UBE-TLIF与MIS-TLIF治疗单节段腰椎椎管狭窄症的初步临床对比研究
Comparative Study of Clinical Efficacy between UBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF in the Treatment of Single-Level LSS
DOI: 10.12677/acm.2025.152369, PDF,   
作者: 佘 乐, 姜 平*:吉首大学医学院,湖南 吉首;张家界市人民医院骨科,湖南 张家界;唐绍锋, 覃大海, 奠 伟, 刘超杰, 刘迎节, 牟海频:张家界市人民医院骨科,湖南 张家界
关键词: UBE-TLIFMIS-TLIF腰椎椎管狭窄症脊柱微创手术UBE-TLIF MIS-TLIF Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Minimally Invasive Surgery of Spine
摘要: 目的:对比UBE-TLIF与MIS-TLIF在治疗单节段LSS的临床疗效。方法:对2019年01月至2021年09月收治的87例单节段LSS患者,A组43例行UBE-TLIF手术,B组44例行MIS-TLIF手术。分析对比两组患者手术时间、术中预估出血量、住院时间、手术并发症、术后伤口VAS评分、ODI评分。结果:在手术时间上,A组显著优于B组(P < 0.05)。两组患者在术中预估出血量、住院时间上差异没有统计学意义(P > 0.05)。两组患者在术后早期24 h、48 h术后伤口VAS评分存在区别(P < 0.05),A组术后早期疼痛轻,疼痛缓解快,而术后72 h VAS评分差异没有统计学意义(P > 0.05)。2组患者术后1月、3月、6月、末次随访ODI评分较术前均明显改善(P < 0.05),但A、B组间比较无显著差异(P > 0.05)。A组并发症发生率为11.6% (5/43),B组并发症发生率为13.6% (6/44),差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。结论:两种技术在治疗单节段LSS均可获得良好的临床疗效,相比MIS-TLIF技术,UBE-TLIF技术具有操作灵活,节约时间等优点。
Abstract: Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of UBE-TLIF with MIS-TLIF in the treatment of LSS in a single segment. Methods: A total of 87 patients with single-segment LSS who were admitted from January 2019 to September 2021 were treated, group A 43 routine UBE-TLIF surgery, Group B 44 routine MIS-TLIF surgery. The analysis compared the time of operation, estimated bleeding amount during surgery, hospitalization time, surgical complications, VAS score of postoperative wound and ODI score of two groups of patients. Results: Group A was significantly better than Group B (P < 0.05) in terms of surgical time. There was no statistically significant difference in estimated bleeding and hospitalization time between the two groups (P > 0.05). There was a difference in VAS scores for wounds 24 h, 48 h early after surgery (P < 0.05), but no difference in postoperative 72 h (P > 0.05). The ODI scores of the two groups were significantly improved at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and the last follow-up after operation (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between groups A and B (P > 0.05). The complication rate was 11.6% (5/43) in group A and 13.6% (6/44) in group B. But there was no statistical significance between groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Both UBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF have good clinical efficacy in the treatment of single-level LSS, but UBE-TLIF has the advantages of flexible operation and time saving.
文章引用:佘乐, 唐绍锋, 覃大海, 奠伟, 刘超杰, 刘迎节, 牟海频, 姜平. UBE-TLIF与MIS-TLIF治疗单节段腰椎椎管狭窄症的初步临床对比研究[J]. 临床医学进展, 2025, 15(2): 474-480. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2025.152369

参考文献

[1] Sriphirom, P., Siramanakul, C., Chaipanha, P. and Saepoo, C. (2021) Clinical Outcomes of Interlaminar Percutaneous Endoscopic Decompression for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis with Spinal Stenosis. Brain Sciences, 11, Article 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[2] Park, J., Ham, D., Kwon, B., Park, S., Kim, H. and Yeom, J.S. (2020) Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: Techniques, Technologies, and Indications. Asian Spine Journal, 14, 694-701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[3] Kang, M., You, K., Choi, J., Heo, D., Chung, H. and Park, H. (2021) Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using the Biportal Endoscopic Techniques versus Microscopic Tubular Technique. The Spine Journal, 21, 2066-2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[4] Price, J.P., Dawson, J.M., Schwender, J.D. and Schellhas, K.P. (2018) Clinical and Radiologic Comparison of Minimally Invasive Surgery with Traditional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Clinical Spine Surgery: A Spine Publication, 31, E121-E126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[5] Hwa Eum, J., Hwa Heo, D., Son, S.K. and Park, C.K. (2016) Percutaneous Biportal Endoscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Results. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 24, 602-607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[6] Kim, J., Choi, D., Park, E.J.J., Lee, H., Hwang, J., Kim, M., et al. (2019) Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Asian Spine Journal, 13, 334-342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[7] Lee, S.Y., Kim, T., Oh, J.K., Lee, S.J. and Park, M.S. (2015) Lumbar Stenosis: A Recent Update by Review of Literature. Asian Spine Journal, 9, 818-828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8] 庹伟, 周霖, 刘德森, 等. 单侧双通道内镜技术治疗腰椎管狭窄的初步研究[J]. 中国微创外科杂志, 2021, 21(1): 56-60.
[9] 陈鹏程, 钟海琳, 王乐, 等. 显微镜辅助下MIS-TLIF治疗腰椎单节段退行性疾病的临床疗效观察[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2020, 38(4): 455-466.
[10] Pao, J., Lin, S., Chen, W. and Chang, C. (2020) Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression for Degenerative Lumbar Canal Stenosis. Journal of Spine Surgery, 6, 438-446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] 孙耀宗, 尹国栋, 戚应良. 单侧双通道内窥镜技术与经椎间孔入路经皮内窥镜下椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎椎间盘突出症的学习曲线比较[J]. 脊柱外科杂志, 2023, 21(4): 248-253.
[12] Ao, S., Zheng, W., Wu, J., Tang, Y., Zhang, C., Zhou, Y., et al. (2020) Comparison of Preliminary Clinical Outcomes between Percutaneous Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases in a Tertiary Hospital: Is Percutaneous Endoscopic Procedure Superior to MIS-TLIF? A Prospective Cohort Study. International Journal of Surgery, 76, 136-143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[13] 陈康, 杨富国, 罗园超, 等. 单侧双通道内窥镜技术与经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术治疗单节段腰椎椎间盘突出症的早期疗效比较[J]. 脊柱外科杂志, 2023, 21(3): 155-161.
[14] 周毅, 陈日高, 于开凡, 等. 单侧双通道内镜下(UBE-TLIF)与微创经椎间孔腰椎融合术(MIS-TLIF)治疗退变性腰椎椎管狭窄症的疗效比较[J]. 生物骨科材料与临床研究, 2024, 21(2): 32-37.