切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华临床医师杂志(电子版) ›› 2024, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (11) : 986 -992. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0785.2024.11.003

临床研究

显微镜辅助微创经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合术治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症安全效果分析
郭晓帅1,2, 唐冲3,(), 安小刚2,()   
  1. 1.075000 河北张家口,河北北方学院研究生院
    2.056001 河北邯郸,邯郸邯钢医院骨科
    3.100144 北京,北京大学首钢医院骨科
  • 收稿日期:2024-11-02 出版日期:2024-11-15
  • 通信作者: 唐冲, 安小刚

Safety and efficacy of microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation

Xiaoshuai Guo1,2, Chong Tang3,(), Xiaogang An2,()   

  1. 1.Graduate School, Hebei North University, Zhangjiakou 075000, China
    2.Department of Orthopaedics, Hangang Hospital, Handan 056001, China
    3.Department of Orthopedics,Shougang Hospital, Peking University, Beijing 100144, China
  • Received:2024-11-02 Published:2024-11-15
  • Corresponding author: Chong Tang, Xiaogang An
引用本文:

郭晓帅, 唐冲, 安小刚. 显微镜辅助微创经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合术治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症安全效果分析[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(11): 986-992.

Xiaoshuai Guo, Chong Tang, Xiaogang An. Safety and efficacy of microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(11): 986-992.

目的

评估显微镜辅助微创经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合术治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症(RLDH)的安全性及治疗效果。

方法

回顾性分析邯郸邯钢医院2021 年4 月至2023 年3 月收治的经皮内镜下腰椎间盘摘除术(PELD)后复发的腰椎间盘突出症患者37 例,25 例采用微创经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合术,男性12 例,女性13 例,年龄(50.4±4.1)岁,12 例采用显微镜辅助微创经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合术,男性5 例,女性7 例,年龄(50.3±5.0)岁。比较2 组患者手术时间、术中出血量、切口长度、术后引流量、住院时间及早期并发症;术前、术后3 月、术后6 月及末次随访时腰腿疼痛视觉模拟VAS 评分、Oswestry 功能障碍指数ODI 指数,术后1 年Bridwell 椎间融合评分。

结果

所有患者手术顺利。显微镜组手术时间(170.9±8.6)min,术中出血量(137.8±7.4)ml,术后引流量(87.8±9.3)ml,术后住院时间(6.7±1.1)d,术中出现脑脊液漏1 例,术后未出现神经损伤症状及伤口浅部感染;常规组手术时间(166.6±8.9)min,出血量(141.3±6.6)ml,术后引流量(90.4±12.9)ml,术后住院时(7.0±1.1)d,术中出现脑脊液漏1 例,术后出现神经损伤症状1 例,未出现伤口浅部感染。2 组患者围手术期及并发症相关数据均无统计学差异(P>0.05)。2 组腰椎融合结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

显微镜辅助微创经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合术作为翻修术治疗RLDH 安全有效并且具有术野清晰、方便教学等优点,值得临床推广应用。

Objective

To evaluate the safety and therapeutic effectiveness of microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for treating recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH).

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 37 patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation following percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) treated at Handan Steel Hospital from April 2021 to March 2023. Of these patients, 25 underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,including 12 males and 13 females, with an average age of (50.4±4.1)years. Another 12 patients underwent microscope-assisted MIS-TLIF, including 5 males and 7 females,with an average age of (50.3±5.0) years. Comparisons were made between the two groups regarding operative time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, postoperative drainage, hospital stay, and early complications. Preoperative, postoperative 3-month, postoperative 6-month, and last follow-up evaluations included the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and 1-year postoperative Bridwell fusion grading.

Results

All surgeries were successfully completed. The microscope group had an average operative time of (170.9±8.6) minutes, intraoperative blood loss of (137.8±7.4) ml,postoperative drainage of (87.8±9.3) ml, and postoperative hospital stay of (6.7±1.1) days.There was one case of cerebrospinal fluid leakage during surgery in this group, but no postoperative neurological damage or superficial wound infections were observed. The conventional group had an average operative time of (166.6±8.9) minutes, blood loss of (141.3±6.6) ml, postoperative drainage of (90.4±12.9) ml, and postoperative hospital stay of (7.0±1.1) days, with one case each of intraoperative cerebrospinal fluid leakage and postoperative neurological damage, but no superficial wound infections. There were no statistically significant differences in perioperative and complication-related data between the two groups (P<0.05).There was also no statistically significant difference in lumbar fusion outcomes between the groups (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Microscope-assisted MIS-TLIF as a revision surgery for RLDH is safe and effective, offering clear surgical fields and ease of teaching, which is advantageous and warrant broader clinical application.

