{"title":"[Effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopy technique combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in treatment of lumbar burst fractures].","authors":"Ting Yan, Jun Zeng, Chao Wu, Xu Lin, Haigang Hu, Zeli Zhong","doi":"10.7507/1002-1892.202406050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique assisted spinal canal decompression combined with percutaneous pedicle screw internal fixation versus traditional open decompression and internal fixation for treatment of lumbar burst fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective study was conducted on the clinical data of 61 patients with single-segment lumbar burst fractures who met the selection criteria and were admitted between October 2022 and December 2023. Of them, 25 patients received UBE technique assisted decompression combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (UBE group), while 36 patients were treated with traditional posterior unilateral hemilaminectomy decompression and internal fixation (open group). There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups ( <i>P</i>>0.05), including gender, age, body mass index, fracture segment, cause of injury, AO classification of lumbar fractures, and preoperative height ratio of the anterior margin of injured vertebra, segmental kyphosis angle, rate of spinal canal invasion, the classification of American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) grading, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and Oswestry disability index (ODI). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. VAS score, ODI, and ASIA grading were used to evaluate the effectiveness before operation, at 1 week after operation, and at last follow-up. Lumbar anteroposterior and lateral X-ray films and CT were performed to measure the segmental kyphosis angle, height ratio of the anterior margin of injured vertebra, and the rate of spinal canal invasion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Surgery was successfully completed in both groups. No complication such as dural sac, nerve root, or vascular injury was found during operation, and all incisions healed by first intention. There was no significant difference in operation time between the two groups ( <i>P</i>>0.05), the UBE group revealed significant less intraoperative blood loss when compared with open group ( <i>P</i><0.05). Patients in both groups were followed up 6-20 months, with an average of 13 months. There was no loosening, breakage, or failure of internal fixation in all patients. The ASIA grading, VAS score, ODI of the two groups significantly improved at 1 week after operation and further improved at last follow-up ( <i>P</i><0.05). There was no significant difference in ASIA grading at 1 week after operation and last follow-up between the two groups ( <i>P</i>>0.05), but the VAS score and ODI in the UBE group were significantly superior to the open group ( <i>P</i><0.05). At 1 week after operation, the height ratio of the anterior margin of injured vertebra, segmental kyphosis angle, rate of spinal canal invasion significantly improved when compared to preoperative ones ( <i>P</i><0.05), the height ratio of the anterior margin of injured vertebra and segmental kyphosis angle significantly decreased at last follow-up when compared to the values at 1 week after operation ( <i>P</i><0.05), but the rate of spinal canal invasion was further significantly improved, and there was no significant difference between the two groups at different time point postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>UBE technique assisted spinal canal decompression combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation is a safe and effective treatment for lumbar burst fractures, which with little trauma and faster recovery when compared with traditional open decompression and internal fixation.</p>","PeriodicalId":23979,"journal":{"name":"中国修复重建外科杂志","volume":"38 11","pages":"1372-1378"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11563748/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中国修复重建外科杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7507/1002-1892.202406050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique assisted spinal canal decompression combined with percutaneous pedicle screw internal fixation versus traditional open decompression and internal fixation for treatment of lumbar burst fractures.
Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on the clinical data of 61 patients with single-segment lumbar burst fractures who met the selection criteria and were admitted between October 2022 and December 2023. Of them, 25 patients received UBE technique assisted decompression combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (UBE group), while 36 patients were treated with traditional posterior unilateral hemilaminectomy decompression and internal fixation (open group). There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups ( P>0.05), including gender, age, body mass index, fracture segment, cause of injury, AO classification of lumbar fractures, and preoperative height ratio of the anterior margin of injured vertebra, segmental kyphosis angle, rate of spinal canal invasion, the classification of American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) grading, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and Oswestry disability index (ODI). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. VAS score, ODI, and ASIA grading were used to evaluate the effectiveness before operation, at 1 week after operation, and at last follow-up. Lumbar anteroposterior and lateral X-ray films and CT were performed to measure the segmental kyphosis angle, height ratio of the anterior margin of injured vertebra, and the rate of spinal canal invasion.
Results: Surgery was successfully completed in both groups. No complication such as dural sac, nerve root, or vascular injury was found during operation, and all incisions healed by first intention. There was no significant difference in operation time between the two groups ( P>0.05), the UBE group revealed significant less intraoperative blood loss when compared with open group ( P<0.05). Patients in both groups were followed up 6-20 months, with an average of 13 months. There was no loosening, breakage, or failure of internal fixation in all patients. The ASIA grading, VAS score, ODI of the two groups significantly improved at 1 week after operation and further improved at last follow-up ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in ASIA grading at 1 week after operation and last follow-up between the two groups ( P>0.05), but the VAS score and ODI in the UBE group were significantly superior to the open group ( P<0.05). At 1 week after operation, the height ratio of the anterior margin of injured vertebra, segmental kyphosis angle, rate of spinal canal invasion significantly improved when compared to preoperative ones ( P<0.05), the height ratio of the anterior margin of injured vertebra and segmental kyphosis angle significantly decreased at last follow-up when compared to the values at 1 week after operation ( P<0.05), but the rate of spinal canal invasion was further significantly improved, and there was no significant difference between the two groups at different time point postoperatively.
Conclusion: UBE technique assisted spinal canal decompression combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation is a safe and effective treatment for lumbar burst fractures, which with little trauma and faster recovery when compared with traditional open decompression and internal fixation.
目的比较单侧双侧内窥镜(UBE)技术辅助椎管减压联合经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定与传统开放减压内固定治疗腰椎爆裂性骨折的效果:对符合入选标准且在2022年10月至2023年12月期间入院的61例单段腰椎爆裂性骨折患者的临床数据进行了回顾性研究。其中,25 名患者接受了 UBE 技术辅助减压联合经皮椎弓根螺钉固定术(UBE 组),36 名患者接受了传统的后路单侧半椎板切除减压和内固定术(开放组)。两组患者的性别、年龄、体重指数、骨折节段、致伤原因、腰椎骨折 AO 分级、术前受伤椎体前缘高度比、节段后凸角度、椎管侵袭率、美国脊柱损伤协会(ASIA)分级、视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分和 Oswestry 残疾指数(ODI)等基线数据无明显差异(P>0.05)。记录并比较两组患者的手术时间、术中失血量和术后并发症。采用 VAS 评分、ODI 和 ASIA 分级来评估术前、术后一周和最后一次随访的疗效。通过腰椎前后位、侧位X光片和CT测量节段后凸角、受伤椎体前缘高度比和椎管侵犯率:两组手术均顺利完成。结果:两组患者均顺利完成手术,术中未发现硬膜囊、神经根或血管损伤等并发症,所有切口均第一时间愈合。两组手术时间无明显差异(P>0.05),UBE组术中失血量明显少于开放组(PPP>0.05),但UBE组的VAS评分和ODI明显优于开放组(PPPConclusion):UBE技术辅助椎管减压联合经皮椎弓根螺钉固定是一种安全有效的腰椎爆裂性骨折治疗方法,与传统的开放减压和内固定相比,创伤小、恢复快。