|
|
UBE-LIF与MIS-TLIF治疗腰椎管滑脱的临床疗效与安全性的Meta分析
|
Abstract:
目的：通过Meta分析评价单侧双通道内镜腰椎椎体间融合术(Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion, UBE-LIF)与微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, MIS-TLIF)治疗腰椎管滑脱(Lumbar spondylolisthesis, LSP)的临床疗效与安全性。方法：检索PubMed、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、Embase、Medline、CNKI、万方、维普数据库进行了全面搜索关于UBE-LIF和MIS-TLIF治疗LSP的临床预后和并发症等相关研究。提取纳入研究的结局指标数据，包括视觉模拟评分(Visual analogue scale, VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index, ODI)、一般评估指标、手术时间、术中出血量和手术并发症。提取数据后通过Review Manager 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果：共纳入11篇文献，包括1篇随机对照研究、7篇回顾性研究、3篇队列研究，总样本量1034例，其中UBE-LIF组患者502例，MIS-TLIF组患者532例。Meta分析结果显示，MIS-TLIF组手术时间[MD = 23.25, 95% CI (12.41, 34.10), P < 0.0001]方面优于UBE-LIF组，然而在术中失血量[MD = ？58.22, 95% CI (？85.49, ？30.96), P < 0.00001]方面，UBE-LIF组优于MIS-TILF组；然而在手术并发症[MD = 0.66, 95% CI (0.39, 1.12), P = 0.12]等方面无明显统计学差异；在VAS及ODI评分方面，早中期时期内，UBE组均优于MIS组[MD = ？1.09, 95% CI (？1.35, ？0.83), P < 0.00001]、[MD = ？1.09, 95% CI (？1.35, ？0.83), P< 0.00001]、[MD = ？2.76, 95% CI (？0.12, ？1.36), P = 0.0001]；在晚期恢复中两组未见明显差异[MD = 0.09, 95% CI (？0.22, 0.03), P =0.15]、[MD = ？0.64, 95% CI (？1.37, 0.10), P = 0.09]。结论：UBE-LIF和MIS-TLIF均是治疗腰椎管滑脱的微创方式，两者都具有明显的临床疗效和安全性，在手术并发症方面无明显差异。UBE-LIF在术中出血量、术后早期疼痛恢复方面具有优势，然而MIS-TLIF具有手术时间短、学习曲线平缓等优点。
Objectives: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-LIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis (LSP) by a Meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted through PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, Medline, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases to retrieve relevant studies on the clinical outcomes and complications of UBE-LIF and MIS-TLIF in the treatment of LSP. Outcome measures extracted from the included studies comprised: visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry disability index (ODI), general assessment indicators, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and surgical complications. Following data extraction, a Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software. Results: A total of 11 studies were included, comprising 1 randomized controlled trial, 7 retrospective studies, and 3 cohort studies, with a combined sample size of 1034 patients, including 502 patients in the UBE-LIF group and 532 patients in the MIS-TLIF group. The
| [1] | Harms, J.G. and Jeszenszky, D. (1998) The Unilateral Transforaminal Approach for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Operative Orthopädie und Traumatologie, 10, 90-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-006-0112-7 |
| [2] | Foley, K.T., Holly, L.T. and Schwender, J.D. (2003) Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion. Spine, 28, S26-S35. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000076895.52418.5e |
| [3] | 田大胜, 朱斌, 荆珏华, 单侧双通道内镜技术在脊柱外科的应用拓展与相关问题[J]. 中华医学杂志, 2022, 102(41): 3241-3245. |
| [4] | 王湘斌, 刘东山, 隆宇斌, 等. 单侧双通道内镜技术在脊柱疾病中应用的研究进展[J]. 中华医学杂志, 2023, 103(39): 3144-3148. |
| [5] | Heo, D.H., Son, S.K., Eum, J.H. and Park, C.K. (2017) Fully Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Percutaneous Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Technique: Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Results. Neurosurgical Focus, 43, E8. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.5.focus17146 |
| [6] | Kim, J., Yoo, H., Choi, D., Park, E.J. and Jee, S. (2021) Comparison of Minimal Invasive versus Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Level Lumbar Disease. Clinical Spine Surgery, 34, E64-E71. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000001024 |
| [7] | Huang, X., Wang, W., Chen, G., Guan, X., Zhou, Y. and Tang, Y. (2023) Comparison of Surgical Invasiveness, Hidden Blood Loss, and Clinical Outcome between Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 24, Article No. 274. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06374-1 |
| [8] | Kang, M., You, K., Choi, J., Heo, D., Chung, H. and Park, H. (2021) Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using the Biportal Endoscopic Techniques versus Microscopic Tubular Technique. The Spine Journal, 21, 2066-2077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2021.06.013 |
| [9] | Yu, Q., Hu, X., Pan, X., Kong, X., Zhang, J., Yu, Y., et al. (2023) Early Efficacy and Safety of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Minimal Invasive in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases. Clinical Spine Surgery, 36, E390-E396. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000001470 |
| [10] | Gatam, A.R., Gatam, L., Mahadhipta, H., Ajiantoro, A., Luthfi, O. and Aprilya, D. (2021) Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Technical Note and an Outcome Comparison with the Conventional Minimally Invasive Fusion. Orthopedic Research and Reviews, 13, 229-239. https://doi.org/10.2147/orr.s336479 |
