Advances in Clinical Medicine
Vol. 13  No. 08 ( 2023 ), Article ID: 70800 , 5 pages
10.12677/ACM.2023.1381827

脊柱内镜经椎板间入路治疗腰椎滑脱症的现状与前景

高江,孟祥玉

新疆医科大学第六附属医院脊柱外科,新疆 乌鲁木齐

收稿日期:2023年7月17日;录用日期:2023年8月8日;发布日期:2023年8月17日

摘要

腰椎融合术是治疗腰椎滑脱症的常见手术方式,传统开放腰椎融合术可应用的手术入路较多,其中经后路腰椎融合术(PLIF)是治疗腰椎滑脱的常用术式,近年来,脊柱内镜作为一项治疗腰椎滑脱的新技术,其手术入路有椎间孔和椎板间两种入路方式,其中经皮内镜经椎板间入路(PE-PLIF)因创伤小,恢复快等优点逐渐得到关注,而现有文献对其技术的全面总结较少,故本文对脊柱内镜融合手术适应症,手术技术,历史、现状及前景展开叙述。

关键词

腰椎滑脱,脊柱内镜,综述

Present Situation and Prospect of Spinal Endoscopic Interlaminar Approach in the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Jiang Gao, Xiangyu Meng

Spine Surgery, Department of Orthopedics, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi Xinjiang

Received: Jul. 17th, 2023; accepted: Aug. 8th, 2023; published: Aug. 17th, 2023

ABSTRACT

Lumbar interbody fusion is a common surgical method for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Traditional open lumbar fusion can be used in many ways, among which posterior lumbar fusion (PLIF) is a common method for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. In recent years, spinal endoscopy as a new technique for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis, has two surgical approaches: intervertebral foramen and interlaminar approach. Among them, percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar approach (PE-PLIF) has been paid more and more attention because of its advantages of less trauma and rapid recovery, but there is little comprehensive summary of its techniques in the existing literature. Therefore, this paper describes the indications, surgical techniques, history, present situation and prospect of spinal endoscopic fusion.

Keywords:Lumbar Spondylolisthesis, Spinal Endoscopic, Review

Copyright © 2023 by author(s) and Hans Publishers Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

1. 定义

腰椎融合术脊椎滑脱症的定义是上一位椎体相对于下一个椎体向前滑移,导致节段不稳,从而导致椎管内神经、血管受压发生慢性持续性腰痛、下肢放射性疼痛等症状 [1] [2] 。腰椎滑脱症的分型包括退行性和峡部裂型,其中以退行性腰椎滑脱为老年人常见退行性脊柱疾病类型之一,通常伴有腰椎椎管狭 [3] [4] ,保守治疗效果欠佳的老年患者通常需要手术治疗。

2. 历史回顾

Cloward等在20世纪40年代提出的经后路腰椎椎体间融合技术(posterior lumbar interbody fusion, PLIF),而经椎间孔入路腰椎椎体间融合术(transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, TLIF)由Blume等20世纪80年代提出,在90年代后期Harms等推广下被广泛应用,虽然两种术式治疗腰椎滑脱可以取得良好的效果,但存在对椎旁肌的剥离损伤较大,术中出血多,导致术后腰背部疼痛,住院时间延等问题。为了减少软组织损伤和术中出血量,2002年Foley [5] 等提次提出了微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, MIS-TLIF),并取得了良好的临床效果,该技术是通过可扩张管状通道于肌间隙入路,最大限度的减少了对椎旁肌的剥离,减少了术中出血,降低并发症发生率 [6] [7] [8] 。但是由该工作通道狭长,手术视野受限,需要较长时间的学习和练习以保证手术安全。近年来,随着手术器械的进步以及人们对微创概念的普及,内窥镜技术应运而生,并且用来治疗脊柱疾病逐渐增多。从最初单纯用于治疗腰椎间盘突出症的髓核摘除 [9] [10] 到目前的腰椎融合术,已获得一系列临床证实和研究报告 [11] - [19] 。根据手术入路不同,经皮腰椎融合术入路分为经椎间孔入路和经椎板间入路。

3. 手术适应症

对于极外侧型、中央型及复发性的椎间盘突出,经椎间孔入路更适合椎间孔入路,而双侧和中央管严重狭窄的患者椎板间入路更有优势,这种入路比椎间孔入路更容易进入对侧。全内窥镜腰椎间融合术的适应症与开放腰椎融合术的适应症相似:椎间盘突出、椎管狭窄或侧隐窝单节段不稳、腰椎滑脱引起的椎间盘源性背痛都被认为是主要的适应症,随着PE-PLIF技术的改进,多节段融合和经椎板间入路的双侧椎体减压术也可能被逐渐应用。

