Yushi Sakamoto, Seiichiro Naruo, Tomonori Ozaki, Shogo Tahata, Toru Fujimoto, Atushi Ogata, Fumitaka Yoshioka, Y. Nakahara, J. Masuoka, Tatsuya Abe
{"title":"明胶-凝血酶原基质密封剂在微创显微椎间盘切除术中的实用性和安全性","authors":"Yushi Sakamoto, Seiichiro Naruo, Tomonori Ozaki, Shogo Tahata, Toru Fujimoto, Atushi Ogata, Fumitaka Yoshioka, Y. Nakahara, J. Masuoka, Tatsuya Abe","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1787777","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness and safety of gelatin–thrombin matrix sealants (GTMSs) in minimally invasive microscopic discectomy, a surgical procedure commonly used to treat lumbar disc herniation. Materials and Methods Out of 484 patients who underwent minimally invasive microscopic discectomy between April 2018 and December 2022, 35 patients with a history of surgery at the same level were excluded, resulting in a total of 449 patients included in the study. Among them, 316 patients were treated using GTMS, whereas 133 were treated using collagen-based absorbable local hemostatic agents. Patient characteristics, surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, intraoperative dural injury, and incidence of postoperative epidural hematoma were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Results No significant differences in patient demographics were observed between the two groups, except for activated partial thromboplastin time and prothrombin time. Although there were no significant differences in the mean surgical time and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups, they tended to be shorter and less in the GTMS group (56.3 ± 20.2 vs. 58.2 ± 20.4 minutes [ p = 0.36] and 10.0 ± 15.4 vs. 11.8 ± 8.3 g [ p = 0.20]). The volume of postoperative drainage was significantly lower in the GTMS group than that in the comparison group (35.3 ± 21.8 vs. 49.5 ± 34.1 g [ p < 0.01]). There was a trend indicating a difference in the number of intraoperative dural injuries and the need for reoperation due to postoperative epidural hematoma (2 vs. 3 ± 20.4 minutes [ p = 0.21] and 1 vs. 2 [ p = 0.16]). Conclusion The use of a GTMS in minimally invasive microscopic discectomy appears to be beneficial in reducing postoperative drainage volume. It has also been shown that it may improve clinical outcomes such as intraoperative dural injury and postoperative epidural hematoma. Furthermore, further consideration of the medical economic impact is required.","PeriodicalId":8521,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Neurosurgery","volume":"97 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Usefulness and Safety of Gelatin–Thrombin Matrix Sealants in Minimally Invasive Microscopic Discectomy\",\"authors\":\"Yushi Sakamoto, Seiichiro Naruo, Tomonori Ozaki, Shogo Tahata, Toru Fujimoto, Atushi Ogata, Fumitaka Yoshioka, Y. Nakahara, J. Masuoka, Tatsuya Abe\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0044-1787777\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objective This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness and safety of gelatin–thrombin matrix sealants (GTMSs) in minimally invasive microscopic discectomy, a surgical procedure commonly used to treat lumbar disc herniation. Materials and Methods Out of 484 patients who underwent minimally invasive microscopic discectomy between April 2018 and December 2022, 35 patients with a history of surgery at the same level were excluded, resulting in a total of 449 patients included in the study. Among them, 316 patients were treated using GTMS, whereas 133 were treated using collagen-based absorbable local hemostatic agents. Patient characteristics, surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, intraoperative dural injury, and incidence of postoperative epidural hematoma were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Results No significant differences in patient demographics were observed between the two groups, except for activated partial thromboplastin time and prothrombin time. Although there were no significant differences in the mean surgical time and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups, they