中国组织工程研究 ›› 2025, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (3): 517-523.doi: 10.12307/2025.106

• 脊柱植入物Spinal implants • 上一篇    下一篇

脊柱内镜杂交技术与单轴脊柱内镜治疗双侧症状腰椎管狭窄症的减压效果对比

郭  松,李新华,晏美俊,刘彦斌,刘  中,李克威,刘鹏程,张备挺,付  强   

  1. 上海交通大学附属第一人民医院脊柱外科,上海市   200080
  • 收稿日期:2023-10-08 接受日期:2023-12-15 出版日期:2025-01-28 发布日期:2024-06-03
  • 通讯作者: 付强,博士,主任医师,上海交通大学附属第一人民医院脊柱外科,上海市 200080
  • 作者简介:郭松,男,1987年生,山东省新泰市人,2017年同济大学医学院毕业,博士,主要从事脊柱外科及脊柱微创智能技术的研究。
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(82202694),项目负责人:郭松;国家自然科学基金(81971154),项目负责人:付强;上海市第一人民医院特色研究项目(CTCCR-2021C10),项目负责人:郭松;上海市2021年度“科技创新行动计划”生物医药科技支撑专项项目(21S31901300),项目负责人:付强

Comparison of decompression effects between spine endoscopy hybrid technique and uniportal endoscopic surgery in treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with bilateral symptom

Guo Song, Li Xinhua, Yan Meijun, Liu Yanbin, Liu Zhong, Li Kewei, Liu Pengcheng, Zhang Beiting, Fu Qiang   

  1. Department of Spine Surgery, First People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200080, China
  • Received:2023-10-08 Accepted:2023-12-15 Online:2025-01-28 Published:2024-06-03
  • Contact: 郭松,男,1987年生,山东省新泰市人,2017年同济大学医学院毕业,博士,主要从事脊柱外科及脊柱微创智能技术的研究。
  • About author:Guo Song, MD, Department of Spine Surgery, First People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200080, China
  • Supported by:
    National Natural Science Foundation of China, No. 82202694 (to GS); National Natural Science Foundation of China, No. 81971154 (to FQ); Clinical Research Innovation Plan of Shanghai General Hospital, No. CTCCR-2021C10 (to GS); Shanghai 2021 “Science and Technology Innovation Action Plan” Biomedical Science and Technology Support Project, No. 21S31901300 (to FQ) 

摘要:



文题释义:

脊柱内镜杂交技术:单轴脊柱内镜下腰椎管减压是一种新型的治疗腰椎管狭窄症的微创手术方式,但是该技术学习曲线陡峭,对手术设备和器械要求较高,适应证相对局限,限制其临床应用。脊柱内镜杂交技术整合单轴与单侧双通道技术,发挥双方技术优势,以脊柱内镜为监视内镜与操作通道,另外再构建一个常规手术器械操作通道,实现同轴内镜下操作与双手分离操作,增加手术入路角度,提高减压效率。
单侧入路双侧减压技术:腰椎管狭窄症常表现为双侧下肢疼痛症状,手术需要减压硬膜囊及双侧神经根,但是采用双侧入路进行减压既耗时费力,又增加手术创伤;因此术中单侧入路跨过棘突根部减压对侧神经根即单侧入路双侧减压技术,能够提高手术减压效率,减少手术创伤。

摘要
背景:单轴脊柱内镜下腰椎管减压是一种新型的治疗腰椎管狭窄症的微创手术方式,但是该技术学习曲线陡峭,对手术设备和器械要求较高,限制其临床应用。前期作者团队将脊柱内镜作为监视内镜结合单侧双通道内镜技术率先提出脊柱内镜杂交技术,实现同轴内镜下操作与双手分离操作。
目的:比较脊柱内镜杂交技术及单轴脊柱内镜技术治疗双侧症状腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效。
方法:回顾性分析2020年8月至2022年8月在上海交通大学附属第一人民医院接受治疗的双侧下肢疼痛症状腰椎管狭窄症患者90例,其中A组(脊柱内镜杂交技术)44例,B组(单轴脊柱内镜术)46例。术中观察神经减压情况;记录两组患者手术时间、住院时间及花费;记录并对比术前及术后3 d、3个月、6个月腰痛及双侧下肢放射痛目测类比评分、生活质量Oswestry功能障碍指数及改良Macnab优良率。
结果与结论:①A组手术时间明显短于B组(P < 0.05);②两组术后3 d、3个月及6个月腰痛、症状严重侧下肢放射痛均较术前明显缓解(P < 0.05);A组术后3 d、3个月及6个月症状轻微侧目测类比评分均较术前明显降低 (P < 0.05);B组术后3 d症状轻微侧目测类比评分较术前明显降低(P < 0.05),术后3,6个月症状轻微侧目测类比评分与术前无明显差异;组间比较结果显示,两组术后腰痛及症状严重侧目测类比评分无明显差异(P > 0.05);A组术后3,6个月症状轻微侧目测类比评分明显低于B组(P < 0.05);③两组术后3 d Oswestry功能障碍指数均较术前明显降低(P < 0.05),组间比较两组术后3 d无明显差异;A组术后3,6个月 Oswestry功能障碍指数与术前相比明显降低(P < 0.05),B组术后3,6个月 Oswestry功能障碍指数与术前相比无明显差异(P > 0.05);术后3,6个月 Oswestry功能障碍指数组间比较,A组明显低于B组(P < 0.05);④术后3个月A组Macnab优良率明显高于B组(95%,78%,P < 0.05);⑤提示脊柱内镜杂交技术是一种新型的脊柱内镜技术,具有微创手术创伤小、恢复快等优势,采用该技术行单侧入路双侧减压治疗双侧症状腰椎管狭窄症的疗效优于单轴脊柱内镜技术,同时具有开放手术器械操作灵活性好、减压效率高的优势。

