[1]武浩然 冯皓宇** 何李明 关晓明 常强.经皮内镜与开放腰椎后路椎间融合术治疗腰椎滑脱症的比较[J].中国微创外科杂志,2023,01(11):801-806.
　Wu Haoran,Feng Haoyu,He Liming,et al.Clinical Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic and Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis[J].Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery,2023,01(11):801-806.
点击复制

经皮内镜与开放腰椎后路椎间融合术治疗腰椎滑脱症的比较()
分享到：

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

卷:
01
期数:
2023年11期
页码:
801-806
栏目:
临床研究
出版日期:
2023-11-25

文章信息/Info

Title:
Clinical Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic and Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
作者:
武浩然 冯皓宇** 何李明 关晓明 常强
(山西医科大学第三医院山西白求恩医院骨科，太原030032)
Author(s):
Wu Haoran;  Feng Haoyu;  He Liming;  et al.
Department of Orthopedics, Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Taiyuan 030032, China
关键词:
内镜; 腰椎; 椎间融合术; 腰椎滑脱症
Keywords:
Endoscopy; Lumbar; Interbody fusion; Lumbar spondylolisthesis
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的探讨经皮内镜腰椎后路椎间融合术(percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion，PEPLIF)治疗腰椎滑脱症的效果。方法回顾性分析2019年1月~2020年10月单节段MeyerdingⅠ度或Ⅱ度腰椎滑脱症142例资料，其中PEPLIF(内镜组)72例，开放PLIF(开放组)70例。2组一般资料无统计学差异(P>0.05)，随访2年以上。比较2组围手术期指标、疗效评价指标和影像学数据。结果与开放组相比，内镜组术中出血少［(88.6±30.8)ml vs. (543.8±287.6)ml，t=-13.352，P=0.000］。2组术后各时点腰痛及腿痛视觉模拟评分(Visual Analogue Scale，VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry Disability Index，ODI)较术前均明显改善(P<0.05)，内镜组术后1年、2年腰痛VAS评分低于开放组(P<005)，术后1周内、1个月ODI低于开放组(P<0.05)，其余各时点组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后椎间隙高度、骨盆倾斜角等影像学指标均明显改善(P<005)，组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。2组融合率［93.1%(67/72)vs.94.3%(66/70)， χ2=0.000，P=1.000］和融合器沉降率［19.4%(14/72)vs.21.4%(15/70)， χ2=0.086，P=0.769］差异无统计学意义。结论对于Ⅰ、Ⅱ度腰椎滑脱症，相比于开放PLIF，经皮内镜PLIF可以减少术中出血，减轻腰背痛程度，加快术后康复。
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PEPLIF) in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.MethodsClinical data of 142 cases of single level Meyerding grade Ⅰ or Ⅱ lumbar spondylolisthesis from January 2019 to October 2020 were retrospectively analyzed, including 72 cases in the endoscopic group and 70 cases in the open group. There was no significant difference in the general data between the two groups (P>0.05), and the followups lasted for more than 2 years. The perioperative parameters, efficacy evaluation results, and imaging data of the two groups were compared.ResultsAs compared to the open group, the endoscopic group had less intraoperative bleeding ［(88.6±30.8) ml vs. (543.8±287.6) ml, t=-13.352, P=0.000］. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of back pain and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in both groups were significantly improved at all time points after surgery as compared to preoperation (P<005). The VAS scores of back pain of the endoscopic group at 1 year and 2 years after surgery were lower than those of the open group (P<0.05), the ODI at 1 week and 1 month after surgery were lower than those of the open group (P<0.05), and there were no statistical significances at other time points between the two groups (P>0.05). Postoperative disc height, pelvic tilt, and other imaging indicators were significantly improved (P<0.05), and there were no statistical significances between the two groups (P>005). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the fusion rate ［93.1% (67/72) vs.94.3% (66/70), χ2=0.000, P=1.000］ and the cage subsidence rate ［19.4% (14/72) vs.21.4% (15/70), χ2=0.086, P=0.769］.ConclusionAs compared to open PLIF, PEPLIF can reduce intraoperative bleeding, reduce the degree of low back pain, and accelerate postoperative rehabilitation for grade Ⅰ and Ⅱ lumbar spondylolisthesis.

