首页> 外文期刊>Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management >Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion as a Revision Surgery for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation after Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy
【24h】

Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion as a Revision Surgery for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation after Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy

机译:经皮内镜腰椎切除术与微创牙线腰椎椎体间融合的比较作为经皮内窥镜腰椎切除术反复性腰椎间盘突出症的修复手术

获取原文
           

摘要

Objective:The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes between percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the revision surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH) after PELD surgery.Patients and Methods:A total of 46 patients with rLDH were retrospectively assessed in this study. All the patients had received a PELD in Peking University First Hospital between January 2015 and June 2019, before they underwent a revision surgery by either PELD (n=24) or MIS-TLIF (n=22). The preoperative data, perioperative conditions, complications, recurrence condition, and clinical outcomes of the patients were compared between the two groups.Results:Compared to the MIS-TLIF group, the PELD group had significantly shorter operative time, less intraoperative hemorrhage, and shorter postoperative hospitalization, but higher recurrence rate (P0.05). Complication rates were comparable between the two groups. Both groups had satisfactory clinical outcomes at a 12-month follow-up after the revision surgery. The PELD group also showed significantly lower visual analog scale (VAS) scores of back pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI) in one month after the revision surgery, whereas the difference was not detectable at six- and 12-month follow-ups.Conclusion:Both PELD and MIS-TLIF are effective as a revision surgery for rLDH after primary PELD. PELD is superior to MIS-TLIF in terms of operative time amount of intraoperative hemorrhage and postoperative hospitalization. However, its higher postoperative recurrence rate must be considered and patients should be well informed, when making a decision between the two surgical approaches.? 2020 Wang and Yu.
机译:目的:本研究的目的是将经皮内镜腰椎切除术(PELD)和微创的牙突导际腰椎胸部栓(MIS-TLIF)进行比较,以便在PLED手术后进行复发性腰椎椎间盘突出(RLDH)的修复手术。方法:在本研究中回顾性评估了46例RLDH患者。在2015年1月至2019年1月至2019年6月,所有患者在北京大学第一医院收到了一家PELD,然后经受PELD(n = 24)或误判(n = 22)进行修订手术。在两组之间比较了术前的数据,围手术病症,并发症,复发条件和临床结果。结果:与MIS-TLIF组相比,PELD组术语较短,术中出血较小,更短术后住院,但复发率较高(P <0.05)。两组之间的并发症率是可比的。在修订手术后,两组在12个月的随访中患上了令人满意的临床结果。在修订手术后一个月内,PELD组还显示出显着降低的视觉模拟量表(VAS)分数和OSWESTRY残疾指数(ODI),而六个月和12个月的随访中,差异是不可检测的.Conclusion :PELD和MIS-TLIF都作为主要PLED后RLDH的修订手术有效。在术中出血和术后住院的手术时间量,PELD优于MIS-TLIF。然而,在做出两种手术方法之间的决定时,必须考虑其术后术后复发率,并且患者应该充分了解。 2020王和宇。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号