双侧椎板间减压与经典椎板切除术的比较

Ehtisham Ahmed khan Afridi, Gohar Ali, Mohammad Wasim, Aqsa Shahzadi, Sidra Asghar
{"title":"双侧椎板间减压与经典椎板切除术的比较","authors":"Ehtisham Ahmed khan Afridi, Gohar Ali, Mohammad Wasim, Aqsa Shahzadi, Sidra Asghar","doi":"10.36552/pjns.v26i4.800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective:  The study compared the postoperative back pain VAS score in bilateral interlaminar and classic laminectomy techniques in patients with lumbar canal stenosis. \nMaterial and Methods:  This randomized controlled experiment was carried out at Ayub Teaching Hospital's Neurosurgery Department. 30 patients were in the bilateral interlaminar (BIL) group (A) and 30 were in the traditional laminectomy group (B). The bilateral interlaminar decompression technique was carried out utilizing the operating microscope. Both groups employed facet joint undercutting to reduce the 61-facet joint excision. All patients had postoperative CT scans to assess how well the decompression went. Postoperative VAS score was stratified to age, gender, duration of complaints, and duration of the procedure. \nResults:  In group A, the mean age of patients was 51.10 years while in group B, the mean age was 54.500 years. There was a male dominance of male patients in both groups. The baseline mean VAS score was 7.9 in group A and group B both. The duration of the procedure was 71.2 minutes in group A, and 104.7 minutes in group B. Mean postoperative VAS score was 5.4 in group A and 3.3 in group B. There existed a significant difference in mean postoperative VAS scores between groups concerning gender, the duration of complaints, and procedures. \nConclusion:  In patients with lumbar canal stenosis, bilateral interlaminar allows for safe and adequate spinal canal decompression. \nKeywords:  Lumbar canal stenosis (LCS), Bilateral Interlaminar (BIL), Classic Laminectomy, Visual Analog Scale (VAS).","PeriodicalId":19963,"journal":{"name":"Pakistan Journal Of Neurological Surgery","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lumbar Canal Stenosis Decompression Using Bilateral Interlaminar Versus Classic Laminectomy Technique\",\"authors\":\"Ehtisham Ahmed khan Afridi, Gohar Ali, Mohammad Wasim, Aqsa Shahzadi, Sidra Asghar\",\"doi\":\"10.36552/pjns.v26i4.800\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective:  The study compared the postoperative back pain VAS score in bilateral interlaminar and classic laminectomy techniques in patients with lumbar canal stenosis. \\nMaterial and Methods:  This randomized controlled experiment was carried out at Ayub Teaching Hospital's Neurosurgery Department. 30 patients were in the bilateral interlaminar (BIL) group (A) and 30 were in the traditional laminectomy group (B). The bilateral interlaminar decompression technique was carried out utilizing the operating microscope. Both groups employed facet joint undercutting to reduce the 61-facet joint excision. All patients had postoperative CT scans to assess how well the decompression went. Postoperative VAS score was stratified to age, gender, duration of complaints, and duration of the procedure. \\nResults:  In group A, the mean age of patients was 51.10 years while in group B, the mean age was 54.500 years. There was a male dominance of male patients in both groups. The baseline mean VAS score was 7.9 in group A and group B both. The duration of the procedure was 71.2 minutes in group A, and 104.7 minutes in group B. Mean postoperative VAS score was 5.4 in group A and 3.3 in group B. There existed a significant difference in mean postoperative VAS scores between groups concerning gender, the duration of complaints, and procedures. \\nConclusion:  In patients with lumbar canal stenosis, bilateral interlaminar allows for safe and adequate spinal canal decompression. \\nKeywords:  Lumbar canal stenosis (LCS), Bilateral Interlaminar (BIL), Classic Laminectomy, Visual Analog Scale (VAS).\",\"PeriodicalId\":19963,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pakistan Journal Of Neurological Surgery\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pakistan Journal Of Neurological Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36552/pjns.v26i4.800\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pakistan Journal Of Neurological Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36552/pjns.v26i4.800","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

目的:比较双侧椎板间切除术与经典椎板切除术治疗腰椎管狭窄患者术后腰痛VAS评分。材料与方法:在Ayub教学医院神经外科进行随机对照实验,30例患者分为双侧椎板间(BIL)组(A)和传统椎板切除术组(B),利用手术显微镜行双侧椎板间减压术。两组均采用小关节突切术减少61个小关节突的切除。所有患者术后均进行CT扫描以评估减压效果。术后VAS评分按年龄、性别、主诉持续时间和手术持续时间分层。结果:A组患者平均年龄为51.10岁,B组患者平均年龄为54.500岁。两组患者均以男性为主。A组和B组基线平均VAS评分均为7.9分。手术持续时间A组为71.2分钟,b组为104.7分钟。术后VAS平均评分A组为5.4分,b组为3.3分。术后VAS平均评分在性别、投诉持续时间和手术过程方面存在显著差异。结论:对于腰椎管狭窄的患者,双侧椎间层可以安全、充分地进行椎管减压。关键词:腰椎管狭窄(LCS),双侧椎板间(BIL),经典椎板切除术,视觉模拟评分(VAS)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Lumbar Canal Stenosis Decompression Using Bilateral Interlaminar Versus Classic Laminectomy Technique
Objective:  The study compared the postoperative back pain VAS score in bilateral interlaminar and classic laminectomy techniques in patients with lumbar canal stenosis. Material and Methods:  This randomized controlled experiment was carried out at Ayub Teaching Hospital's Neurosurgery Department. 30 patients were in the bilateral interlaminar (BIL) group (A) and 30 were in the traditional laminectomy group (B). The bilateral interlaminar decompression technique was carried out utilizing the operating microscope. Both groups employed facet joint undercutting to reduce the 61-facet joint excision. All patients had postoperative CT scans to assess how well the decompression went. Postoperative VAS score was stratified to age, gender, duration of complaints, and duration of the procedure. Results:  In group A, the mean age of patients was 51.10 years while in group B, the mean age was 54.500 years. There was a male dominance of male patients in both groups. The baseline mean VAS score was 7.9 in group A and group B both. The duration of the procedure was 71.2 minutes in group A, and 104.7 minutes in group B. Mean postoperative VAS score was 5.4 in group A and 3.3 in group B. There existed a significant difference in mean postoperative VAS scores between groups concerning gender, the duration of complaints, and procedures. Conclusion:  In patients with lumbar canal stenosis, bilateral interlaminar allows for safe and adequate spinal canal decompression. Keywords:  Lumbar canal stenosis (LCS), Bilateral Interlaminar (BIL), Classic Laminectomy, Visual Analog Scale (VAS).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Computational biomarkers for the decision of neurosurgical treatment for brain tumors Outcomes of Management of Pituitary Adenoma by Use of Octreotide Injections Preoperatively Metallic Foreign Body in the Neck – a Rare Incidence Comparison of the Efficacy of Fusion with Non-Fusion Treatment for Recurrent Lumber Disc Herniation (RLDH) Impact of Intracranial Pressure-Monitored Therapy on Mortality in Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury
×
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