[1]于先凯 赵加庆 任佳彬 王志凌① 苏炜良 李瑞 耿晓鹏**.单侧双通道内镜技术治疗腰椎管狭窄症合并退行性脊柱侧弯的2种入路的比较研究[J].中国微创外科杂志,2023,01(11):807-812.
　Yu Xiankai,Zhao Jiaqing,Ren Jiabin,et al.Comparison of Two Approaches of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Complicated With Degenerative Scoliosis[J].Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery,2023,01(11):807-812.
点击复制

单侧双通道内镜技术治疗腰椎管狭窄症合并退行性脊柱侧弯的2种入路的比较研究()
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:
807-812
栏目:
临床研究
出版日期:
2023-11-25

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparison of Two Approaches of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Complicated With Degenerative Scoliosis
作者:
于先凯 赵加庆 任佳彬 王志凌① 苏炜良 李瑞 耿晓鹏**
(滨州医学院附属医院脊柱外科，滨州256600)
Author(s):
Yu Xiankai;  Zhao Jiaqing;  Ren Jiabin;  et al.
Department of Spinal Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Binzhou Medical College, Binzhou 256600, China
关键词:
腰椎管狭窄症; 退行性脊柱侧弯; 单侧双通道内镜技术
Keywords:
Lumbar spinal stenosis; Degenerative scoliosis; Unilateral biportal endoscopy
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的探讨单侧双通道内镜技术(unlateral biportal endoscopy，UBE)凹、凸侧2种入路治疗腰椎管狭窄症合并退行性脊柱侧弯(lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative scoliosis，LSSDS)的疗效。方法回顾性分析我院2020年10月~2021年9月68例凹侧症状LSSDS，以患者侧弯方向分为凹、凸侧，行凹侧入路单侧双通道内镜32例(凹侧入路组)或凸侧入路单侧双通道内镜36例(凸侧入路组)，比较2组手术时间、关节突关节保留率、疼痛视觉模拟评分(Visual Analogue Scale，VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry Disability Index，ODI)、改良MacNab标准、术前后腰椎Cobb角、局部Cobb角及腰椎前凸角。结果所有患者均顺利完成手术。凹侧入路组手术时间明显短于凸侧入路组(t=-9.190，P=0.000)；凹、凸侧入路组小关节突关节保留率分别为(85.74±2.95)％、(84.75±1.88)％，差异无显著性(t=1.659，P=0.102)。2组患者随访(121±3.2)月，与术前比较，术后2组腰腿痛VAS评分和ODI均显著降低(P＜0.05)，2组间差异均无统计学意义(P＞005)。按照改良MacNab标准，凹侧入路组优良率90.6%（29/32），凸侧入路组优良率94.4%（34/36），差异无显著性（Z=-0.389,P=0.697）。末次随访2组术后腰椎Cobb角、局部Cobb角及腰椎前凸角与术前差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05)。结论凹、凸侧2种入路UBE均可有效治疗LSSDS，对腰椎稳定性影响均较小且无明显差异，直接症状侧入路可显著缩短手术时间，降低手术风险。
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo investigate the difference of curative effect between concave and convex approaches of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative scoliosis(LSSDS).MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 68 patients with LSSDS with concave side symptoms admitted to our hospital from October 2020 to September 2021. The patients were classified into concave side or convex side according to the direction of scoliosis, among which 32 patients underwent concave approach unilateral biportal endoscopy (concave approach group) and 36 patients underwent convex approach unilateral biportal endoscopy (convex approach group). The operation time, percentage of preserved facet, preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI), modified MacNab criteria, as well as preoperative and postoperative lumbar Cobb angle, local Cobb angle, and lumbar lordosis angle of the two groups were compared. Results All the patients received the operation smoothly. The operative time of the concave approach group was significantly shorter than that of the convex approach group (t=-9.190, P=0.000). The percentage of preserved facet was (85.74±295)% in the concave approach group and (84.75±1.88)% in the convex approach group, having no significant significance (t=1.659, P=0.102). Both groups were followed up for (12.1±3.2) months. As compared to preoperation, the VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI in both groups significantly decreased after surgery (P<0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). According to the modified MacNab criteria, the excellent and good rate was 90.6%(29/32) in the concave approach group and 944%(34/36) in the convex approach group, with no significant difference （Z=-0.389， P=0.697）. At the last followup, there was no significant difference in the Cobb angle, local Cobb angle and lumbar lordosis angle between the two groups (P>005).ConclusionsBoth concave and convex approaches of UBE can effectively treat LSSDS, and the two approaches have little influence on the stability of lumbar spine with no significant difference. Direct symptomatic approach can significantly shorten the operation time and reduce the risk of surgery.

参考文献/References:

[1]任磊,沈生军,郭鑫,等.退行性脊柱侧弯单节段椎管狭窄斜外侧椎间融合.中国矫形外科杂志,2022,30(14):1325-1327.
[2]李新锋,王琨,靳林煜.脊柱内镜减压治疗高龄腰椎退变性脊柱侧凸合并神经根管狭窄.中国微创外科杂志,2020,20(2):151-155.
[3]禹志军,白曼莫,王锋.责任段减压融合治疗腰椎退变侧弯椎管狭窄.中国矫形外科杂志,2021,29(3):202-206.
[4]Masuda K, Higashi T, Yamada K, et al. The surgical outcome of decompression alone versus decompression with limited fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. J Neurosurg Spine,2018,29(3):259-264.
[5]Schwab F, Ungar B, Blondel B, et al. Scoliosis Research SocietySchwab adult spinal deformity classification: a validation study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976),2012,37(12):1077-1082.
[6]Matsumura A, Namikawa T, Terai H, et al. The influence of approach side on facet preservation in microscopic bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine,2010,13(6):758-765.
[7]Steven R.Garfin,Frank J.Eismont,Gordon R.Bell,等主编.罗思曼-西蒙尼脊柱外科学（英文影印版）.第7版.北京：北京大学医学出版社,2018.12.
[8]赵子豪,孙亦强,赵加庆,等.腰椎管狭窄症的双通道内镜与开放减压比较.中国矫形外科杂志,2022,30(11):973-978.
[9]Eun SS, Eum JH, Lee SH, et al. Biportal endoscopic lumbar decompression for lumbar disk herniation and spinal canal stenosis: A technical note. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg,2017,78(4):390-396.
[10]Kim JE, Choi DJ, Park EJJ, et al. Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Asian Spine J,2019,13(2):334-342.
[11]张伟,党晨珀,姚彦斌,等.单侧双通道脊柱内镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效.西北国防医学杂志,2021,42(5):341-346.
[12]Liu H, Ishihara H, Kanamori M, et al. Characteristics of nerve root compression caused by degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with scoliosis. Spine J,2003,3(6):524-529.
[13]MartyPoumarat C, Scattin L, Marpeau M, et al. Natural history of progressive adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976),2007,32(11):1227-1235.
[14]Pao JL, Lin SM, Chen WC, et al. Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression for degenerative lumbar canal stenosis. J Spine Surg,2020,6(2):438-446.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
基金项目：山东省自然科学基金资助项目（ZR2017LH020）**通讯作者，Email：gengxiaopeng1970@163.com ①（滨州医学院烟台附属医院骨科，烟台264000）
更新日期/Last Update: 2024-02-06