| [11] | Arunakul, R., Anumas, S., Pattharanitima, P., Susrivaraput, C. and Pholsawatchai, W. (2024) Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic versus Microscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Retrospective Study. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 19, Article No. 326. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04813-w |
| [12] | Song, X., Ren, Z., Cao, S., Zhou, W. and Hao, Y. (2023) Clinical Efficacy of Bilateral Decompression Using Biportal Endoscopic versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases. World Neurosurgery, 173, e371-e377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2023.02.059 |
| [13] | 桑龙, 吴克第, 陈文健, 等. 腰椎滑脱内镜与通道经椎间孔椎体间融合比较[J]. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2024, 32(17): 1564-1570. |
| [14] | 朱剑, 镐英杰, 任志楠, 等. 单侧双通道内镜下腰椎融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的初步研究[J]. 中国脊柱脊髓杂志, 2021, 31(11): 1026-1033. |
| [15] | 余洋, 王永涛, 谢一舟, 等. 单侧双通道脊柱内镜与3D显微镜辅助经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术治疗腰椎滑脱症的中期疗效比较[J]. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2023, 37(1): 52-58. |
| [16] | 孔凡国, 周全, 乔杨, 等. 单侧双通道内镜下与微创通道下经椎间孔腰椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效比较[J]. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2022, 36(5): 592-599. |
| [17] | 高江, 马良, 王艺, 等. 经皮内镜下经椎板间入路与微创经椎间孔入路椎间融合术治疗Ⅰ、Ⅱ度腰椎滑脱症的临床疗效对比[J]. 中国脊柱脊髓杂志, 2023, 33(11): 1003-1010. |
| [18] | Cho, J.H. (2017) Treatment Outcomes for Patients with Failed Back Surgery. Pain Physician, 1, E29-E43. https://doi.org/10.36076/ppj.2017.1.e29 |
| [19] | Lener, S., Wipplinger, C., Hernandez, R.N., Hussain, I., Kirnaz, S., Navarro-Ramirez, R., et al. (2020) Defining the MIS-TLIF: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Technologies Used by Surgeons Worldwide. Global Spine Journal, 10, 151S-167S. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568219882346 |
| [20] | Schwender, J.D., Holly, L.T., Rouben, D.P. and Foley, K.T. (2005) Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF): Technical Feasibility and Initial Results. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques, 18, S1-S6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bsd.0000132291.50455.d0 |
| [21] | Rajakumar, D., Hari, A., Krishna, M. and Rajagandhi, S. (2016) Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion—Indications and Clinical Experience. Neurology India, 64, 444-454. https://doi.org/10.4103/0028-3886.181536 |
| [22] | Jiang, C., Huang, Y.H., Zuo, H., Sun, Y. and Sun, J.F. (2022) [Clinical Effect of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion on Single-Segment Lumbar Stenosis with Instability]. Acta Academiae Medicinae Sinicae, 44, 563-569. |
| [23] | Ahn, J., Lee, H., Park, E.J., Kim, S.B., Choi, D., Kwon, Y., et al. (2019) Multifidus Muscle Changes after Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery: Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evaluation. World Neurosurgery, 130, e525-e534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.06.148 |
| [24] | Kim, J., Choi, D., Kim, M. and Park, E.J. (2019) Risk Factors of Postoperative Spinal Epidural Hematoma after Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery. World Neurosurgery, 129, e324-e329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.05.141 |
| [25] | Hsu, H., Chang, S., Yang, S.S. and Chai, C.L. (2012) Learning Curve of Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy. European Spine Journal, 22, 727-733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2540-4 |
| [26] | Anichini, G., Landi, A., Caporlingua, F., Beer-Furlan, A., Brogna, C., Delfini, R., et al. (2015) Lumbar Endoscopic Microdiscectomy: Where Are We Now? An Updated Literature Review Focused on Clinical Outcome, Complications, and Rate of Recurrence. BioMed Research International, 2015, Article ID: 417801. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/417801 |
| [27] | Park, M., Park, S., Son, S., Park, W. and Choi, S. (2019) Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ULIF) Compared with Conventional Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF): 1-Year Follow-Up. Neurosurgical Review, 42, 753-761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-019-01114-3 |
| [28] | Kim, J., Choi, D. and Park, E.J. (2019) Evaluation of Postoperative Spinal Epidural Hematoma after Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery for Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Clinical and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study. World Neurosurgery, 126, e786-e792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.02.150 |
| [29] | Lin, G., Huang, P., Kotheeranurak, V., Park, C., Heo, D., Park, C., et al. (2019) A Systematic Review of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery: Preliminary Clinical Results and Complications. World Neurosurgery, 125, 425-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.02.038 |
| [30] | Kim, W., Kim, S., Kang, S., Park, H., Han, S. and Lee, S. (2019) Pooled Analysis of Unsuccessful Percutaneous Biportal Endoscopic Surgery Outcomes from a Multi-Institutional Retrospective Cohort of 797 Cases. Acta Neurochirurgica, 162, 279-287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-019-04162-2 |
