内镜、微创和开放式经椎间孔椎体间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的效果比较

摘要
图/表
参考文献(22)
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (465 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要

目的比较经椎间孔内镜腰椎椎间融合术（Endo-LIF）、微创腰椎椎间融合术（MIS-TLIF）和开放腰椎椎间融合术（PLIF）治疗腰椎退行性疾病（LDD）的临床疗效和安全性。方法回顾性分析2013 年1 月至2023 年1 月在百色市人民医院因LDD 接受经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术就诊的150 例患者临床资料，按手术方式分为Endo-LIF 组、MIS-TLIF 组、PLIF 组三组，每组各50 例。比较患者手术时间、透视次数、术中失血量、住院时间、并发症以及术前和术后3 个月的视觉模拟评分（VAS）、Oswestry 功能障碍指数（ODI）评分、椎间隙高度指数、病变节段活动度（ROM）。结果 PLIF 组的手术时间长于Endo-LIF 组和MIS-TLIF 组，术中透视次数少于Endo-LIF 组和MIS-TLIF组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。Endo-LIF 组和MIS-TLIF 组的手术时间、术中透视次数比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。患者术中出血量Endo-LIF 组少于MIS-TLIF 组及PLIF 组，MIS-TLIF 组少于PLIF 组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；患者术后卧床时间和住院时间Endo-LIF 组短于MIS-TLIF 组及PLIF 组，MIS-TLIF 组短于PLIF 组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。三组患者满意度比较，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。Endo-LIF 组满意度高于PLIF 组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.017）。三组患者术后3 个月VAS 及ODI 评分低于手术前，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01）。三组患者并发症发生率、椎间隙高度指数、ROM 比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 Endo-LIF、MIS-TLI、PLIF 三种手术方法术后3 个月的预后结果相似，PLIF 术中透视次数最少，Endo-LIF 创伤较小，在降低术中出血，缩短术后卧床时间和住院时间方面优势明显，术后恢复速度较快，适合临床推广。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章

关键词 ：腰椎退行性疾病, 腰椎椎间融合术, 内镜, 微创, 开放式

Abstract：

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF),minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF),and open lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD).Methods The clinical data of 150 patients who underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for LDD in Baise People's Hospital from January 2013 to January 2023 were retrospectively analyzed.According to the surgical method,they were divided into Endo-LIF group,MIS-TLIF group and PLIF group,with 50 cases in each group.Operative time,fluoroscopy times,intraoperative blood loss,length of hospital stay,complications,visual analogue scale(VAS),Oswestry disability index(ODI),vertebral space height index,and range of motion(ROM)were compared between the three groups before and 3 months after surgery.Results The operative time of PLIF group was longer than that of Endo-LIF group and MIS-TLIF group,and the intraoperative fluoroscopy times were less than those of Endo-LIF group and MIS-TLIF group,the differences were statistically significant (P＜0.05).There were no significant differences in operation time and intraoperative fluoroscopy times between Endo-LIF group and MIS-TLIF group (P＞0.05).Intraoperative blood loss in Endo-LIF group was less than that in MIS-TLIF group and PLIF group,and that in MIS-TLIF group was less than that in PLIF group,the differences were statistically significant (P＜0.05).Postoperative bed time and hospital stay in Endo-LIF group were shorter than those in MIS-TLIF group and PLIF group,and MIS-TLIF group was shorter than PLIF group,the differences were statistically significant (P＜0.05).The satisfaction of the three groups was compared,the difference was statistically significant (P＜0.05).The satisfaction of Endo-LIF group was higher than PLIF group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.017).VAS and ODI scores 3 months after operation were lower than those before operation,and the differences were statistically significant (P＜0.01).There were no significant differences in complication rate,vertebral space height index and ROM among three groups (P＞0.05).Conclusion Endo-LIF,MIS-TLI and PLIF had similar prognosis 3 months after operation.PLIF had the least number of intraoperative fluoroscopy,Endo-LIF had less trauma,and had obvious advantages in reducing intraoperative bleeding,shortening postoperative bed time and hospital stay,and had faster postoperative recovery,which was suitable for clinical promotion.

Key words： Lumbar degenerative disease Lumbar interbody fusion surgery Endoscopy Minimally invasive Open type

基金资助:

广西自然科学基金项目（2023GXNSFBA026203）；
广西壮族自治区百色市科学研究与技术开发计划项目（20230586）。

作者简介: 李新武（1980-），男，广西百色人，副主任医师；研究方向：脊柱骨病外科疾病的手术治疗。

引用本文:

李新武;韦华成; 李昊; 魏芳芳. 内镜、微创和开放式经椎间孔椎体间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的效果比较[J]. 中国当代医药, 2024, 31(16): 68-72.
LI Xinwu1 WEI Huacheng2 LI Hao1 WEI Fangfang3▲. Effect comparison of endoscopic,minimally invasive and open transforaminal interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. 中国当代医药, 2024, 31(16): 68-72.

