Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025
Comparison of clinical efficacy of posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy versus unilateral biportal endoscopy key-hole techniques for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: a retrospective study with 2 years.
Название и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Y, Dai J, Dai G, Zhan W, Wang Y, Hu P
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical efficacy of posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy (PECD) with unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) key-hole techniques for treating cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR).
METHODS: A retrospective study was performed for patients with CSR treated by PECD (n = 40) and UBE (n = 30). Patients background, operative data, and radiographic measurements were obtained. The visual analog scale (VAS) and neck disability index (NDI) were recorded preoperatively and 3 months and 2 years postoperatively, and modified Macnab criteria was recorded at 2 years postoperatively.
RESULTS: The background data of the two treatment groups were similar. There was no significant difference in hospitalization or fluoroscopy times (P > 0.05), whereas, the UBE group had shorter operative time and longer incision length than those of the PECD group (p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference in the postoperative cervical sagittal vertical axis compared to preoperative measurement (PECD: p = 0.009; UBE: p = 0.010). The VAS and NDI significantly improved in each time period in both groups (p < 0.001). The excellent/good rates were 87.5% in the PECD group and 90.0% in the UBE group. One case of postoperative nerve root irritation symptoms occurred in the PECD group and one case of mild spinal cord injury occurred in the UBE group.
CONCLUSION: UBE, as well as PECD, was recommended as an option for CSR because of easy operation, minimal invasiveness, high safety profiles, and satisfactory clinical efficacy.
METHODS: A retrospective study was performed for patients with CSR treated by PECD (n = 40) and UBE (n = 30). Patients background, operative data, and radiographic measurements were obtained. The visual analog scale (VAS) and neck disability index (NDI) were recorded preoperatively and 3 months and 2 years postoperatively, and modified Macnab criteria was recorded at 2 years postoperatively.
RESULTS: The background data of the two treatment groups were similar. There was no significant difference in hospitalization or fluoroscopy times (P > 0.05), whereas, the UBE group had shorter operative time and longer incision length than those of the PECD group (p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference in the postoperative cervical sagittal vertical axis compared to preoperative measurement (PECD: p = 0.009; UBE: p = 0.010). The VAS and NDI significantly improved in each time period in both groups (p < 0.001). The excellent/good rates were 87.5% in the PECD group and 90.0% in the UBE group. One case of postoperative nerve root irritation symptoms occurred in the PECD group and one case of mild spinal cord injury occurred in the UBE group.
CONCLUSION: UBE, as well as PECD, was recommended as an option for CSR because of easy operation, minimal invasiveness, high safety profiles, and satisfactory clinical efficacy.