥镜技术与开放式显微椎间盘切除术治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症的疗效比较:中国单中心回顾性研究

IF 2.3 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Tianyao Ke, Qiulin He, Qiying Wang, Long Li, Changgui Shi, Jiaxue Zeng, Qing Li
{"title":"单侧双门静脉内窥镜技术与开放式显微椎间盘切除术治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症的疗效比较:中国单中心回顾性研究","authors":"Tianyao Ke, Qiulin He, Qiying Wang, Long Li, Changgui Shi, Jiaxue Zeng, Qing Li","doi":"10.31616/asj.2024.0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Single-center retrospective cohort analysis.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare surgical outcomes between the unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) and open microdiscectomy for the treatment of single-level lumbar disc herniation (LDH).</p><p><strong>Overview of literature: </strong>Open microdiscectomy remains the gold standard for LDH, while UBE has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative. However, comparative evidence on efficacy, safety, and recovery profiles remains limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a single-center retrospective analysis of 46 patients with single-level LDH who underwent either the UBE surgery (n=22) or open microdiscectomy (n=24) between January 2020 and December 2022. Demographic information, perioperative data, and radiographic measurements were reviewed. Pain intensity, patient satisfaction, and quality of life were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 1-week, 3-month, and 12-month follow-ups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean operative time in the UBE group (86.1±11.4 minutes) was significantly longer than in the open microdiscectomy group (72.3±8.0 minutes, p=0.032). UBE was associated with significantly lower estimated blood loss (54.1±13.7 mL vs. 92.5±11.6 mL, p=0.001) and shorter hospital stay (3.7±1.2 days vs. 6.6±1.4 days, p=0.001). The mean VAS score for back pain at 1 week was significantly better in the UBE group (1.88±0.60 vs. 3.59±0.72, p=0.004). However, both surgical techniques showed similar long-term results regarding disc height, disc angle changes, and patient-reported outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite the longer operative time, UBE is associated with reduced estimated blood loss and shorter hospital stays, offering a minimally invasive alternative with early postoperative pain relief. Conversely, open microdiscectomy, the conventional treatment approach, demonstrates comparable efficacy in long-term clinical outcomes despite its more invasive nature. Both methods show similar rates of complications and recurrent disc herniation. UBE is a viable alternative to open microdiscectomy, depending on individual patient considerations and surgical preferences.</p>","PeriodicalId":8555,"journal":{"name":"Asian Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of surgical outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic technique and open microdiscectomy in patients with single-level lumbar disc herniation: a single-center retrospective study in China.\",\"authors\":\"Tianyao Ke, Qiulin He, Qiying Wang, Long Li, Changgui Shi, Jiaxue Zeng, Qing Li\",\"doi\":\"10.31616/asj.2024.0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Single-center retrospective cohort analysis.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare surgical outcomes between the unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) and open microdiscectomy for the treatment of single-level lumbar disc herniation (LDH).</p><p><strong>Overview of literature: </strong>Open microdiscectomy remains the gold standard for LDH, while UBE has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative. However, comparative evidence on efficacy, safety, and recovery profiles remains limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a single-center retrospective analysis of 46 patients with single-level LDH who underwent either the UBE surgery (n=22) or open microdiscectomy (n=24) between January 2020 and December 2022. Demographic information, perioperative data, and radiographic measurements were reviewed. Pain intensity, patient satisfaction, and quality of life were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 1-week, 3-month, and 12-month follow-ups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean operative time in the UBE group (86.1±11.4 minutes) was significantly longer than in the open microdiscectomy group (72.3±8.0 minutes, p=0.032). UBE was associated with significantly lower estimated blood loss (54.1±13.7 mL vs. 92.5±11.6 mL, p=0.001) and shorter hospital stay (3.7±1.2 days vs. 6.6±1.4 days, p=0.001). The mean VAS score for back pain at 1 week was significantly better in the UBE group (1.88±0.60 vs. 3.59±0.72, p=0.004). However, both surgical techniques showed similar long-term results regarding disc height, disc angle changes, and patient-reported outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite the longer operative time, UBE is associated with reduced estimated blood loss and shorter hospital stays, offering a minimally invasive alternative with early postoperative pain relief. Conversely, open microdiscectomy, the conventional treatment approach, demonstrates comparable efficacy in long-term clinical outcomes despite its more invasive nature. Both methods show similar rates of complications and recurrent disc herniation. UBE is a viable alternative to open microdiscectomy, depending on individual patient considerations and surgical preferences.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2024.0002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2024.0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计:单中心回顾性队列分析。目的:比较单侧双门静脉内镜(UBE)和开放式显微椎间盘切除术治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症(LDH)的手术效果。文献综述:开放式微椎间盘切除术仍然是LDH的金标准,而UBE已成为一种微创替代方法。然而,关于疗效、安全性和恢复情况的比较证据仍然有限。方法:这是一项单中心回顾性分析,在2020年1月至2022年12月期间,46例单水平LDH患者接受了UBE手术(n=22)或开放式微椎间盘切除术(n=24)。回顾了人口统计信息、围手术期数据和放射学测量。在随访1周、3个月和12个月时,采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)和Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)评估疼痛强度、患者满意度和生活质量。结果:UBE组平均手术时间(86.1±11.4分钟)明显长于开放微椎间盘切除术组(72.3±8.0分钟,p=0.032)。UBE与较低的估计失血量(54.1±13.7 mL对92.5±11.6 mL, p=0.001)和较短的住院时间(3.7±1.2天对6.6±1.4天,p=0.001)相关。UBE组1周腰痛VAS平均评分明显优于UBE组(1.88±0.60比3.59±0.72,p=0.004)。然而,两种手术技术在椎间盘高度、椎间盘角度变化和患者报告的结果方面显示相似的长期结果。结论:尽管手术时间较长,但UBE与减少估计失血量和缩短住院时间相关,为早期术后疼痛缓解提供了一种微创替代方案。相反,开放式微椎间盘切除术,传统的治疗方法,在长期临床结果中显示出相当的疗效,尽管其更具侵入性。两种方法的并发症和复发性椎间盘突出率相似。UBE是一种可行的替代开放式微椎间盘切除术,这取决于个体患者的考虑和手术偏好。
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 surgical outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic technique and open microdiscectomy in patients with single-level lumbar disc herniation: a single-center retrospective study in China.

