中国骨与关节损伤杂志2024,Vol.39Issue(7) :693-697.DOI:10.7531/j.issn.1672-9935.2024.07.005

单侧双通道与单通道脊柱内镜下双侧减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症疗效及安全性的Meta分析

A meta-analysis of clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression between unilateral biportal endoscopy and uniportal endoscopy in treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis

孙昌宇 孔德鑫 慈吉辰 申素昊 孔鹏 张建新 汲长蛟
中国骨与关节损伤杂志2024,Vol.39Issue(7) :693-697.DOI:10.7531/j.issn.1672-9935.2024.07.005

单侧双通道与单通道脊柱内镜下双侧减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症疗效及安全性的Meta分析

A meta-analysis of clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression between unilateral biportal endoscopy and uniportal endoscopy in treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis

孙昌宇 1孔德鑫 1慈吉辰 1申素昊 1孔鹏 2张建新 2汲长蛟2
扫码查看

作者信息

  • 1. 山东中医药大学第一临床医学院,山东济南 250000
  • 2. 山东省中医院微创骨科,山东济南 250000
  • 折叠

摘要

目的 通过Meta分析比较单侧双通道脊柱内镜下双侧减压(Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy,unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression,UBE-ULBD)与单通道脊柱内镜下双侧减压(Percutaneous endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression,PE-ULBD)治疗腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效及安全性.方法 通过PubMed、Web of Science、EMbase、中国知网、万方数据库、维普数据库检索比较UBE-ULBD手术与PE-ULBD手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症安全性与疗效的文献,采用Review Manager 5.3软件进行Meta分析.比较UBE-ULBD组与PE-ULBD组手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症发生率、术后下肢疼痛VAS评分、术后ODI指数、术后硬脊膜扩张面积.结果 纳入6篇文献,其中队列研究5篇(高质量),随机对照试验研究1篇(低质量).纳入329例,UBE-ULBD组170例,PE-ULBD组159例.两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后下肢疼痛VAS评分、术后并发症发生率、术后12个月ODI指数差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).UBE-ULBD组术后3个月ODI指数低于PE-UBLD组,术后硬脊膜扩张面积大于PE-ULBD组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 UBE-ULBD手术与PE-ULBD手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的疗效相似,UBE-ULBD更适用于治疗双侧侧隐窝或存在中央椎管狭窄的患者,术中能提供更大的视野范围,进而获得更好的减压效果,而且安全性较高.

Abstract

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression be-tween unilateral biportal endoscopy(UBE-ULBD)and uniportal endoscopy(PE-ULBD)in the treatment of lumbar spinal steno-sis by Meta-analysis.Methods PubMed,Web of Science,EMbase,CNKI,Wanfang Database and VIP database were searched for studies comparing the safety and efficacy of UBE-ULBD surgery and PE-ULBD surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.Review Manager 5.3 software was used for Meta-analysis.The operation time,intraoperative blood loss,postoperative complica-tions,postoperative lower limb pain VAS score,postoperative ODI index and postoperative dural expansion area were compared between the UBE-ULBD group and the PE-ULBD group.Results A total of 6 articles were included,including 5 cohort stud-ies(high quality)and 1 randomized controlled trial study(low quality).A total of 329 patients were enrolled,including 170 pa-tients in the UBE-ULBD group and 159 patients in the PE-ULBD group.There was no significant difference in operation time,intraoperative blood loss,VAS score of lower limb pain after operation,incidence of postoperative complications,and ODI index at 12 months after operation between the two groups(P>0.05).The ODI index at 3 months after operation of UBE-ULBD group was lower than that of PE-UBLD group,and the expansion area of dura after operation of PE-ULBD group was larger than that of PE-ULBD group(P<0.05).Conclusion The efficacy of UBE-ULBD is similar to PE-ULBD in the treatment of lumbar spi-nal stenosis.UBE-ULBD is more suitable for the treatment of bilateral recess or central spinal stenosis.UBE-ULBD can pro-vide a larger intraoperative field of view,thus achieving better decompression effect and high safety.

关键词

腰椎退行性疾病/腰椎管狭窄症/单侧双通道脊柱内镜/双侧减压技术/Meta分析

Key words

Lumbar degenerative diseases/Lumbar spinal stenosis/Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy/Unilateral lami-nectomy bilateral decompression/Meta-analysis

引用本文复制引用

基金项目

山东省自然科学基金项目(ZR2023MH225)

出版年

2024
中国骨与关节损伤杂志
中华预防医学会

中国骨与关节损伤杂志

CSTPCD
影响因子:1.623
ISSN:1672-9935
段落导航相关论文