显微内窥镜与椎板间开窗髓核摘除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床比较
|
摘要
目的
对比研究MED法与LOVE法治疗腰椎间盘突出症，评价MED法的临床疗效。
方法
50例腰椎间盘突出症采用MED法治疗作为观察组，LOVE法治疗50例作为对照组，根据Macnab标准评价临床疗效；并比较两组手术切口长度、出血量、手术时间、术后三天最高体温、术后下地时间、住院时间、恢复正常生活与工作时间。
结果
观察组优良率92％，对照组优良率90％，差别无显著性统计学意义(P＞0.05)。两组间手术切口长度、出血量、手术时间、术后三天最高体温、术后下地时间、住院时间及恢复正常生活与工作时间等差别有显著性统计学意义(P＜0.05)。
结论
两组方法疗效相近；但MED法创伤小、恢复快、痛苦轻、疗效好，是治疗腰椎间盘突出症的较好方法。
Objective
To compare Microendoscopic Discectomy(MED) with LOVE's method for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation(LDH) and evaluate the clinlical effect of MED method for LDH.
Methods
There were 50 cases with MED method as observed group and other 50 cases with LOVE's method as compared group .According to Macnab's standard to evaluate the clinical effect,compared two groups with the length of incision.blood lost,operative time, the highest body temperature for 3 days after operation,time on getting out of bed after operation, time in hospital and time on recovering normal living and working.
Results
The rate of excellent and good results in observed group was 92%,it was 90% in compared group,there was no significant statistical difference between two groups in the clinical effect(P>0.05).But there was significant statistical difference between two groups in the length of incision,blood lost,operative time,the highest body temperature for 3 days after operation,time on getting out of bed after operation,time in hospital and time on recovering normal living and working (P<0.05).
Conclusion
It is parallel for the clinical effect between two groups.But MED method is better method for the treatment of LDH because it has advantages of minimal invasion,shorter time of recovery,least pain and excellent effect.
对比研究MED法与LOVE法治疗腰椎间盘突出症，评价MED法的临床疗效。
方法
50例腰椎间盘突出症采用MED法治疗作为观察组，LOVE法治疗50例作为对照组，根据Macnab标准评价临床疗效；并比较两组手术切口长度、出血量、手术时间、术后三天最高体温、术后下地时间、住院时间、恢复正常生活与工作时间。
结果
观察组优良率92％，对照组优良率90％，差别无显著性统计学意义(P＞0.05)。两组间手术切口长度、出血量、手术时间、术后三天最高体温、术后下地时间、住院时间及恢复正常生活与工作时间等差别有显著性统计学意义(P＜0.05)。
结论
两组方法疗效相近；但MED法创伤小、恢复快、痛苦轻、疗效好，是治疗腰椎间盘突出症的较好方法。
Objective
To compare Microendoscopic Discectomy(MED) with LOVE's method for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation(LDH) and evaluate the clinlical effect of MED method for LDH.
Methods
There were 50 cases with MED method as observed group and other 50 cases with LOVE's method as compared group .According to Macnab's standard to evaluate the clinical effect,compared two groups with the length of incision.blood lost,operative time, the highest body temperature for 3 days after operation,time on getting out of bed after operation, time in hospital and time on recovering normal living and working.
Results
The rate of excellent and good results in observed group was 92%,it was 90% in compared group,there was no significant statistical difference between two groups in the clinical effect(P>0.05).But there was significant statistical difference between two groups in the length of incision,blood lost,operative time,the highest body temperature for 3 days after operation,time on getting out of bed after operation,time in hospital and time on recovering normal living and working (P<0.05).
Conclusion
It is parallel for the clinical effect between two groups.But MED method is better method for the treatment of LDH because it has advantages of minimal invasion,shorter time of recovery,least pain and excellent effect.
引文
[1] 鲁玉来，蔡钦林，等．腰椎间盘突出症．人民军医出版社．2001，165
[2] Macnab I. Negative disc exploration, an analysis of the causes of nerve root involvement in 68 patients. J Bone Joint Surg (AM). 1991, 53: 891-892
[3] 吴在德．外科学．人民卫生出版社．2000，956
[4] 陈孝平．外科学．人民卫生出版社．2002，1054-1055
[5] Johnsson KE, willnet S, Johnsson K. Postoperative instability decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine. 1986, 11(2): 107
[6] 田世杰，王进军，刘德隆，等．经皮椎间盘镜腰椎间盘摘除术．中华骨科杂志．1997，17(5)：321
[7] 刘学勇，王欢，王海义，等．前后路腰椎间盘摘除术远期疗效对比分析．中华骨科杂志．1997，17：311-314
[8] Onik GM, Kambin P, Chang MK. Minimally invasive disc surgery. Nucleotomy versus fragmentectomy. 1997, 22(7): 827
[9] 宋恒平．腰椎管手术后脑脊液漏的防治分析．颈腰痛杂志．2000，21(3)：225
[2] Macnab I. Negative disc exploration, an analysis of the causes of nerve root involvement in 68 patients. J Bone Joint Surg (AM). 1991, 53: 891-892
[3] 吴在德．外科学．人民卫生出版社．2000，956
[4] 陈孝平．外科学．人民卫生出版社．2002，1054-1055
[5] Johnsson KE, willnet S, Johnsson K. Postoperative instability decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine. 1986, 11(2): 107
[6] 田世杰，王进军，刘德隆，等．经皮椎间盘镜腰椎间盘摘除术．中华骨科杂志．1997，17(5)：321
[7] 刘学勇，王欢，王海义，等．前后路腰椎间盘摘除术远期疗效对比分析．中华骨科杂志．1997，17：311-314
[8] Onik GM, Kambin P, Chang MK. Minimally invasive disc surgery. Nucleotomy versus fragmentectomy. 1997, 22(7): 827
[9] 宋恒平．腰椎管手术后脑脊液漏的防治分析．颈腰痛杂志．2000，21(3)：225