颈腰痛杂志2024,Vol.45Issue(3) :471-475.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-7234.2024.03.017

单侧双通道UBE技术与常规PELD技术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的疗效比较

Comparison of unilateral two channel UBE technique and conventional PELD technique for lumbar spinal stenosis

杨海波 李亚龙 安帅
颈腰痛杂志2024,Vol.45Issue(3) :471-475.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-7234.2024.03.017

单侧双通道UBE技术与常规PELD技术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的疗效比较

Comparison of unilateral two channel UBE technique and conventional PELD technique for lumbar spinal stenosis

杨海波 1李亚龙 1安帅1
扫码查看

作者信息

  • 1. 安阳市人民医院骨科,河南安阳 455000
  • 折叠

摘要

目的 对比分析单侧双通道内镜减压术(unilateral biportal endoscopy,UBE)和经皮椎间孔镜技术(percutaneous endo-scopic lumbar discectomy,PELD)治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症(lumbar spinal stenosis,LSS)的临床疗效.方法 纳入该院2019年5月~2021年5月开展脊柱内镜减压术的73例LSS患者,按不同手术方案分为两组:UBE组42例,均选择UBE减压术;PELD组31例,均选择PELD减压术治疗.对两组患者的围手术期情况、术后疗效和椎管减压情况进行比较分析.结果 两组患者全部顺利完成脊柱内镜减压术,两组患者的术后住院时间、并发症发生率差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);UBE组的手术时间显著短于PELD组(P<0.05).UBE组术后出现神经根刺激症状1例;PELD组术后出现神经根刺激症状2例,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).与治疗前相比较,两组患者术后1个月、1年的VAS评分和ODI指数均获得显著改善(P<0.05),但两组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).UBE组术后1年时的优良率为92.9%,PELD组为90.3%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).两组患者术后的硬膜囊横截面积均较术前显著增加(P<0.05),且UBE组患者术后的硬膜囊横截面积及其术后增加值均显著大于PELD组(P<0.05).结论 PELD和UBE手术均是治疗LSS安全、有效的内镜下减压术式,但UBE手术减压更为彻底,临床可根据患者的实际情况灵活选择.

Abstract

Objective To compare and analyze the clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy(UBE)and percutaneous en-doscopic lumbar discectomy(PELD)in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis(LSS).Methods Seventy-three LSS pa-tients admitted to our hospital from May 2019 to May 2021 were treated with spinal endoscopic decompression.They were divided into two groups according to different surgical schemes:the UBE group was treated with UBE decompression(42 cases),and PELD group with PELD decompression(31 cases).The perioperative conditions,postoperative efficacy and spinal canal decompression of the two groups were compared and analyzed.Results All patients in the two groups successfully completed spinal endoscopic decompression,and there was no significant difference in the postoperative hospital stay and complication rate between the two groups(P>0.05).The operation time in the UBE group was significantly shorter than that in the PELD group(P<0.05).In the UBE group,one patient had symptoms of nerve root irritation after operation;there were two cases of nerve root irritation symptoms in the PELD group after opera-tion,and the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05).Compared with that before treatment,the VAS score and ODI in-dex of the two groups were significantly improved one month and one year after operation(P<0.05),but there was no significant difference between the two groups(P>0.05).The excellent and good rate was 92.9%in the UBE group and 90.3%in the PELD group one year after operation,with no significant difference(P>0.05).The cross sectional area of the dural sac after operation in both groups significantly increased compared with that before operation(P<0.05),and the cross sectional area of the dural sac after operation in the UBE group was significantly greater than that in the PELD group(P<0.05).Conclusion Both PELD and UBE are safe and effective endoscopic decompression for LSS.But UBE surgical decompression is more thorough,and the clinic can choose flexibly according to the actual condition of patients.

关键词

腰椎管狭窄/椎间孔镜/单侧双通道内镜减压术

Key words

lumbar spinal stenosis/intervertebral foraminoscope/unilateral dual channel endoscopic decompression

引用本文复制引用

出版年

2024
颈腰痛杂志
安徽医科大学

颈腰痛杂志

CSTPCD
影响因子:1.006
ISSN:1005-7234
段落导航相关论文