MEDLINE/PubMed Journal Browser Search

Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

Title: [Prospective comparative study of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis].
Author: Wu D, Shu T, Lu Q, Shen M.
Journal: Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2024 May 15; 38(5):521-528. PubMed ID: 38752236.
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Between November 2019 and May 2023, a total of 81 patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis who met the selection criteria were enrolled. They were randomly divided into UBE-TLIF group (39 cases) and Endo-TLIF group (42 cases). There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups ( P>0.05), including gender, age, body mass index, surgical segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and serum markers including creatine kinase (CK) and C reactive protein (CRP). Total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss, hidden blood loss (HBL), postoperative drainage volume, and operation time were recorded and compared between the two groups. Serum markers (CK, CRP) levels were compared between the two groups at 1 day before operation and 1, 3, and 5 days after operation. Furthermore, the VAS scores for low back and leg pain, and ODI at 1 day before operation and 1 day, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation, and intervertebral fusion rate at 12 months after operation were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: All surgeries were completed successfully without occurrence of incision infection, vascular or nerve injury, epidural hematoma, dural tear, or postoperative paraplegia. The operation time in UBE-TLIF group was significantly shorter than that in Endo-TLIF group, but the intraoperative blood loss, TBL, and HBL in UBE-TLIF group were significantly more than those in Endo-TLIF group ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative drainage volume between the two groups ( P>0.05). The levels of CK at 1 day and 3 days after operation and CRP at 1, 3, and 5 days after operation in UBE-TLIF group were slightly higher than those in the Endo-TLIF group ( P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in the levels of CK and CPR between the two groups at other time points ( P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12 months. VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI at each time point after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation in the two groups ( P<0.05); there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI between the two groups at each time point after operation ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the intervertebral fusion rate between the two groups at 12 months after operation ( P>0.05). CONCLUSION: UBE-TLIF and Endo-TLIF are both effective methods for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, compared to Endo-TLIF, UBE-TLIF requires further improvement in minimally invasive techniques to reduce tissue trauma and blood loss. 目的: 比较单侧双通道脊柱内镜下经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术（unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion，UBE-TLIF）与单通道脊柱内镜下经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术（endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion，Endo-TLIF）对单节段退行性腰椎管狭窄症伴腰椎滑脱的治疗效果。. 方法: 纳入2019年11月—2023年5月收治且符合选择标准的81例单节段退行性腰椎管狭窄症伴腰椎滑脱患者，随机分为UBE-TLIF组（39例）和Endo-TLIF组（42例）。两组患者性别、年龄、身体质量指数、手术节段及术前腰、腿痛疼痛视觉模拟评分（VAS）、Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）、血清学指标肌酸激酶（creatine kinase，CK）和C反应蛋白（C reactive protein，CRP）水平等基线资料比较差异均无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。记录并比较两组患者总失血量（total blood loss，TBL）、术中失血量、隐性失血量（hidden blood loss，HBL）、术后引流量、手术时间；比较两组术前1 d及术后1、3、5 d血清学指标CK、CRP水平，术前1 d及术后1 d、3个月、6个月、12个月腰、腿痛VAS评分、ODI及术后12个月椎间融合率。. 结果: 所有手术均顺利完成，无切口感染、血管神经损伤、硬膜外血肿、硬脑膜撕裂和术后截瘫等情况发生。UBE-TLIF组手术时间少于Endo-TLIF组，但术中失血量、TBL、HBL均多于Endo-TLIF组，差异均有统计学意义（ P<0.05）；两组术后引流量比较差异无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。UBE-TLIF组术后1、3 d CK水平及术后1、3、5 d CRP水平均高于Endo-TLIF组（ P<0.05）；其余时间点两组CK和CPR水平比较差异无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。两组患者均获随访12个月。两组术后各时间点腰、腿痛VAS评分及ODI均较术前显著改善（ P<0.05）；术后各时间点两组间腰、腿痛VAS评分及ODI比较差异均无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。术后12个月两组椎间融合率比较差异亦无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。. 结论: UBE-TLIF与Endo-TLIF均为治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症伴腰椎滑脱的有效方法，但与Endo-TLIF相比，UBE-TLIF需在微创技术上进一步改进，以减少组织创伤与失血量。.

[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]