目的:对比UBE-TLIF与MIS-TLIF在治疗单节段LSS的临床疗效。方法:对2019年01月至2021年09月收治的87例单节段LSS患者,A组43例行UBE-TLIF手术,B组44例行MIS-TLIF手术。分析对比两组患者手术时间、术中预估出血量、住院时间、手术并发症、...目的:对比UBE-TLIF与MIS-TLIF在治疗单节段LSS的临床疗效。方法:对2019年01月至2021年09月收治的87例单节段LSS患者,A组43例行UBE-TLIF手术,B组44例行MIS-TLIF手术。分析对比两组患者手术时间、术中预估出血量、住院时间、手术并发症、术后伤口VAS评分、ODI评分。结果:在手术时间上,A组显著优于B组(P 0.05)。两组患者在术后早期24 h、48 h术后伤口VAS评分存在区别(P 0.05)。2组患者术后1月、3月、6月、末次随访ODI评分较术前均明显改善(P 0.05)。A组并发症发生率为11.6% (5/43),B组并发症发生率为13.6% (6/44),差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。结论:两种技术在治疗单节段LSS均可获得良好的临床疗效,相比MIS-TLIF技术,UBE-TLIF技术具有操作灵活,节约时间等优点。Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of UBE-TLIF with MIS-TLIF in the treatment of LSS in a single segment. Methods: A total of 87 patients with single-segment LSS who were admitted from January 2019 to September 2021 were treated, group A 43 routine UBE-TLIF surgery, Group B 44 routine MIS-TLIF surgery. The analysis compared the time of operation, estimated bleeding amount during surgery, hospitalization time, surgical complications, VAS score of postoperative wound and ODI score of two groups of patients. Results: Group A was significantly better than Group B (P 0.05). There was a difference in VAS scores for wounds 24 h, 48 h early after surgery (P 0.05). The ODI scores of the two groups were significantly improved at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and the last follow-up after operation (P 0.05). The complication rate was 11.6% (5/43) in group A and 13.6% (6/44) in group B. But there was no statistical significance between groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Both UBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF have good clinical efficacy in the treatment of single-level LSS, but UBE-TLIF has the advantages of flexible operation and time saving.展开更多
目的探讨体质量指数(body mass index,BMI)对退行性腰椎滑脱症患者行MIS-TLIF手术疗效和术后并发症的影响。方法回顾性分析本院骨科自2016年1月~2018年8月行单节段MIS-TLIF手术的退行性腰椎滑脱症患者132例,根据其BMI指数范围分为三组:...目的探讨体质量指数(body mass index,BMI)对退行性腰椎滑脱症患者行MIS-TLIF手术疗效和术后并发症的影响。方法回顾性分析本院骨科自2016年1月~2018年8月行单节段MIS-TLIF手术的退行性腰椎滑脱症患者132例,根据其BMI指数范围分为三组:BMI值17.3~24.9 kg/m^(2)者,纳入体重偏瘦或正常组,即A组;25.0~29.9 kg/m^(2)者,纳入超重组,即B组;≥30.0 kg/m^(2)者,纳入肥胖组,即C组。对三组患者的临床特征、手术疗效和并发症情况进行比较。结果所有患者术后3、6和24个月的腰痛、下肢痛VAS评分和ODI指数均得以显著改善(P<0.05)。术后24个月时,C组的腰痛、下肢痛VAS评分及ODI指数均显著高于A、B组(P<0.05),同时B组显著高于A组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。三组患者发生并发症13例(9.8%),其中A组3.0%,B组9.8%,C组29.2%,组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论肥胖人群MIS-TLIF术后腰痛和下肢痛、功能障碍的改善情况均差于体型正常或偏重者,其并发症的发生率也明显偏高。展开更多
文摘目的:对比UBE-TLIF与MIS-TLIF在治疗单节段LSS的临床疗效。方法:对2019年01月至2021年09月收治的87例单节段LSS患者,A组43例行UBE-TLIF手术,B组44例行MIS-TLIF手术。分析对比两组患者手术时间、术中预估出血量、住院时间、手术并发症、术后伤口VAS评分、ODI评分。结果:在手术时间上,A组显著优于B组(P 0.05)。两组患者在术后早期24 h、48 h术后伤口VAS评分存在区别(P 0.05)。2组患者术后1月、3月、6月、末次随访ODI评分较术前均明显改善(P 0.05)。A组并发症发生率为11.6% (5/43),B组并发症发生率为13.6% (6/44),差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。结论:两种技术在治疗单节段LSS均可获得良好的临床疗效,相比MIS-TLIF技术,UBE-TLIF技术具有操作灵活,节约时间等优点。Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of UBE-TLIF with MIS-TLIF in the treatment of LSS in a single segment. Methods: A total of 87 patients with single-segment LSS who were admitted from January 2019 to September 2021 were treated, group A 43 routine UBE-TLIF surgery, Group B 44 routine MIS-TLIF surgery. The analysis compared the time of operation, estimated bleeding amount during surgery, hospitalization time, surgical complications, VAS score of postoperative wound and ODI score of two groups of patients. Results: Group A was significantly better than Group B (P 0.05). There was a difference in VAS scores for wounds 24 h, 48 h early after surgery (P 0.05). The ODI scores of the two groups were significantly improved at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and the last follow-up after operation (P 0.05). The complication rate was 11.6% (5/43) in group A and 13.6% (6/44) in group B. But there was no statistical significance between groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Both UBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF have good clinical efficacy in the treatment of single-level LSS, but UBE-TLIF has the advantages of flexible operation and time saving.