关键词: 脊柱内镜杂交技术, 单轴脊柱内镜技术, 腰椎管狭窄症, 双侧症状, 减压

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Spinal canal decompression using uniportal endoscopic surgery is a new minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. However, this technique needs a steep learning curve and high requirements for surgical equipment and instruments, which limits its clinical application. We previously use the spinal endoscopy as a monitoring endoscopy and combined with unilateral biportal endoscopy to propose a hybrid technique of spinal endoscopy to achieve coaxial endoscopic operation and hands-separate operation.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcome of hybrid technique and uniportal endoscopic surgery in treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with bilateral lower limb pain symptoms. 
METHODS: Ninety patients diagnosed of lumbar spinal stenosis with bilateral symptoms were included and retrospectively analyzed at First People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University from August 2020 to August 2022. 44 cases were included in group A (hybrid technique group), while 46 cases were included in group B (uniportal endoscopic surgery). The nerve decompression was observed during the surgery. Operation time, hospital stay time, and expenses were recorded in both groups. The visual analog scale scores of lower back pain and both lower extremities pain, Oswestry disability index scores of quality of life and excellent and good rate of modified Macnab criteria were recorded and compared at preoperative, postoperative 3 days, and postoperative 3 and 6 months. 
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) The operation time of group A was significantly shorter than that of group B (P < 0.05). (2) The lower back pain and lower extremity pain of the severe side at postoperative 3 days, and 3 and 6 months were significantly relieved in both groups (P < 0.05). The visual analog scale score of lower extremity pain on the mild side was significantly decreased at postoperative 3 days, 3 and 6 months than preoperative score in the group A (P < 0.05). The visual analog scale score of lower extremity pain on the mild side was significantly decreased at postoperative 3 days than preoperative score in the group B (P < 0.05). The visual analog scale scores of lower extremity pain on the mild side at postoperative 3 and 6 months did not show significant difference than preoperative score in the group B. The comparison between the two groups showed that there was no significant difference in the visual analog scale scores of postoperative lower back pain and lower extremity pain of the severe side (P > 0.05). The visual analog scale scores of lower extremity pain on the mild side in the group A were significantly lower than those of group B at postoperative 3 and 6 months (P < 0.05). (3) The Oswestry disability index scores of both groups at postoperative 3 day were significantly lower than preoperative score (P < 0.05), and there was no significant difference between the two groups 3 days after operation. Oswestry disability index scores of group A at postoperative 3 and 6 months were significantly decreased than preoperative score (P < 0.05). The Oswestry disability index scores of group B at postoperative 3 and 6 months did not show significant differences than preoperative score (P > 0.05). The comparison between the two groups showed the Oswestry disability index scores of group A were significantly lower than group B at postoperative 3 and 6 months (P < 0.05). (4) The results of modified Macnab showed that the excellent and good rate of group A was significantly higher than that of group B (95%, 78%, P < 0.05). (5) It is indicated that the hybrid technique is a new spinal endoscopy technique, which has the advantages of less trauma and faster recovery as a minimally invasive surgery. The clinical outcome of hybrid technique is superior to that of uniportal endoscopic surgery in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with bilateral symptoms. Additionally, it also has the advantages of good operational flexibility and high decompression efficiency as an open surgery. 

Key words: spine endoscopy hybrid technique, uniportal endoscopic surgery, lumbar spinal stenosis, bilateral symptom, decompression 

中图分类号: