Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2022
[Comparison of effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopy technique and the interlaminar uniportal endoscop technique for treatment of L 5, S 1 lumbar disc herniation].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание 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.
Zuo Rujun, Ma Ming, Jiang Yi, Yuan Shuai, Li Jian, Liu Chang, Zhang Jiexun
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique with the interlaminar uniportal endoscopy (IUE) technique for the treatment of L 5, S 1 lumbar disc herniation.
METHODS: The clinical data of 69 patients with L 5, S 1 lumbar disc herniation who met the selection criteria between January 2020 and December 2020 were retrospectively analysed. The patients were divided into UBE group (30 cases) and IUE group (39 cases) according to endoscopic surgical technique. The general data, such as gender, age, body mass index, disease duration, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of low back/leg pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI), was not significantly different between the two groups ( P>0.05). Perioperative outcomes [estimated blood loss (EBL), total operation time, extracanal operation time, intracanal decompression time, intraoperative radiation exposure dose, incision length, operative related complications, and postoperative hospitalization stay] and clinical outcomes (VAS score of low back/leg pain before operation and at 3 days, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation as well as the ODI before operation and at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation) were recorded and compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: All patients completed the surgery successfully. The incision length, EBL, and extracanal operation time in UBE group were significantly longer than those in IUE group ( P<0.05), and the intracanal decompression time in UBE group was significantly shorter than that in IUE group ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the total operation time, intraoperative radiation exposure dose, and postoperative hospitalization stay between the two groups ( P>0.05). Patients in both groups were followed up 12-15 months (mean, 13.3 months). Dural tear ocurred in 1 patient of the UBE group, and recurrence ocurred in 1 patient of the IUE group, the others of both groups had no surgery-related complications and recovered well after operation. The VAS scores of low back/leg pain and ODI in both groups at each time point after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation ( P<0.05); there was no significant difference in VAS scores and ODI at each time point after operation between two groups ( P>0.05).
CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of UBE technique in the treatment of L 5, S 1 lumbar disc herniation is similar to that of IUE technique, and the efficiency of intraspinal operation is better than that of IUE technique. Although UBE technique is inferior to IUE technique in terms of surgical trauma, there is no significant difference in postoperative recovery between the two techniques.
METHODS: The clinical data of 69 patients with L 5, S 1 lumbar disc herniation who met the selection criteria between January 2020 and December 2020 were retrospectively analysed. The patients were divided into UBE group (30 cases) and IUE group (39 cases) according to endoscopic surgical technique. The general data, such as gender, age, body mass index, disease duration, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of low back/leg pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI), was not significantly different between the two groups ( P>0.05). Perioperative outcomes [estimated blood loss (EBL), total operation time, extracanal operation time, intracanal decompression time, intraoperative radiation exposure dose, incision length, operative related complications, and postoperative hospitalization stay] and clinical outcomes (VAS score of low back/leg pain before operation and at 3 days, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation as well as the ODI before operation and at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation) were recorded and compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: All patients completed the surgery successfully. The incision length, EBL, and extracanal operation time in UBE group were significantly longer than those in IUE group ( P<0.05), and the intracanal decompression time in UBE group was significantly shorter than that in IUE group ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the total operation time, intraoperative radiation exposure dose, and postoperative hospitalization stay between the two groups ( P>0.05). Patients in both groups were followed up 12-15 months (mean, 13.3 months). Dural tear ocurred in 1 patient of the UBE group, and recurrence ocurred in 1 patient of the IUE group, the others of both groups had no surgery-related complications and recovered well after operation. The VAS scores of low back/leg pain and ODI in both groups at each time point after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation ( P<0.05); there was no significant difference in VAS scores and ODI at each time point after operation between two groups ( P>0.05).
CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of UBE technique in the treatment of L 5, S 1 lumbar disc herniation is similar to that of IUE technique, and the efficiency of intraspinal operation is better than that of IUE technique. Although UBE technique is inferior to IUE technique in terms of surgical trauma, there is no significant difference in postoperative recovery between the two techniques.