tended to be shorter and less in the GTMS group (56.3 ± 20.2 vs. 58.2 ± 20.4 minutes [ p = 0.36] and 10.0 ± 15.4 vs. 11.8 ± 8.3 g [ p = 0.20]). The volume of postoperative drainage was significantly lower in the GTMS group than that in the comparison group (35.3 ± 21.8 vs. 49.5 ± 34.1 g [ p < 0.01]). There was a trend indicating a difference in the number of intraoperative dural injuries and the need for reoperation due to postoperative epidural hematoma (2 vs. 3 ± 20.4 minutes [ p = 0.21] and 1 vs. 2 [ p = 0.16]). Conclusion The use of a GTMS in minimally invasive microscopic discectomy appears to be beneficial in reducing postoperative drainage volume. It has also been shown that it may improve clinical outcomes such as intraoperative dural injury and postoperative epidural hematoma. Furthermore, further consideration of the medical economic impact is required.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8521,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Journal of Neurosurgery\",\"volume\":\"97 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Journal of Neurosurgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1787777\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1787777","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要 目的 本研究旨在评估明胶-凝血酶原基质密封剂(GTMS)在微创显微椎间盘切除术(一种常用于治疗腰椎间盘突出症的手术方法)中的实用性和安全性。材料与方法 在2018年4月至2022年12月期间接受微创显微椎间盘切除术的484例患者中,排除了35例有同水平手术史的患者,最终共有449例患者纳入研究。其中,316 名患者使用 GTMS 治疗,133 名患者使用胶原基可吸收局部止血剂治疗。研究人员对两组患者的特征、手术时间、术中失血量、术后引流量、术中硬膜损伤以及术后硬膜外血肿的发生率进行了分析和比较。结果 除活化部分凝血活酶时间和凝血酶原时间外,两组患者在人口统计学方面无明显差异。虽然两组患者的平均手术时间和术中失血量无明显差异,但 GTMS 组的平均手术时间和术中失血量更短、更少(56.3 ± 20.2 分钟对 58.2 ± 20.4 分钟[p = 0.36],10.0 ± 15.4 克对 11.8 ± 8.3 克[p = 0.20])。GTMS 组的术后引流量明显低于对比组(35.3 ± 21.8 vs. 49.5 ± 34.1 g [ p < 0.01])。术中硬膜损伤的数量和因术后硬膜外血肿而需要再次手术的数量呈差异趋势(2 vs. 3 ± 20.4 分钟 [ p = 0.21] 和 1 vs. 2 [ p = 0.16])。结论 在微创显微椎间盘切除术中使用 GTMS 似乎有利于减少术后引流量。此外,它还能改善术中硬膜损伤和术后硬膜外血肿等临床结果。此外,还需要进一步考虑其对医疗经济的影响。
Usefulness and Safety of Gelatin–Thrombin Matrix Sealants in Minimally Invasive Microscopic Discectomy
Abstract Objective This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness and safety of gelatin–thrombin matrix sealants (GTMSs) in minimally invasive microscopic discectomy, a surgical procedure commonly used to treat lumbar disc herniation. Materials and Methods Out of 484 patients who underwent minimally invasive microscopic discectomy between April 2018 and December 2022, 35 patients with a history of surgery at the same level were excluded, resulting in a total of 449 patients included in the study. Among them, 316 patients were treated using GTMS, whereas 133 were treated using collagen-based absorbable local hemostatic agents. Patient characteristics, surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, intraoperative dural injury, and incidence of postoperative epidural hematoma were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Results No significant differences in patient demographics were observed between the two groups, except for activated partial thromboplastin time and prothrombin time. Although there were no significant differences in the mean surgical time and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups, they tended to be shorter and less in the GTMS group (56.3 ± 20.2 vs. 58.2 ± 20.4 minutes [ p = 0.36] and 10.0 ± 15.4 vs. 11.8 ± 8.3 g [ p = 0.20]). The volume of postoperative drainage was significantly lower in the GTMS group than that in the comparison group (35.3 ± 21.8 vs. 49.5 ± 34.1 g [ p < 0.01]). There was a trend indicating a difference in the number of intraoperative dural injuries and the need for reoperation due to postoperative epidural hematoma (2 vs. 3 ± 20.4 minutes [ p = 0.21] and 1 vs. 2 [ p = 0.16]). Conclusion The use of a GTMS in minimally invasive microscopic discectomy appears to be beneficial in reducing postoperative drainage volume. It has also been shown that it may improve clinical outcomes such as intraoperative dural injury and postoperative epidural hematoma. Furthermore, further consideration of the medical economic impact is required.