Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression Alone Versus Limited Decompression/Fusion in the Treatment of Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: A Retrospective Study.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Global Spine Journal Pub Date : 2024-09-25 DOI:10.1177/21925682241288189
Yao Zhang, Wancheng Lin, Xin Lian, Lixiang Ding, Jipeng Song
{"title":"Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression Alone Versus Limited Decompression/Fusion in the Treatment of Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: A Retrospective Study.","authors":"Yao Zhang, Wancheng Lin, Xin Lian, Lixiang Ding, Jipeng Song","doi":"10.1177/21925682241288189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>A retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate and compare the clinical and radiographical outcomes of endoscopic decompression alone and limited decompression/fusion surgery in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Follow-up data of 53 patients with lower limb radiculopathy associated with ADS who underwent focal surgical treatment were collected (endoscope group: 31 patients treated by transforaminal endoscopic decompression alone; fusion group: 22 patients who underwent limited decompression/fusion). The following data were retrospectively analyzed and compared between the two group: the demographics, Lenke-Silva level, radiographic parameters, surgical data, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back/leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the modified MacNab criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean follow-up period was 15.68 ± 3.26 months. The most frequent Lenke-Silva level was I in the endoscope group, and III in the fusion group. Preoperative Cobb angle in the endoscope group was significantly lower than that in the fusion group (23.92 ± 9.06 vs 39.58 ± 13.12, <i>P</i> < 0.05). All patients exhibited improved VAS and ODI scores postoperatively (<i>P</i> < 0.05). At the last follow-up, the Cobb angle had progressed by 1.51° in the endoscope group, whereas radiographic parameters were significantly improved in the fusion group. The reoperation and complication rate in the endoscope group were lower than those in the fusion group. The satisfaction rate post-surgery was comparable between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For patients with focal ADS, both limited decompression/fusion and transforaminal endoscopic decompression are viable treatment options. Advanced transforaminal endoscopic techniques enable effective decompression of the symptomatic foramen with minimal complication risk and negligible deformity progression, even in cases of significant scoliosis. While limited fusion surgery can achieve comparable clinical outcomes, it offers inferior deformity correction.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682241288189","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: A retrospective study.

Objectives: To investigate and compare the clinical and radiographical outcomes of endoscopic decompression alone and limited decompression/fusion surgery in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS).

Methods: Follow-up data of 53 patients with lower limb radiculopathy associated with ADS who underwent focal surgical treatment were collected (endoscope group: 31 patients treated by transforaminal endoscopic decompression alone; fusion group: 22 patients who underwent limited decompression/fusion). The following data were retrospectively analyzed and compared between the two group: the demographics, Lenke-Silva level, radiographic parameters, surgical data, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back/leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the modified MacNab criteria.

Results: The mean follow-up period was 15.68 ± 3.26 months. The most frequent Lenke-Silva level was I in the endoscope group, and III in the fusion group. Preoperative Cobb angle in the endoscope group was significantly lower than that in the fusion group (23.92 ± 9.06 vs 39.58 ± 13.12, P < 0.05). All patients exhibited improved VAS and ODI scores postoperatively (P < 0.05). At the last follow-up, the Cobb angle had progressed by 1.51° in the endoscope group, whereas radiographic parameters were significantly improved in the fusion group. The reoperation and complication rate in the endoscope group were lower than those in the fusion group. The satisfaction rate post-surgery was comparable between the two groups.

Conclusions: For patients with focal ADS, both limited decompression/fusion and transforaminal endoscopic decompression are viable treatment options. Advanced transforaminal endoscopic techniques enable effective decompression of the symptomatic foramen with minimal complication risk and negligible deformity progression, even in cases of significant scoliosis. While limited fusion surgery can achieve comparable clinical outcomes, it offers inferior deformity correction.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
单纯经椎间孔内窥镜减压术与有限减压/融合术治疗成人退行性脊柱侧凸:回顾性研究。
研究设计回顾性研究:调查和比较单纯内窥镜减压术和局限性减压/融合手术治疗成人退行性脊柱侧凸(ADS)的临床和影像学结果:收集了53例接受病灶手术治疗的下肢根性脊柱侧凸患者的随访数据(内窥镜组:31例,经椎间孔镜治疗组:1例,经椎间孔镜治疗组:1例,经椎间孔镜治疗组:1例):融合组:22 名患者接受了局限性减压/融合治疗)。对两组患者的以下数据进行了回顾性分析和比较:人口统计学、Lenke-Silva水平、放射学参数、手术数据、腰腿痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)、Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)和改良MacNab标准:平均随访时间为(15.68 ± 3.26)个月。内窥镜组最常见的 Lenke-Silva 水平为 I 级,融合组为 III 级。内窥镜组术前 Cobb 角明显低于融合组(23.92 ± 9.06 vs 39.58 ± 13.12,P < 0.05)。所有患者术后的 VAS 和 ODI 评分均有所改善(P < 0.05)。在最后一次随访时,内窥镜组患者的 Cobb 角增加了 1.51°,而融合组患者的放射学参数则明显改善。内窥镜组的再手术率和并发症发生率低于融合组。两组患者的术后满意度相当:结论:对于病灶性 ADS 患者,有限减压/融合术和经椎间孔内窥镜减压术都是可行的治疗方案。先进的经椎间孔内窥镜技术可对症状孔进行有效减压,且并发症风险极低,畸形进展可忽略不计,即使是严重脊柱侧凸的病例也是如此。虽然有限的融合手术可以达到类似的临床效果,但其畸形矫正效果较差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Global Spine Journal
Global Spine Journal Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
278
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Spine Journal (GSJ) is the official scientific publication of AOSpine. A peer-reviewed, open access journal, devoted to the study and treatment of spinal disorders, including diagnosis, operative and non-operative treatment options, surgical techniques, and emerging research and clinical developments.GSJ is indexed in PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
期刊最新文献
Prevalence and Clinical Impact of Coronal Malalignment Following Circumferential Minimally Invasive Surgery (CMIS) for Adult Spinal Deformity Correction. Current Applications and Future Implications of Artificial Intelligence in Spine Surgery and Research: A Narrative Review and Commentary. Surgical Specialty Outcome Differences for Major Spinal Procedures in Low-Acuity Patients. The Effect of Osteopenia and Osteoporosis on Screw Loosening in MIS-TLIF and Dynamic Stabilization. Learning Curve of Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant and Aggregated Data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1