{"title":"单侧双ortal内窥镜技术治疗颈椎病的短期疗效。","authors":"Mohan Wen, Xu Li, Xiangjun Lu, Tianzuo Chen, Rujie Qin","doi":"10.1007/s00586-024-08545-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy technology (UBE) with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion(ACDF)for the treatment of single-segment cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis of 60 patients with CSR, of which 30 were treated with ACDF (group A) and 30 were treated with UBE (group B). Cision length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization duration, postoperative complications preoperative and postoperative VAS, NDI scores, height and stability of the liability gap were compared between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with the A group, the incision length, duration and intraoperative blood loss were significantly less in the B group (P < 0.05), and the difference was statistically significant. As the postoperative time increased, the VAS score and NDI score decreased significantly in both groups (P < 0.05or < 0.01). However, the differences in VAS and NDI scores between the two groups at the corresponding time points were not statistically significant, and only the VAS score at 1 day postoperatively showed a more pronounced decrease in the B group, which was statistically significant compared with that in the A group. The difference in intervertebral space height and stability of the postoperative liability gap between the two groups at the final follow-up was not statistically significant when compared with the preoperative period. The incidence of postoperative complications in the two groups was smaller in the B group than in the A group, and the difference was not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>UBE can effectively treat patients with single-segment CRS and promote rapid recovery.</p>","PeriodicalId":12323,"journal":{"name":"European Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Short-term efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy technology in the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy.\",\"authors\":\"Mohan Wen, Xu Li, Xiangjun Lu, Tianzuo Chen, Rujie Qin\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00586-024-08545-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy technology (UBE) with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion(ACDF)for the treatment of single-segment cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis of 60 patients with CSR, of which 30 were treated with ACDF (group A) and 30 were treated with UBE (group B). Cision length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization duration, postoperative complications preoperative and postoperative VAS, NDI scores, height and stability of the liability gap were compared between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with the A group, the incision length, duration and intraoperative blood loss were significantly less in the B group (P < 0.05), and the difference was statistically significant. As the postoperative time increased, the VAS score and NDI score decreased significantly in both groups (P < 0.05or < 0.01). However, the differences in VAS and NDI scores between the two groups at the corresponding time points were not statistically significant, and only the VAS score at 1 day postoperatively showed a more pronounced decrease in the B group, which was statistically significant compared with that in the A group. The difference in intervertebral space height and stability of the postoperative liability gap between the two groups at the final follow-up was not statistically significant when compared with the preoperative period. The incidence of postoperative complications in the two groups was smaller in the B group than in the A group, and the difference was not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>UBE can effectively treat patients with single-segment CRS and promote rapid recovery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08545-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08545-7","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
摘要
目的比较单侧双ortal内窥镜技术(UBE)与颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)治疗单节段颈椎病(CSR)的临床疗效:回顾性分析60例CSR患者,其中30例采用ACDF治疗(A组),30例采用UBE治疗(B组)。比较两组患者的切口长度、手术时间、术中失血量、住院时间、术后并发症、术前术后 VAS、NDI 评分、责任间隙的高度和稳定性:结果:与 A 组相比,B 组的切口长度、持续时间和术中失血量均显著减少(P 结论:UBE 能有效治疗单发性膀胱癌:UBE能有效治疗单节段CRS患者,促进患者快速康复。
Short-term efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy technology in the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy.
Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy technology (UBE) with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion(ACDF)for the treatment of single-segment cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR).
Methods: Retrospective analysis of 60 patients with CSR, of which 30 were treated with ACDF (group A) and 30 were treated with UBE (group B). Cision length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization duration, postoperative complications preoperative and postoperative VAS, NDI scores, height and stability of the liability gap were compared between the two groups.
Results: Compared with the A group, the incision length, duration and intraoperative blood loss were significantly less in the B group (P < 0.05), and the difference was statistically significant. As the postoperative time increased, the VAS score and NDI score decreased significantly in both groups (P < 0.05or < 0.01). However, the differences in VAS and NDI scores between the two groups at the corresponding time points were not statistically significant, and only the VAS score at 1 day postoperatively showed a more pronounced decrease in the B group, which was statistically significant compared with that in the A group. The difference in intervertebral space height and stability of the postoperative liability gap between the two groups at the final follow-up was not statistically significant when compared with the preoperative period. The incidence of postoperative complications in the two groups was smaller in the B group than in the A group, and the difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusions: UBE can effectively treat patients with single-segment CRS and promote rapid recovery.
期刊介绍:
"European Spine Journal" is a publication founded in response to the increasing trend toward specialization in spinal surgery and spinal pathology in general. The Journal is devoted to all spine related disciplines, including functional and surgical anatomy of the spine, biomechanics and pathophysiology, diagnostic procedures, and neurology, surgery and outcomes. The aim of "European Spine Journal" is to support the further development of highly innovative spine treatments including but not restricted to surgery and to provide an integrated and balanced view of diagnostic, research and treatment procedures as well as outcomes that will enhance effective collaboration among specialists worldwide. The “European Spine Journal” also participates in education by means of videos, interactive meetings and the endorsement of educative efforts.
Official publication of EUROSPINE, The Spine Society of Europe