传统开放减压手术方法与单侧开窗潜行减压治疗双侧腰椎管狭窄的临床疗效比较
|
摘要
目的:探索传统开放减压术与单侧开窗潜行减压术用于治疗双侧腰椎管狭窄的效果。方法:在某院收治的双侧腰椎管狭窄患者中随机抽取出78例作为本研究的对象,按照治疗方法进行分组,分入到观察组和对照组中,观察组患者采用单侧开窗潜行减压术治疗,对照组患者则采用传统开放减压术治疗,对比分析两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、住院时间、VAS评分、ODI评分等指标。结果:观察组患者在手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、住院时间指标上均优于对照组,且观察组患者术后7d、3个月的VAS评分和ODI评分均比对照组低,P<0.05。结论:在双侧腰椎管狭窄的临床治疗中,单侧开窗潜行减压术具有手术操作简单、损伤小、术后恢复快等优点,有助于提高患者的生活质量,值得推广应用。
Objective:To explore the effect of traditional open decompression surgery and unilateral fenestration decompression in the treatment of bilateral lumbar spinal stenosis.Methods:78cases of patients with bilateral lumbar spinal stenosis treated in a hospital were selected and divided into observation group and control group according to the method of treatment.The observation group were treated with unilateral fenestration decompression,and the control group received traditional open decompression.Then compared the indicators of operative time,bleeding volume,postoperative drainage,hospitalization time,VAS and ODI scores between the two groups.Results:The operation time,bleeding volume,postoperative drainage,and hospitalization time of observation group patients were better than those of control group.The VAS and ODI scores after 7days and 3months of observation group were lower than those of control group,P<0.05.Conclusion:Unilateral fenestration decompression in the treatment of bilateral lumbar spinal stenosis has the advantages of simple operation,small injury,postoperative recovery and so on,and help to improve the quality of life of patients,which is worthy of promotion and application.
Objective:To explore the effect of traditional open decompression surgery and unilateral fenestration decompression in the treatment of bilateral lumbar spinal stenosis.Methods:78cases of patients with bilateral lumbar spinal stenosis treated in a hospital were selected and divided into observation group and control group according to the method of treatment.The observation group were treated with unilateral fenestration decompression,and the control group received traditional open decompression.Then compared the indicators of operative time,bleeding volume,postoperative drainage,hospitalization time,VAS and ODI scores between the two groups.Results:The operation time,bleeding volume,postoperative drainage,and hospitalization time of observation group patients were better than those of control group.The VAS and ODI scores after 7days and 3months of observation group were lower than those of control group,P<0.05.Conclusion:Unilateral fenestration decompression in the treatment of bilateral lumbar spinal stenosis has the advantages of simple operation,small injury,postoperative recovery and so on,and help to improve the quality of life of patients,which is worthy of promotion and application.
引文
1丁祥,许永武.Plif单侧开窗潜行双侧减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症.江西医药,2015,50(11):1205~1206.
2 冷延超.单侧开窗潜行减压治疗双侧腰椎管狭窄的临床疗效观察.当代医学,2016,22(4):44~45.
3 何勍,阮狄克,侯黎升,等.单纯减压与减压融合内固定术治疗伴Ⅰ度退行性滑脱的腰椎管狭窄症的疗效比较.中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2012,22(5):412~417.
4 陈赞,王坤,吴浩,等.显微镜下一侧入路双侧减压治疗老年腰椎管狭窄.中华神经外科杂志,2012,28(6):546~550.
5 顾广飞,张海龙,贺石生,等.微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术治疗腰椎管狭窄合并腰椎不稳症.中华外科杂志,2011,49(12):1081~1085.
6 谢炎秋,李锋,蒋本泰,等.单侧症状的腰椎间盘突出伴腰椎管狭窄行单、双侧减压治疗效果回顾分析.医学信息,2015,28(13):22.
7 杨圣,芦健民,赵德伟,等.显微外科手术单侧入路双侧减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症.中华显微外科杂志,2011,34(3):179~181.
8 张功恒,黄强.双侧腰椎管狭窄采用单侧开窗潜行减压术治疗的临床体会.实用中西医结合临床,2015,15(12):47~48.
9 闫立伟,王文波.单侧开窗潜行减压治疗双侧腰椎管狭窄的临床研究.哈尔滨医科大学学报,2014,48(6):509~512.
2 冷延超.单侧开窗潜行减压治疗双侧腰椎管狭窄的临床疗效观察.当代医学,2016,22(4):44~45.
3 何勍,阮狄克,侯黎升,等.单纯减压与减压融合内固定术治疗伴Ⅰ度退行性滑脱的腰椎管狭窄症的疗效比较.中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2012,22(5):412~417.
4 陈赞,王坤,吴浩,等.显微镜下一侧入路双侧减压治疗老年腰椎管狭窄.中华神经外科杂志,2012,28(6):546~550.
5 顾广飞,张海龙,贺石生,等.微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术治疗腰椎管狭窄合并腰椎不稳症.中华外科杂志,2011,49(12):1081~1085.
6 谢炎秋,李锋,蒋本泰,等.单侧症状的腰椎间盘突出伴腰椎管狭窄行单、双侧减压治疗效果回顾分析.医学信息,2015,28(13):22.
7 杨圣,芦健民,赵德伟,等.显微外科手术单侧入路双侧减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症.中华显微外科杂志,2011,34(3):179~181.
8 张功恒,黄强.双侧腰椎管狭窄采用单侧开窗潜行减压术治疗的临床体会.实用中西医结合临床,2015,15(12):47~48.
9 闫立伟,王文波.单侧开窗潜行减压治疗双侧腰椎管狭窄的临床研究.哈尔滨医科大学学报,2014,48(6):509~512.