表1 2 组患者一般资料比较
图1 显微镜辅助MIS-TLIF 手术过程图。图a 为初次手术术后皮肤瘢痕及复发节段体表标识;图b 为复发节段C 型臂解剖定位;图c 为切开深筋膜及椎旁肌肉固定;图d 为术中使用显微镜操作;图e 为显微镜下术野较清晰,可见硬膜、神经根及突出间盘;图f 为术中透视钉棒位置良好
表2 Bridwell 腰椎融合影像学分级
表3 2 组患者围手术期各项数据比较(±s
表4 2 组患者临床疗效比较(±s
图2 影像资料图。典型病例:患者为女性,46 岁,腰痛、右下肢疼痛、麻木半年,诊断为腰椎间盘突出症。图a~b 为术前首次MRI,患者行微创手术;图c~d 为翻修前MRI,患者症状复发,腰椎病变及术后腰椎影像学改变见图;图e~h 为腰椎翻修术后影像学,植骨融合成功
1
韩建国, 李文, 王炳武. 微创与开放TLIF 治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症的疗效比较 [J]. 大连医科大学学报, 2018, 40(2): 142-146.
2
曾忠友, 张建乔, 毛克亚, 等. 肌间隙入路通道下固定融合治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症 [J]. 中国骨伤, 2021, 34(4): 304-314.
3
Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, et al. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Centers for disease and prevention(CDC) hospital infection control practices advisory committee [J]. Am J Infect Control, 1999, 27(2): 96-132.
4
Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, McEnery KW, et al. Anterior fresh frozen allografts in the thoracic and lumbar spine.Do they work if combined with posterior fusion and instrumentation in adult patients with kyphosis or anterior column defects [J]. Spine, 1995, 20(12): 1410-1418.
5
Abd El-Kader Hel B. Trarnsforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for management of recurrent lumbar Disc Hemia-tion [J]. Asian Spine J,2016, 10(1): 52-58.
6
Klassen PD, Lesage G, Miller LE, et al. Reoperation after primary lumbar discectomy with or without implantation of a bone-anchored annular closure device: surgical strategies and clinical outcomes [J].World Neurosurg, 2019, 130: e926-e932.
7
Shepard N, Cho W. Recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A review [J].Global Spine J, 201, 9(2): 202-209.
8
贾鹏, 孔祥清, 孟纯阳, 等. Quadrant 通道辅助下MIS-TLIF 技术与传统PLIF 技术治疗巨大腰椎间盘突出疗效对比 [J]. 实用骨科杂志, 2020, 26(9): 829-832, 842.
9
Lee SH, Kang BU, Jeon SH, et al. Revision surgery of the lumbar spine: anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation [J]. J Neurosurg Spine, 2006, 5(3): 228-233.
10
Kim KT, LeeSH, LeeYH, et al. Clinical outcomes of 3 fusion methocls through the posterior approach in the lumbar spine [J]. Spine(Phila pa1976), 2006, 31: 1351-1358.
11
Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 28(15 Suppl): S26-35.
12
毛克亚, 王岩, 肖嵩华, 等. 微创与开放经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合翻修术的临床疗效比较 [J]. 中国脊柱脊髓杂志, 2013, 23(9): 789-793.
13
Kamson S, Lu D, Sampson PD, et al. Full-endoscopic lumbar fusion outcomes in patients with minimal deformities:a retrospective study of data collected between 2011 and 2015 [J]. Pain Physician, 2019, 22(1):75-88.
14
Ahn Y, Youn MS, Heo DH. Endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a comprehensive review [J]. Expert Rev Med Devices, 2019, 16(5): 373-380.
15
Zhang CY, Bai SP. [Microendoscopic disectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation] [J]. Hunan Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao, 2001,26(5): 457-459.
16
Tu Z, Li YW, Wang B, et al. Clinical outcome of full-endoscopic interlaminar discectomy for single-level lumbar disc herniation:A minimum of 5-year follow-up [J]. Pain Physician, 2017, 20(3):E425-E430..
17
Damodaran O, Lee J, Lee G. Microscope in modern spinal surgery:advantages,ergonomics and limitations [J]. ANZ J Surg, 2013,83(4): 211-214.
18
Omar A, Ecternacht S, Kurucan E, et al. Do surgical site infection rates differ among microscope-assisted versus loupe-assisted lumbar discectomies [J]. Clin Spine Surg, 2020, 33(4): E147-E150.
19
Rossini Z, Tropeano MP, Franzini A, et al. Minimally invasive microsurgical decompression of the lumbar spine using a novel robotised digital microscope:a preliminary experience [J]. Int J Med Robot, 2023, 19(2): e2498.
20
易端, 黄鑫, 罗启鹏, 等. 3D 打印技术在腰椎微创介入手术教学中的应用 [J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(2): 190-194.
21
Murphy ME, Hakim JS, Kerezoudis P, et al. Micro vs.macrodiscectomy: does use of the microscope reduce complication rates [J]. Clin Neurol Neurosurg, 2017, 152: 28-33.
