椎间孔镜术与传统椎板间开窗术治疗中青年腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效对比
|
摘要
目的探讨椎间孔镜术与传统椎板间开窗术治疗中青年腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效对比。方法选取2015年1月至2018年1月南部战区海军第一医院收治的106例中青年腰椎间盘突出症患者,随机分为对照和观察两组,对照组采用传统椎板间开窗术治疗,观察组采用椎间孔镜术治疗,比较两组患者的术后Macnab优良率、各项手术指标、腰部功能及疼痛改善情况。结果观察组术后1年的Macnab优良率为92.45%,与对照组的88.68%比较差异无统计学意义(P> 0.05);观察组手术时间、术中出血量、手术切口长度、住院时间均明显低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P <0.05);观察组术后1年的ODI评分、VAS疼痛评分与对照组比较差异无统计学意义(P> 0.05)。结论椎间孔镜术与传统椎板间开窗术治疗中青年腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效相当,但椎间孔镜术创伤更小,术后恢复更快。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of intervertebral foramoscopy and traditional intervertebral fenestration in the treatment of young and middle-aged patients with lumbar disc herniation. Methods From January 2015 to January 2018 in our hospital orthopaedic treatment of 106 cases of young and middle-aged patients with lumbar disc prolapse were randomLy divided into two groups, control group with traditional between vertebral lamina fenestration treatment, observation group used for the treatment of intervertebral foramen mirror, comparing two groups of patients with postoperative Macnab dykes, function and operation index, waist pain to improve the situation. Results The excellent and good rate of Macnab in the observation group was 92.45% one year after surgery, which was no significant difference from 88.68% in the control group(P> 0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length and hospital stay in the observation group were significantly less than those in the control group(P < 0.05). ODI score and VAS pain score of the observation group were not significantly different from those of the control group one year after surgery(P> 0.05). Conclusion The clinical efficacy of intervertebral foramoscopy is comparable to that of traditional interlaminar fenestration in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation in young and middle-aged people, but the injury of intervertebral foramoscopy is less, the postoperative recovery is faster.
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of intervertebral foramoscopy and traditional intervertebral fenestration in the treatment of young and middle-aged patients with lumbar disc herniation. Methods From January 2015 to January 2018 in our hospital orthopaedic treatment of 106 cases of young and middle-aged patients with lumbar disc prolapse were randomLy divided into two groups, control group with traditional between vertebral lamina fenestration treatment, observation group used for the treatment of intervertebral foramen mirror, comparing two groups of patients with postoperative Macnab dykes, function and operation index, waist pain to improve the situation. Results The excellent and good rate of Macnab in the observation group was 92.45% one year after surgery, which was no significant difference from 88.68% in the control group(P> 0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length and hospital stay in the observation group were significantly less than those in the control group(P < 0.05). ODI score and VAS pain score of the observation group were not significantly different from those of the control group one year after surgery(P> 0.05). Conclusion The clinical efficacy of intervertebral foramoscopy is comparable to that of traditional interlaminar fenestration in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation in young and middle-aged people, but the injury of intervertebral foramoscopy is less, the postoperative recovery is faster.
引文
[1]石裕明,王荣生,何立文.对比分析椎间孔镜术与传统椎板间开窗术治疗中青年腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效[J].临床医学,2016,36(9):33-35
[2]任佳彬,刘鹏飞,孙兆忠,等.椎间孔镜术与传统椎板间开窗术治疗青少年腰椎间盘突出症的比较研究[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2015,23(21):1938-1942
[3]韩康,高浩然,卞娜,等.经皮椎间孔镜与单纯椎板开窗术治疗腰椎间盘突出症临床疗效比较[J].中华全科医学,2015,13(6):868-871
[4]廖强.经皮椎间孔镜与椎板开窗术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的效果比较[J].中国当代医药,2018,25(22):100-102
[5]石化洋.经皮椎间孔镜与传统椎板开窗对腰椎间盘突出症疗效及其术后氧化应激的影响[J].颈腰痛杂志,2019,40(1):61-63
[6]陈建福.单纯椎板开窗术与经皮椎间孔镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症的效果[J].包头医学院学报,2017,33(11):50-51
[7]张愈峰,侍德.显微镜下椎间盘切除术与显微内镜下椎间盘切除术治疗老年单节段腰椎间盘突出的疗效对比[J].中国老年学杂志,2016,36(3):661-663.
[8]韩健,张亚军,殷振华,等.椎间孔镜微创术对腰椎间盘突出症的临床治疗效果分析[J].现代医药卫生,2016,32(11):1697-1699.
[9]Shirado 0,Doi T,Akai M,et al.An outcome measure for Japanese people with chronic low back pain:an introduction and validation study of Japan Low Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire[J].Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2007,32(26):3052-3059.
[10]刘帅,董胜利,张豪伟,等.经皮侧后路椎间孔镜技术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效观察[J].中国实用医药,2014,9(13):94-95.
[2]任佳彬,刘鹏飞,孙兆忠,等.椎间孔镜术与传统椎板间开窗术治疗青少年腰椎间盘突出症的比较研究[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2015,23(21):1938-1942
[3]韩康,高浩然,卞娜,等.经皮椎间孔镜与单纯椎板开窗术治疗腰椎间盘突出症临床疗效比较[J].中华全科医学,2015,13(6):868-871
[4]廖强.经皮椎间孔镜与椎板开窗术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的效果比较[J].中国当代医药,2018,25(22):100-102
[5]石化洋.经皮椎间孔镜与传统椎板开窗对腰椎间盘突出症疗效及其术后氧化应激的影响[J].颈腰痛杂志,2019,40(1):61-63
[6]陈建福.单纯椎板开窗术与经皮椎间孔镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症的效果[J].包头医学院学报,2017,33(11):50-51
[7]张愈峰,侍德.显微镜下椎间盘切除术与显微内镜下椎间盘切除术治疗老年单节段腰椎间盘突出的疗效对比[J].中国老年学杂志,2016,36(3):661-663.
[8]韩健,张亚军,殷振华,等.椎间孔镜微创术对腰椎间盘突出症的临床治疗效果分析[J].现代医药卫生,2016,32(11):1697-1699.
[9]Shirado 0,Doi T,Akai M,et al.An outcome measure for Japanese people with chronic low back pain:an introduction and validation study of Japan Low Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire[J].Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2007,32(26):3052-3059.
[10]刘帅,董胜利,张豪伟,等.经皮侧后路椎间孔镜技术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效观察[J].中国实用医药,2014,9(13):94-95.