目的:对比UBE-TLIF与MIS-TLIF在治疗单节段LSS的临床疗效。方法:对2019年01月至2021年09月收治的87例单节段LSS患者,A组43例行UBE-TLIF手术,B组44例行MIS-TLIF手术。分析对比两组患者手术时间、术中预估出血量、住院时间、手术并发症、...目的:对比UBE-TLIF与MIS-TLIF在治疗单节段LSS的临床疗效。方法:对2019年01月至2021年09月收治的87例单节段LSS患者,A组43例行UBE-TLIF手术,B组44例行MIS-TLIF手术。分析对比两组患者手术时间、术中预估出血量、住院时间、手术并发症、术后伤口VAS评分、ODI评分。结果:在手术时间上,A组显著优于B组(P 0.05)。两组患者在术后早期24 h、48 h术后伤口VAS评分存在区别(P 0.05)。2组患者术后1月、3月、6月、末次随访ODI评分较术前均明显改善(P 0.05)。A组并发症发生率为11.6% (5/43),B组并发症发生率为13.6% (6/44),差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。结论:两种技术在治疗单节段LSS均可获得良好的临床疗效,相比MIS-TLIF技术,UBE-TLIF技术具有操作灵活,节约时间等优点。Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of UBE-TLIF with MIS-TLIF in the treatment of LSS in a single segment. Methods: A total of 87 patients with single-segment LSS who were admitted from January 2019 to September 2021 were treated, group A 43 routine UBE-TLIF surgery, Group B 44 routine MIS-TLIF surgery. The analysis compared the time of operation, estimated bleeding amount during surgery, hospitalization time, surgical complications, VAS score of postoperative wound and ODI score of two groups of patients. Results: Group A was significantly better than Group B (P 0.05). There was a difference in VAS scores for wounds 24 h, 48 h early after surgery (P 0.05). The ODI scores of the two groups were significantly improved at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and the last follow-up after operation (P 0.05). The complication rate was 11.6% (5/43) in group A and 13.6% (6/44) in group B. But there was no statistical significance between groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Both UBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF have good clinical efficacy in the treatment of single-level LSS, but UBE-TLIF has the advantages of flexible operation and time saving.展开更多
文摘目的:对比UBE-TLIF与MIS-TLIF在治疗单节段LSS的临床疗效。方法:对2019年01月至2021年09月收治的87例单节段LSS患者,A组43例行UBE-TLIF手术,B组44例行MIS-TLIF手术。分析对比两组患者手术时间、术中预估出血量、住院时间、手术并发症、术后伤口VAS评分、ODI评分。结果:在手术时间上,A组显著优于B组(P 0.05)。两组患者在术后早期24 h、48 h术后伤口VAS评分存在区别(P 0.05)。2组患者术后1月、3月、6月、末次随访ODI评分较术前均明显改善(P 0.05)。A组并发症发生率为11.6% (5/43),B组并发症发生率为13.6% (6/44),差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。结论:两种技术在治疗单节段LSS均可获得良好的临床疗效,相比MIS-TLIF技术,UBE-TLIF技术具有操作灵活,节约时间等优点。Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of UBE-TLIF with MIS-TLIF in the treatment of LSS in a single segment. Methods: A total of 87 patients with single-segment LSS who were admitted from January 2019 to September 2021 were treated, group A 43 routine UBE-TLIF surgery, Group B 44 routine MIS-TLIF surgery. The analysis compared the time of operation, estimated bleeding amount during surgery, hospitalization time, surgical complications, VAS score of postoperative wound and ODI score of two groups of patients. Results: Group A was significantly better than Group B (P 0.05). There was a difference in VAS scores for wounds 24 h, 48 h early after surgery (P 0.05). The ODI scores of the two groups were significantly improved at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and the last follow-up after operation (P 0.05). The complication rate was 11.6% (5/43) in group A and 13.6% (6/44) in group B. But there was no statistical significance between groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Both UBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF have good clinical efficacy in the treatment of single-level LSS, but UBE-TLIF has the advantages of flexible operation and time saving.