22
Momin AA, Steinmetz MP. The evolution of minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery [J]. World Neurosurg, 2020, 140: 622-626.
23
Soffin EM, aishnav AS, Wetmore DS, et al. Design and implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery(ERAS) program for minimally invasive lumbar decompression spine surgery:initial experience [J].Spine(Phila Pa 1976), 2019, 44(9): E561-E570.
24
Alshameeri ZAF, Jasani V. Risk factors for accidental dural tears in spinal surgery [J]. Int J Spine Surg, 2021, 15(3): 536-548.
25
Park SM, Park J, Jang HS, et al. Biportal endoscopic versus microscopic lumbar decompressive laminectomy in patients with spinal stenosis:a randomized controlled trial [J]. Spine J, 2020, 20(2):156-165.
26
Min WK, Kim JE, Choi DJ, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes between biportal endoscopic decompression and microscopic decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis [J]. J Orthop Sci, 2020, 25(3):371-378.
27
Lee CW, Yoon KJ, Ha SS. Comparative analysis between three different lumbar decompression techniques(microscopic,tubular,a nd endoscopic)in lumbar canal and lateral recessstenosis:preliminary report [J]. Biomed Res Int, 2019, 2019: 6078469.
28
Park SM, Kim GU, Kim HJ, et al. Is the use of a unilateral biportal endoscopic approach associated with rapid recovery after lumbar decompressive laminectomy:a preliminary analysis of a prospective randomized controlled trial [J]. World Neurosurg, 2019, 128:e709-e718.
29
Heo DH, Lee DC, Park CK. Comparative analysis of three types of minimally invasive decompressive surgery for lumbarcentral stenosis:biportal endoscopy,uniportal endoscopy, and microsurgery [J].Neurosurg Focus, 2019, 46(5): E9.
30
Ahn Y, Youn MS, Heo DH. Endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a comprehensive review [J]. Expert Rev Med Devices, 2019, 16(5): 373-380.
31
迟鹏飞, 吴兵, 宋凯, 等. 显微镜辅助腰椎减压融合内固定术治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症的安全性 [J]. 中国脊柱脊髓杂志, 2024,34(4): 402-407.
[1] 叶红星, 马跃辉, 张超, 兰平, 黄凯源, 詹仁雅, 郑秀珏. 内镜经鼻和显微镜经颅两种视神经管减压术治疗外伤性视神经病变的疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(06): 473-479.
[2] 吴登爽, 李墨农, 张欣红, 侯四川, 邱志磊. 解剖性显微镜下精索静脉结扎术的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 591-596.
[3] 王锋锋, 李虎, 苏孟媛, 苏嘉明, 何祖强, 钟自强. 包皮环切术致尿道损伤的原因分析及修补方法[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 394-396.
[4] 叶鉴锋, 王润邦, 张墨. 3D高清腹腔镜保留睾丸动脉的精索静脉高位结扎术的疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 265-269.
[5] 谢家兴, 李学民, 敖明昕. 人工智能在白内障诊断领域的应用进展[J/OL]. 中华眼科医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 361-365.
[6] 刘谨硕, 朱思泉. 前房角检查的临床应用进展[J/OL]. 中华眼科医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(05): 316-320.
[7] 韦振宇, 郑攀攀, 陈前坤, 梁庆丰. 角膜神经分布情况与睑板腺功能障碍患者眼表炎症相关性的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华眼科医学杂志(电子版), 2021, 11(04): 205-210.
[8] 赵晓秋, 李锋, 赵传东, 刘元钦, 林彦达, 辛涛. 3D数字外视显微镜下微通道手术治疗腰椎间盘突出的疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(04): 243-247.
[9] 郭协力, 戴伟川, 蔡文华, 方仲宁, 陈英贤, 齐震. 经颈前入路显微镜下椎间盘切除及椎体间植骨融合术[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2022, 08(06): 379-383.
[10] 周帅, 姜丽娜, 王鲁飞, 刘炜, 郭嘉, 王明鑫, 韩光良. 神经内镜辅助显微镜切除颅咽管瘤的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2021, 07(05): 288-292.
[11] 成刚, 陈旭, 岳勇. 听神经瘤枕下乙状窦后入路显微切除术后面神经功能损伤的危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2022, 12(03): 137-141.
[12] 王立忠, 初君盛, 赵立辉, 孙慧渊, 侯青, 丁奇, 闫俊飞, 侯源, 袁武, 王唯. 神经内镜与显微镜手术治疗早期基底节区高血压性脑出血的临床疗效对比[J/OL]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2022, 12(02): 69-73.
[13] 戴伟川, 郭协力, 陈英贤, 齐震, 蔡文华. 经椎旁入路显微镜下微通道腰椎间盘突出切除术[J/OL]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2021, 11(04): 252-256.
[14] 廖远泉. 输入性卵形疟原虫感染实验诊断技术的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2021, 09(04): 242-247.
[15] 邓琳玲, 谢云亮, 杨旸, 李玉, 夏晓英, 李枢. 探讨血糖一体化管理在行脊柱微创手术合并糖尿病患者围手术期的血糖控制效果[J/OL]. 中华肥胖与代谢病电子杂志, 2022, 08(01): 41-45.
阅读次数
全文


摘要