4. 手术方法及学习曲线

全麻生效后,患者取俯卧位,使用C形臂透视相应责任阶段并标记,于责任阶段一侧旁开2 cm处切开约0.8 cm切口,放入工作通道,透视确认位置良好,连接脊柱内镜操作系统,打开光源:经工作通道放置脊柱内镜,见病椎向前滑脱,使用射频切开黄韧带,避开硬脊膜及神经根,将工作通道固定于责任阶段椎间隙,用环钻去除部分下关节突及椎板扩大椎管成形,用镜下咬骨钳去除神经根管后侧残余黄韧带及增生骨质减压神经根管,探查见纤维环破袈龍核突出压迫神经根,用髓核钳摘除全部髓核,用半圆形套简,环形刮除终板,用环形锯铰处理软骨终板,将咬下的碎骨及4 g骨修复材料打压置入大小合适的融合器中,将融合器植入上下椎间隙内,探查神经根再无压迫,检查未见明显出血,取出工作通道。以穿刺针定位上下椎体双侧椎弓根,行椎弓根穿刺,透祝位置良好后,取4个椎弓根投影各1 cm切口,插入导丝、套管,依次于上下椎体的双侧椎弓根置入4枚适合长度空心螺钉,透视见4枚空心螺钉位置良好,用配套器械双侧安置连接棒,分别拧人内锁固定连接棒,透视位置良好。切口用生理盐水区复冲洗,查无活动性出血;清点纱布器械无误后逐层缝合关闭伤口。在学习曲线问题上,Tan [20] 等一项研究结果表明FE-PLIF的学习曲线在初始阶段是陡峭的,手术时间较长,其原因可能与重复透视、缺乏经验以及增加支架和经皮螺钉置入有关。但经过最初的十次练习,技能可以很好地掌握,根据该研究的学习曲线图表明提示随着手术经验的增加,手术时间可控制在3 h以内。为了提高安全性和效率,建议对外科医生进行更高级的内窥镜操作培训。此外,内窥镜器械的开发有助于改善FE-PLIF的学习曲线。

5. 临床疗效

对于已有的内镜下经椎板间入路治疗腰椎滑脱的文献总结,与传统开放腰椎后路减压手术及可扩张通道MIS-TLIF手术相比,该术式早期疗效更有优势,中短期临床疗效无明显差异。在Li [21] 等对22例腰椎滑脱的患者行PE-PLIF手术研究结果表明,与MIS-TLIF相比,术后一周腰背部VAS评分有显著差异表明PE-PLIF手术较MIS-TLIF手术术后早期腰背部疼痛缓解更快,这一原因可能与内镜的切口较短,对椎旁肌损伤较小有关。PE-PLIF的皮肤切口仅需8 mm的手术切口,并且在内镜的可视化下清楚显示硬膜囊、神经根层次,并利用通道保护神经根,减小神经损伤的发生率,在直视下进行射频消融,清除软组织,提前止血,并且仅对关节突关节及椎板骨性结构最小限度的予以切除、保留了韧带及肌肉的完整性,对脊柱稳定性的影响较小,显著减少了手术创伤。先前几项研究表明,在融合率方面,脊柱内镜与传统的腰椎融合术无明显差异。

6. 总结及前景

脊柱内镜下治疗腰椎滑脱的应用前景广阔,与C型臂相比,如果在术中与CT导航技术结合,可显著减少患者术中透视次数 [22] [23] 。对于Kambin三角狭窄的患者,如果将工作通道放置在太靠近出口神经根的位置,可能会刺激神经根,导致术后感觉障碍,与脊柱内镜经trans-Kambin三角入路不同的是,PE-PLIF手术是经椎板间入路,即使是脊柱内镜的初学者,在熟悉的手术视野下同样有利于达到病变结构。此外,PE-PLIF入路对于关节突关节的部分切除不仅对cage的置入提供了足够的工作空间,而且通过保留上关节突的外侧壁来保护椎间孔内和孔外的神经根。尤其是在L5/S1由于椎板间隙较宽,且不存在髂骨阻挡的问题,因此经椎板间入路比经椎间孔入路需要更少的去除关节突关节骨质。内镜下经后路腰椎椎体间融合是一个新兴且可行的手术。它实现了充分的神经减压,为需行融合手术的患者提供了除传统开放手术和MIS-TLIF的另一种选择,但其远期疗效仍需完善大样本临床研究以及长期随访。

文章引用

高 江,孟祥玉. 脊柱内镜经椎板间入路治疗腰椎滑脱症的现状与前景
Present Situation and Prospect of Spinal En-doscopic Interlaminar Approach in the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis[J]. 临床医学进展, 2023, 13(08): 13045-13049. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2023.1381827

参考文献

  1. 1. Bydon, M., Alvi, M.A. and Goyal, A. (2019) Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Definition, Natural History, Conservative Management, and Surgical Treatment. Neurosurgery Clinics of North America, 30, 299-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2019.02.003

  2. 2. Mcneely, M.L., Torrance, G. and Magee, D.J. (2003) A Systematic Review of Physiotherapy for Spondylolysis and Spondylolisthesis. Manual Therapy, 8, 80-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1356-689X(02)00066-8

  3. 3. Ferrero, E. and Guigui, P. (2018) Current Trends in the Management of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. EFORT Open Reviews, 3, 192-199. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.3.170050

  4. 4. Koreckij, T.D. and Fischgrund, J.S. (2015) Degenerative Spon-dylolisthesis. Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques, 28, 236-241. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000298

  5. 5. Foley, K.T. and Lefkowitz, M.A. (2002) Advances in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. Clinical Neurosurgery, 49, 499-517.