Study design: Single-center retrospective cohort analysis.

Purpose: To compare surgical outcomes between the unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) and open microdiscectomy for the treatment of single-level lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

Overview of literature: Open microdiscectomy remains the gold standard for LDH, while UBE has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative. However, comparative evidence on efficacy, safety, and recovery profiles remains limited.

Methods: This was a single-center retrospective analysis of 46 patients with single-level LDH who underwent either the UBE surgery (n=22) or open microdiscectomy (n=24) between January 2020 and December 2022. Demographic information, perioperative data, and radiographic measurements were reviewed. Pain intensity, patient satisfaction, and quality of life were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 1-week, 3-month, and 12-month follow-ups.

Results: The mean operative time in the UBE group (86.1±11.4 minutes) was significantly longer than in the open microdiscectomy group (72.3±8.0 minutes, p=0.032). UBE was associated with significantly lower estimated blood loss (54.1±13.7 mL vs. 92.5±11.6 mL, p=0.001) and shorter hospital stay (3.7±1.2 days vs. 6.6±1.4 days, p=0.001). The mean VAS score for back pain at 1 week was significantly better in the UBE group (1.88±0.60 vs. 3.59±0.72, p=0.004). However, both surgical techniques showed similar long-term results regarding disc height, disc angle changes, and patient-reported outcomes.

Conclusions: Despite the longer operative time, UBE is associated with reduced estimated blood loss and shorter hospital stays, offering a minimally invasive alternative with early postoperative pain relief. Conversely, open microdiscectomy, the conventional treatment approach, demonstrates comparable efficacy in long-term clinical outcomes despite its more invasive nature. Both methods show similar rates of complications and recurrent disc herniation. UBE is a viable alternative to open microdiscectomy, depending on individual patient considerations and surgical preferences.

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
Asian Spine Journal
Asian Spine Journal ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
108
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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