参考文献/References:

[1]Tang L,Wu Y,Jing D,et al.A Bayesian network metaanalysis of 5 different fusion surgical procedures for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.Medicine (Baltimore),2020,99(14):e19639.
[2]Akkawi I,Zmerly H.Degenerative spondylolisthesis:a narrative review.Acta Biomed,2022,92(6):e2021313.
[3Mobbs RJ,Phan K,Malham G,et al.Lumbar interbody fusion:techniques,indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF,TLIF,MITLIF,OLIF/ATP,LLIF and ALIF.J Spine Surg,2015,1(1):2-18.
[4]Mori K,Yayama T,Nishizawa K,et al.Incidence of cranial adjacent segment disease after posterior lumbar interbody fusion using the cortical bone trajectory technique for the treatment of singlelevel degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis:more than a 2year followup.Spine Surg Relat Res,2020,5(2):98-103.
[5]Overdevest GM,Peul WC,Brand R,et al.Tubular discectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation:longterm results of a randomised controlled trial.J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry,2017,88(12):1008-1016.
[6]Foley KT,Gupta SK.Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine: preliminary clinical results.J Neurosurg,2002,97(1 Suppl):7-12.
[7]Ahn Y,Youn MS,Heo DH.Endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion:a comprehensive review.Expert Rev Med Devices,2019,16(5):373-380.
[8]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.
[9]He L,Feng H,Ma X,et al.Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases:a technical note and summary of the initial clinical outcomes.Br J Neurosurg,2021 May 24:1-6.Epub ahead of print.
[10]He LM,Chen KT,Chen CM,et al.Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of singlesegmental lumbar degenerative diseases.BMC Musculoskelet Disord,2022,23(1):329.
[11]He LM,Li JR,Wu HR,et al.Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression vs. open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.Front Surg,2022,9:915522.
[12]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.
[13]王海莹,吕冰,李辉,等.脊柱骨盆矢状位参数及关节突关节角度对退变性腰椎滑脱的影响.中国骨伤,2021,34(11):1016-1019.
[14]张盼可,朱广铎,任志楠,等.斜外侧与后路腰椎间融合治疗腰椎融合术后邻近节段退变性疾病的比较.中国微创外科杂志,2022,22(1):7-13.
[15]廖烨晖,叶入裴,李广州,等.一期后前联合入路与单纯后路手术治疗下腰椎结核的疗效比较.中国修复重建外科杂志,2017,31(5):534-540.
[16]Marchi L,Abdala N,Oliveira L,et al.Radiographic and clinical evaluation of cage subsidence after standalone lateral interbody fusion.J Neurosurg Spine,2013,19(1):110-118.
[17]Li Z,Hou S,Shang W,et al.New instrument for percutaneous posterolateral lumbar foraminoplasty:case series of 134 with instrument design,surgical technique and outcomes.Int J Clin Exp Med,2015,8(9):14672-14679.
[18]Kim JE,Choi DJ.Biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with arthroscopy.Clin Orthop Surg,2018,10(2):248-252.
[19]Kim MK,Lee SH,Kim ES,et al.The impact of sagittal balance on clinical results after posterior interbody fusion for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis:a pilot study.BMC Musculoskelet Disord,2011,12:69.
[20]Okpala FO.Lumbar lordotic change and its fulcrum in low back pain disorders:radiographic evaluation.Niger J Clin Pract,2020,23(11):1530-1535.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
基金项目：山西省医学科技创新团队建设计划(2020TD13)**通讯作者，Email：fenghaoyuspine@126.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2024-02-06