[1]宋鑫 镐英杰** 任志楠 于磊 朱广铎 周威威.单侧双通道内镜腰椎融合术治疗Ⅰ度腰椎滑脱的初步研究[J].中国微创外科杂志,2022,01(10):814-819.
　Song Xin,Hao Yingjie,Ren Zhinan,et al.Preliminary Study of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Grade Ⅰ Lumbar Spondylolisthesis[J].Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery,2022,01(10):814-819.
点击复制

单侧双通道内镜腰椎融合术治疗Ⅰ度腰椎滑脱的初步研究()
分享到：

《中国微创外科杂志》[ISSN:1009-6604/CN:11-4526/R]

卷:
01
期数:
2022年10期
页码:
814-819
栏目:
临床研究
出版日期:
2023-01-20

文章信息/Info

Title:
Preliminary Study of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Grade Ⅰ Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
作者:
宋鑫 镐英杰** 任志楠 于磊 朱广铎 周威威
(郑州大学第一附属医院骨科，郑州450052)
Author(s):
Song Xin;  Hao Yingjie;  Ren Zhinan;  et al.
Department of Orthopedics, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450052, China
关键词:
腰椎滑脱; 内镜; 腰椎融合术
Keywords:
Lumbar spondylolisthesis; Endoscope; Lumbar interbody fusion
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的比较单侧双通道内镜腰椎融合术(unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion，ULIF)和微创经椎间孔入路腰椎融合术(minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion，MISTLIF)治疗Ⅰ度腰椎滑脱的疗效。方法回顾性分析2019年5月~2021年3月56例Ⅰ度腰椎滑脱资料，其中ULIF 28例，MISTLIF 28例，2组年龄、性别、滑脱节段及滑脱类型差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。比较2组围术期指标、临床疗效以及影像学参数。结果与MISTLIF组相比，ULIF组术中出血少(P<0.001)，术后腰痛VAS评分和ODI降低更多(P<0.05)。末次随访2组椎间融合率和改良MacNab标准优良率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。2组滑脱率和L1椎体轴到S1椎体的距离术后显著下降(均P<0.001)，腰椎前凸角和滑脱角术后显著升高(均P<0.001)，2组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论相较于MISTLIF，ULIF治疗Ⅰ度腰椎滑脱具有术中出血量少，手术切口小，术后腰痛恢复快等优势，可有效减少滑脱程度，改善腰椎矢状位平衡。
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MISTLIF) in the treatment of grade Ⅰ lumbar spondylolisthesis.MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed on 56 patients with grade Ⅰ lumbar spondylolisthesis admitted from May 2019 to March 2021, including 28 patients treated with ULIF and 28 patients with MISTLIF. There were no significant differences in age, gender, slippage segment and type of spondylolisthesis between the two groups (P>0.05). The perioperative indicators, clinical efficacy and imaging parameters were compared between the two groups.ResultsCompared with the MISTLIF group, the ULIF group had less intraoperative bleeding (P<0.001), and the VAS score of low back pain and ODI in the ULIF group after surgery were significantly lower than those in the MISTLIF group (P<0.05). At the final followup, there were no significant differences in the fusion rate and the excellent and good rate of modified MacNab criteria between the two groups (P>0.05). The slip percentage (SP) and L1 axis and S1 distance (LASD) in both groups were significantly decreased after surgery than those before surgery (P<0.001), and the lumbar lordosis (LL) and slip angle (SA) in both groups were significantly increased after surgery than those before surgery (P<0001), without significant differences between the two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionsCompared with MISTLIF, ULIF has advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, smaller surgical incision and faster recovery of low back pain at early period after operation. It can effectively reduce the degree of spondylolisthesis and improve the sagittal balance of lumbar spine.

参考文献/References:

[1]Xie X,Zhang G,Liu N.Clinical effect of unilateral biportal endoscopy in the treatment of lumbar diseases:a systematic review and metaanalysis.Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne,2022,17(1):61-68.
[2]Su K,Luan J,Wang Q,et al.Radiographic analysis of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus conventional open surgery on sagittal lumbarpelvic alignment for degenerative spondylolisthesis.World Neurosurg,2019,124(C):e733-e739.
[3]Han Q,Meng F,Chen M,et al.Comparison between PETLIF and MISTLIF in the treatment of middleaged and elderly patients with singlelevel lumbar disc herniation.J Pain Res,2022,15:1271-1282.
[4]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.Pain Physician,2021,24(6):441-452.
[5]De Antoni DJ,Claro ML,Poehling GG,et al.Translaminar lumbar epidural endoscopy:anatomy,technique,and indications. Arthroscopy,1996,12(3):330-334.
[6]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.Neurosurg Focus,2017,43(2):E8.
[7]方璜,刘鹏飞,李国远,等.微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗Ⅰ、Ⅱ度腰椎滑脱症的临床效果.局解手术学杂志,2021,30(9):769-773.
[8]苏锴,郭营,汤嘉军,等.微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术与传统开放手术对退变性腰椎滑脱症腰椎-骨盆矢状位参数的不同影响.中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2014,24(3):204-210.
[9]尹鹏,海涌,杨晋才,等.经皮内镜下经椎间孔与传统后入路椎间融合术治疗伴有腰椎不稳的腰椎管狭窄症的疗效对比.中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2021,31(3):213-221.
[10]Kawakami M,Tamaki T,Ando M,et al.Lumbar sagittal balance influences the clinical outcome after decompression and posterolateral spinal fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.Spine (Phila Pa 1976),2002,27(1):59-64.
[11]李新锋,王琨,靳林煜.椎间孔镜下神经根腹侧和背侧联合减压治疗高龄退变性腰椎滑脱伴神经根管狭窄症:2年以上随访报告.中国微创外科杂志,2020,20(12):1077-1082.
[12]Kepler CK,Rihn JA,Radcliff KE,et al.Restoration of lordosis and disk height after singlelevel transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.Orthop Surg,2012,4(1):15-20.
[13]Ao S,Zheng W,Wu J,et al.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.Int J Surg,2020,76:136-143.
[14]孙芝城,王锡阳.退行性腰椎滑脱微创融合手术进展.中国微创外科杂志,2019,19(5):445-448.
[15]Kim JE,Yoo HS,Choi DJ,et al.Comparison of minimal invasive versus biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for singlelevel lumbar disease.Clin Spine Surg,2021,34(2):e64-e71.
[16]Kim SK,Kang SS,Hong YH,et al.Clinical comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic technique versus open microdiscectomy for singlelevel lumbar discectomy:a multicenter,retrospective analysis.J Orthop Surg Res,2018,13(1):22.
[17]朱剑,镐英杰,任志楠,等.单侧双通道内镜下腰椎融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的初步研究.中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2021,31(11):1026-1033.
[18]Pranata R,Lim MA,Vania R,et al.Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery versus microscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis:a systematic review and metaanalysis.World Neurosurg,2020,138:e450-e458.
[19]Kang T,Park SY,Lee SH,et al.Assessing changes in cervical epidural pressure during biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy.J Neurosurg Spine,2020 Oct 30.Online ahead of print.
[20]Chen L,Zhu B,Zhong HZ,et al. The Learning curve of unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spinal surgery by CUSUM analysis.Front Surg,2022,9:873691.
[21]Park SM,Kim HJ,Kim GU,et al.Learning curve for lumbar decompressive laminectomy in biportal endoscopic spinal surgery using the cumulative summation test for learning curve.World Neurosurg,2019,122:e1007-e1013.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
基金项目：河南省医学科技攻关计划省部共建项目(SB201903001)**通讯作者，Email：haojack77@126.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2023-01-20