  6. 6. Harms, J. and Rolinger, H. (1982) Die operative Behandlung der Spondylolisthese durch dorsale Aufrichtung und ventrale Verblockung [A One-Stager Proce-dure in Operative Treatment of Spondylolistheses: Dorsal Traction-Reposition and Anterior Fusion]. Zeitschrift für Or-thopädie und Unfallchirurgie, 120, 343-347. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1051624

  7. 7. Foley, K.T., Holly, L.T. and Schwender, J.D. (2003) Minimally In-vasive Lumbar Fusion. Spine, 28, S26-35.

  8. 8. Phan, K., Rao, P.J., Kam, A.C. and Mobbs, R.J. (2015) Minimally In-vasive versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. European Spine Journal, 24, 1017-1030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3903-4

  9. 9. Kambin, P. and Sampson, S. (1986) Posterolateral percutaneous Suction-Excision of Herniated Lumbar Intervertebral Discs: Report of Interim Results. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 207, 37-43. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198606000-00008

  10. 10. Hijikata, S. (1989) Percutaneous Nucleotomy: A New Concept Technique and 12 Years’ Experience. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 238, 9-23. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198901000-00003

  11. 11. Yang, J., Liu, C., Hai, Y., et al. (2019) Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal LumbarInterbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Preliminary Report of Seven Cases with 12-Month Follow-Up. BioMed Research International, 2019, Article ID: 3091459. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3091459

  12. 12. Shen, J. (2019) Fully Endoscopic Lumbar Laminectomy and Trans-foraminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion under Local Anesthesia with Conscious Sedation: A Case Series. World Neurosur-gery, 127, e745-e750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.03.257

  13. 13. Park, M.K., Park, S.A., Son, S.K., Park, W.W. and Choi, S.H. (2019) Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ULIF) Com-pared 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

  14. 14. Ahn, Y., Youn, M.S. and Heo, D.H. (2019) Endo-scopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comprehensive Review. Expert Review of Medical Devices, 16, 373-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2019.1610388

  15. 15. Youn, M.S., Shin, J.K., Goh, T.S. and Lee, J.S. (2018) Full Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion (FELIF): Technical Note. European Spine Journal, 27, 1949-1955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5521-4

  16. 16. Osman, S.G. (2012) Endoscopic Transforaminal Decompression, Interbody Fusion, and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Implantation of the Lumbar Spine: A Case Series Report. Interna-tional Journal of Spine Surgery, 6, 157-166.

  17. 17. Jacquot, F. and Gastambide, D. (2013) Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Is It Worth It? International Orthopaedics, 37, 1507-1510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1905-6

  18. 18. Lee, S.H., Erken, H.Y. and Bae, J. (2017) Percutaneous Trans-foraminal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Clinical and Radiological Results of Mean 46-Month Follow-Up. Bio-Med Research International, 2017, Article ID: 3731983. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3731983

  19. 19. Kamson, S., Lu, D., Sampson, P.D. and Zhang, Y.Y. (2019) Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Fusion Outcomes in Patients with Minimal Deformities: A Retrospective Study of Data Col-lected Between 2011 and 2015. Pain Physician, 22, 75-88. https://doi.org/10.36076/ppj/2019.22.75

  20. 20. Tan, R.C., Lv, X., Wu, P., Li, Y., Dai, Y., Jiang, B., Ren, B., Lv, G. and Wang, B. (2022) Learning Curve and Initial Outcomes of Full-Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Frontiers in Surgery, 9, Article 890689. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.890689

  21. 21. Li, Y., Dai, Y., Wang, B., Li, L., Li, P., Xu, J., Jiang, B. and Lü, G. (2020) Full-Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion via an Interlaminar Approach versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Preliminary Retrospective Study. World Neurosurgery, 144, e475-e482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.08.204

  22. 22. 胡清勇, 郭家全, 常德勇, 等. 导航系统辅助脊柱内镜手术治疗老年腰椎管狭窄[J]. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志, 2020, 35(9): 961-962.

  23. 23. 杨晋才. 经皮内镜辅助腰椎融合技术面临的问题与挑战[J]. 中华医学杂志, 2019, 99(33): 2566-2568.

期刊菜单