术后30天疼痛强度和功能状态:经椎间孔和经皮内镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术的差异

Q4 Medicine
Claudio A. G. Castilho, Rosalino Guareschi Junior, Oliver Damiani Meyer, Sérgio Zylbersztejn, Cesar Dall Bello, N. Rodrigues, Felipe Loss, Y. Kisaki
{"title":"术后30天疼痛强度和功能状态:经椎间孔和经皮内镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术的差异","authors":"Claudio A. G. Castilho, Rosalino Guareschi Junior, Oliver Damiani Meyer, Sérgio Zylbersztejn, Cesar Dall Bello, N. Rodrigues, Felipe Loss, Y. Kisaki","doi":"10.1590/s1808-185120222101259450","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the differences between transforaminal and interlaminar endoscopic approaches in terms of pain intensity and functionality 30 days after the surgical procedure. Methods: A retrospective cohort study, with patients treated by percutaneous interlaminar or transforaminal endoscopic discectomy at the Spine Service of the ISCMPA, in southern Brazil. Data were collected from the patients’ electronic medical records by two independent physicians. The clinical outcomes of pain intensity and lumbar functionality were evaluated, respectively, using the visual analogue scale and the Oswestry Disability Index. Results: Thirty-six patients were included in the study, with a mean age of 50.8 ± 15.3 years, 19 (52.8%) of whom were males. As for the clinical outcomes for both transforaminal and interlaminar percutaneous endoscopic approaches, we observed a statistically significant reduction in pain intensity (mean difference of 3.5 points, p < 0.001) and a statistically significant improvement in functionality (mean difference of 33.2 points, p < 0.001) when we compared the pre- and 30-day postoperative periods, with no significant differences in terms of approaches. The type of technical approach also differed in relation to the patients’ age, the location, type, and migration of the herniated disc, and the patient’s time in the operating room. Conclusion: There was a similar effect on pain reduction and restoration of lumbar functions, 30 days after percutaneous endoscopic discectomy, in both technical approaches, with no significant differences between them. Level of Evidence III; Retrospective comparative study.","PeriodicalId":40025,"journal":{"name":"Coluna/ Columna","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PAIN INTENSITY AND FUNCTIONAL STATUS 30 DAYS AFTER SURGERY: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRANSFORAMINAL AND INTERLAMINAR PERCUTANEOUS ENDOSCOPICLUMBAR DISCECTOMIES\",\"authors\":\"Claudio A. G. Castilho, Rosalino Guareschi Junior, Oliver Damiani Meyer, Sérgio Zylbersztejn, Cesar Dall Bello, N. Rodrigues, Felipe Loss, Y. Kisaki\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/s1808-185120222101259450\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the differences between transforaminal and interlaminar endoscopic approaches in terms of pain intensity and functionality 30 days after the surgical procedure. Methods: A retrospective cohort study, with patients treated by percutaneous interlaminar or transforaminal endoscopic discectomy at the Spine Service of the ISCMPA, in southern Brazil. Data were collected from the patients’ electronic medical records by two independent physicians. The clinical outcomes of pain intensity and lumbar functionality were evaluated, respectively, using the visual analogue scale and the Oswestry Disability Index. Results: Thirty-six patients were included in the study, with a mean age of 50.8 ± 15.3 years, 19 (52.8%) of whom were males. As for the clinical outcomes for both transforaminal and interlaminar percutaneous endoscopic approaches, we observed a statistically significant reduction in pain intensity (mean difference of 3.5 points, p < 0.001) and a statistically significant improvement in functionality (mean difference of 33.2 points, p < 0.001) when we compared the pre- and 30-day postoperative periods, with no significant differences in terms of approaches. The type of technical approach also differed in relation to the patients’ age, the location, type, and migration of the herniated disc, and the patient’s time in the operating room. Conclusion: There was a similar effect on pain reduction and restoration of lumbar functions, 30 days after percutaneous endoscopic discectomy, in both technical approaches, with no significant differences between them. Level of Evidence III; Retrospective comparative study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40025,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Coluna/ Columna\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Coluna/ Columna\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/s1808-185120222101259450\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Coluna/ Columna","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/s1808-185120222101259450","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较经椎间孔内镜入路与椎间孔内镜入路在术后30天疼痛强度和功能方面的差异。方法:一项回顾性队列研究,在巴西南部ISCMPA脊柱服务中心接受经皮椎间或经椎间孔内窥镜椎间盘切除术的患者。数据由两名独立的医生从患者的电子病历中收集。分别采用视觉模拟量表和Oswestry残疾指数评估疼痛强度和腰椎功能的临床结果。结果:共纳入36例患者,平均年龄50.8±15.3岁,其中男性19例(52.8%)。对于经椎间孔内镜入路和经椎间腔内镜入路的临床结果,我们观察到,与术后30天相比,疼痛强度降低具有统计学意义(平均差异为3.5分,p < 0.001),功能改善具有统计学意义(平均差异为33.2分,p < 0.001),入路方面无统计学差异。技术入路的类型也与患者的年龄、椎间盘突出的位置、类型和移位以及患者在手术室的时间有关。结论:经皮内窥镜椎间盘切除术后30天,两种技术入路在减轻疼痛和恢复腰椎功能方面效果相似,无显著差异。证据等级III;回顾性比较研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
PAIN INTENSITY AND FUNCTIONAL STATUS 30 DAYS AFTER SURGERY: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRANSFORAMINAL AND INTERLAMINAR PERCUTANEOUS ENDOSCOPICLUMBAR DISCECTOMIES
ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the differences between transforaminal and interlaminar endoscopic approaches in terms of pain intensity and functionality 30 days after the surgical procedure. Methods: A retrospective cohort study, with patients treated by percutaneous interlaminar or transforaminal endoscopic discectomy at the Spine Service of the ISCMPA, in southern Brazil. Data were collected from the patients’ electronic medical records by two independent physicians. The clinical outcomes of pain intensity and lumbar functionality were evaluated, respectively, using the visual analogue scale and the Oswestry Disability Index. Results: Thirty-six patients were included in the study, with a mean age of 50.8 ± 15.3 years, 19 (52.8%) of whom were males. As for the clinical outcomes for both transforaminal and interlaminar percutaneous endoscopic approaches, we observed a statistically significant reduction in pain intensity (mean difference of 3.5 points, p < 0.001) and a statistically significant improvement in functionality (mean difference of 33.2 points, p < 0.001) when we compared the pre- and 30-day postoperative periods, with no significant differences in terms of approaches. The type of technical approach also differed in relation to the patients’ age, the location, type, and migration of the herniated disc, and the patient’s time in the operating room. Conclusion: There was a similar effect on pain reduction and restoration of lumbar functions, 30 days after percutaneous endoscopic discectomy, in both technical approaches, with no significant differences between them. Level of Evidence III; Retrospective comparative study.
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
Coluna/ Columna
Coluna/ Columna Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
审稿时长
10 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