west china medical publishers
Author
  • Title
  • Author
  • Keyword
  • Abstract
Advance search
Advance search

Search

find Author "胡宇童" 2 results
  • 单侧双通道脊柱内镜下后方减压联合颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术治疗多节段混合型颈椎病二例

    目的 总结单侧双通道脊柱内镜下颈椎后路椎间孔切开减压术(unilateral biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy,UBE-PCF)联合颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)治疗2例多节段混合型颈椎病的经验。方法 2022年2月及3月收治2例多节段脊髓型颈椎病、神经根型颈椎病及退行性颈椎滑脱患者。男、女各1例;年龄分别为59、66岁。患者上肢感觉减退、Hoffmann征阳性,影像学检查示颈椎不稳、椎间盘突出以及左侧椎间孔狭窄。全身麻醉下对相应病变节段行ACDF以及UBE-PCF。结果 2例手术时间分别为186、145 min,术后切口Ⅰ期愈合。患者均获随访3个月。术后2 d及3个月疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、颈椎功能障碍指数(NDI)均较术前下降,日本骨科协会(JOA)评分较术前上升。影像学复查示治疗节段神经减压彻底,未出现颈椎不稳。结论 对于伴退行性颈椎滑脱的多节段混合型颈椎病,ACDF联合UBE-PCF能选择性处理不同节段病变,最大程度保留脊柱功能,获得良好近期疗效。

    Release date: Export PDF Favorites Scan
  • Comparison of effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for degreeⅠdegenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

    ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) in the treatment of degreeⅠdegenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). MethodsA clinical data of 58 patients with degreeⅠDLS who met the selection criteria between October 2021 and October 2022 was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 28 cases were treated with unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression (decompression group) and 30 cases with ULIF (ULIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05) in the gender, age, lesion segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), disk height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), and other baseline data. The operation time, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative ambulation time, VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, ODI, laboratory examination indexes (CRP, ESR), and imaging parameters (DH, SL) were compared between the two groups. ResultsCompared with the ULIF group, the decompression group had shorter operation time, less postoperative drainage, and earlier ambulation (P<0.05). All incisions healed by first intention, and no complication such as nerve root injury, epidural hematoma, or infection occurred. All patients were followed up 12 months. Laboratory tests showed that ESR and CRP at 3 days after operation in decompression group were not significantly different from those before operation (P>0.05), while the above indexes in ULIF group significantly increased at 3 days after operation compared to preoperative values (P<0.05). There were significant differences in the changes of ESR and CRP before and after operation between the two groups (P<0.05). Except that the VAS score of low back pain at 3 days after operation was not significantly different from that before operation in decompression group (P>0.05), there were significant differences in VAS score of low back pain and VAS score of leg pain between the two groups at other time points (P<0.05). The VAS score of low back pain in ULIF group was significantly higher than that in decompression group at 3 days after operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back pain and VAS score of leg pain between the two groups at other time points (P>0.05). The ODI of the two groups significantly improved after operation (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between 3 days and 6 months after operation (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups at the two time points after operation (P<0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference in DH and SL between pre-operation and 12 months after operation in decompression group (P>0.05). However, the above two indexes in ULIF group were significantly higher than those before operation (P<0.05). There were significant differences in the changes of DH and SL before and after operation between the two groups (P<0.05). ConclusionUnilateral biportal endoscopic decompression can achieve good effectiveness in the treatment of degree Ⅰ DLS. Compared with ULIF, it can shorten operation time, reduce postoperative drainage volume, promote early ambulation, reduce inflammatory reaction, and accelerate postoperative recovery. ULIF has more advantages in restoring intervertebral DH and SL.

    Release date:2024-02-20 04:11 Export PDF Favorites Scan
1 pages Previous 1 Next

Format

Content