链接本文:

https://www.dangdaiyiyao.com/CN/ 或 https://www.dangdaiyiyao.com/CN/Y2024/V31/I16/68

[1]	Li L，Liu Y，Zhang P，et al.Comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A retrospective study[J].J Int Med Res，2016，44（6）：1424-1429.
[2]	M，Filipp P，Rusnák R，et al.Latest Developments in Minimally Invasive Spinal Treatment in Slovakia and Its Comparison with an Open Approach for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases[J].J Clin Med，2023，12（14）：4755.
[3]	曾令辉，苏国义，谭智怀，等.MIS-TILF 与PLIF 治疗单节段腰椎退行性疾病的效果对比[J].中外医学研究，2022，20（12）：46-51.
[4]	楼超，刘飞俊，何登伟，等.经皮内镜下切除术联合斜外侧椎间融合术治疗合并间盘脱出的腰椎退行性疾病[J].中华骨科杂志，2020，40（8）：507-514.
[5]	Jin M，Zhang J，Shao H，et al.Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Diseases: A Consecutive Case Series with Mean 2-Year Follow-Up[J].Pain Physician，2020，23（2）：165-174.
[6]	Wang MY，Grossman J.Endoscopic minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion without general anesthesia: Initial clinical experience with 1-year follow-up[J].Neurosurg Focus，2016，40（2）：E13.
[7]	Chen YC，Zhang L，Li EN，et al.An updated meta-analysis of clinical outcomes comparing minimally invasive with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with degenerative lumbar diseases[J].Medicine（Baltimore），2019，98（43）：e17420.
[8]	Zhu L，Cai T，Shan Y，et al.Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Complications Between Percutaneous Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Disease：A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis[J].Pain Physician，2021，24（6）：441-452.
[9]	宋晋刚，崔易坤，尹振宇，等.椎间孔镜下髓核摘除后纤维环缝合修复治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床观察[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志，2023，33（1）：45-50.
[10]	李璐遥，黄晓夏，马锐，等.计算机导航引导与徒手椎弓根螺钉置钉在腰椎峡部裂手术中应用的效果比较[J].中华创伤骨科杂志，2024，26（1）：35-42.
[11]	何惠倩，张瑞秋，孙炜，等.互联网医疗患者满意度影响因素分析与研究[J].包装工程，2021，42（22）：204-211.
[12]	张玉红，张民，戴国华，等.单孔分体内镜治疗中重度腰椎管狭窄症的早期临床疗效[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志，2023，33（1）：37-44.
[13]	高江，阿里木江·玉素甫，马良，等.经皮内镜下经椎间孔腰椎间融合术与传统微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病临床疗效与安全性的Meta 分析[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志，2023，33（6）：547-558.
[14]	刘兵兵，任志楠，张盼可，等.经皮内镜与微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术治疗单节段退行性腰椎管狭窄的疗效对比[J].中国微创外科杂志，2022，28（7）：553-558.
[15]	杨俊松，郝定均，刘团江，等.脊柱机器人与透视辅助下经皮植钉治疗腰椎滑脱症中植钉精度的对比研究[J].中国修复重建外科杂志，2018，32（11）：1371-1376.
[16]	Kang MS，You KH，Choi JY，et al.Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the biportal endoscopic techniques versus microscopic tubular technique[J].Spine J，2021，21（12）：2066-2077.
[17]	Heo DH，Son SK，Eum JH，et al.Fully endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using a percutaneous unilateral biportal endoscopic technique：technical note and preliminary clinical results[J].Neurosurg Focus，2017，43（2）：E8.
[18]	李亚伟，吕欣，王冰，等.单孔同轴大通道与双通道内镜下腰椎椎间融合术的学习曲线评价[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志，2023，33（6）：481-488.
[19]	胡向阳，胡可君，朱慧强，等.内镜与开放后路椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行疾病[J].中国矫形外科杂志，2023，31（7）：607-612.
[20]	Malham GM，Parker RM，Blecher CM，et al.Assessment and classification of subsidence after lateral interbody fusion using serial computed tomography[J].J Neurosurg Spine，2015，23（5）：589-597.
[21]	Park MK，Park SA，Son SK，et al.Clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF)compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion(PLIF):1-year follow-up[J].Neurosurg Rev，2019，42（3）：753-761.
[22]	Hu X，Yan L，Jin X，et al.Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion,Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion,and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases：A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis[J].Global Spine J，2024，14（1）：295-305.