Advances in Clinical Medicine
Vol. 13  No. 04 ( 2023 ), Article ID: 63910 , 5 pages
10.12677/ACM.2023.134774

单侧双通道内镜技术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的研究进展

麦吾兰·曼苏尔江,王翀*

新疆医科大学第一附属医院骨科中心,新疆 乌鲁木齐

收稿日期:2023年3月11日;录用日期:2023年4月7日;发布日期:2023年4月14日

摘要

目的:为单侧双通道内镜技术(unilateral biportal endoscopy, UBE)治疗腰椎退行性疾病的研究和进展做出总结。方法:通过广泛查阅国内外使用UBE技术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的文献资料,对UBE技术的发展及演变历史、在临床中的应用、手术操作要点以及UBE技术的不足、优势及展望等方面进行综述。结果:UBE作为一种新型的脊柱内镜手术,是腰椎微创减压和融合手术的新的选择,但与传统开放手术、显微镜及单通道内镜技术比较,其长期疗效还需更高等级的科学证据支持。结论:单侧双通道内镜技术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效较好,手术创伤及并发症较少,是治疗腰椎退行性疾病的一种安全有效的手术方式。

关键词

单侧双通道内镜,腰椎退行性疾病,腰椎间盘突出症,腰椎管狭窄症,退变性腰椎滑脱症

Research Progress of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Diseases

Maiwulan Mansuerjiang, Chong Wang*

Departments of Orthopaedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi Xinjiang

Received: Mar. 11th, 2023; accepted: Apr. 7th, 2023; published: Apr. 14th, 2023

ABSTRACT

Objective: To summarize the research progress of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal diseases. Methods: Through extensive literature review of the use of UBE technology in the treatment of UBE in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal diseases in China and abroad, the development and evolution of UBE technology, clinical application, surgical operation points, as well as the shortcomings, advantages and prospects of UBE technology were summarized. Results: As a new spinal endoscopic procedure, UBE can provide a new approach to minimally invasive lumbar decompression and interbody fusion surgery. However, its long-term efficacy needs to be supported by high-grade evidence compared to conventional surgery, full endoscopic and microscopy. This is also a limitation of this study, so a multicenter study with a large sample and long-term follow-up is needed to assess the long-term efficacy of this technique. Conclusion: UBE is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal diseases, with good clinical efficacy and less surgical trauma and complications.

Keywords:Biportal Endoscopic, Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Diseases, Lumbar Disc Herniation, Lumbar Spinal Stenosis, Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

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. UBE技术的发展历史

单侧双通道内镜(unilateral biportal endoscopy, UBE)是一种新的脊柱微创手术形式。UBE的根源可以追溯到20世纪80年代,Kambin试图将关节镜应用于腰椎间盘切除术 [1] 。在过去的几十年里,主流的脊柱手术都是开放性手术。然而,在最近几年里脊柱内窥镜技术的兴起为微创脊柱手术开辟了新的方向。目前微创手术(minimally invasive surgery, MIS)已经成为脊柱外科的主流概念,它主要是利用皮肤小切口在实现神经充分减压的同时保留了软组织和骨性解剖结构,减少了肌肉的牵拉损伤,相对于传统术式,具有明显优势 [2] 。与普通外科和胸外科的内窥镜技术发展趋势相反,单通道内窥镜技术在脊柱内窥镜中率先流行起来。椎间孔镜技术在腰椎融合手术中的应用也越来越广泛 [3] [4] [5] 。虽然椎间孔镜进行融合的创伤较小,但是不足之处在于镜下处理椎间盘效率不高,手术操作时间较长,植骨面积较小。随后更多外科医生使用大通道内镜下行腰椎融合术,它可以使用更大直径的手术器械,通过椎板间入路进一步提升了腰椎管减压效果 [6] 。但是,由于手术耗时长、效率低、费用高及学习曲线长,大通道内镜下融合术的普及和推广依然较为困难 [7] 。2017年,单侧双通道内镜(unilateral biportal endoscopy, UBE)技术的概念第一次被Heo等研究者所提出,并通过该技术进行了腰椎间融合术,得到了不错的临床效果 [8] 。UBE分两个独立的通道,即观察通道和工作通道,通过液体持续灌注获得清晰的视野。所以UBE拥有更大的视野和更灵活的操作空间,而且相对于单轴内镜,它的学习曲线会更短,外科医生更加容易掌握。在UBE理论和手术技术不断完善的今天,UBE技术在腰椎退行性疾病的治疗中的使用逐渐增多 [9] [10] [11] [12] 。

2. UBE技术在腰椎退行性疾病中的临床应用

随着UBE技术在国内外的迅速发展,越来越多的学者将此技术应用到治疗腰椎退行性疾病中。在一个平均随访时间为28个月的研究中,作者在对94名被诊断为腰椎管狭窄症的患者进行UBE下椎体间减压术,平均随访时间为28个月。Macnab标准显示87%的患者获得了良好或更好的疗效,ODI指数从64.2 ± 10.0分改善到23.0 ± 20.8分。在这项研究中,有6例发生了硬膜撕裂,通过保守治疗进行了自我修复,没有行任何翻修的手术 [13] 。在另一项对58例腰椎管狭窄症患者进行UBE下椎体间减压术的研究中,81%的患者预后良好或更好。8例患者发生手术相关并发症,术后硬脊膜外血肿1例,硬脊膜撕裂2例,短暂性腿部麻木2例,术后头痛3例 [14] 。在一项使用30˚关节镜对105例腰椎间盘突出和腰椎管狭窄患者进行UBE下椎体间减压术的研究中,ODI指数从67.4 ± 11.5分改善到22.9 ± 12.4分,其中有2例硬膜撕裂和1例术后硬膜外血肿 [15] 。近年来,单侧双通道内镜技术下后路腰椎椎体间融合术的报道逐渐增多。研究报道UBE下椎间融合使用TLIF术式较多,但也有一部分作者使用PLIF术式 [16] 。Park等 [17] 在一项研究中比较了UBE下腰椎椎间融合术(Unilateral biportal endoscopy Lumbar interbody fusion, ULIF)和PLIF的临床疗效,结果表明PLIF组的腰痛VAS评分在术后1年明显改善,而ULIF组腰痛VAS评分在术后7天时得到明显改善,而,这两组手术的并发症的发生率和融合率差异没有统计学意义。

3. UBE手术的技术要点

以我们的手术为例,① 需充分做好术前准备:患者采取俯卧位,通过C型臂透视确定责任间隙,标记目标椎体椎弓根及上位棘突基底与椎板下缘交界移行处体表投影。术区常规消毒铺巾,铺单形成“U”型防水槽,建立一个生理盐水通畅流出的排水系统,并于术区贴护肤膜。术者站在减压侧,对于双侧有症状者,以症状严重侧为首选入路;② 建立通道及定位过程:用尖刀片在标识的上位棘突基底与椎板下缘交界移行处上下各约1 cm、患侧椎弓根外侧缘各做一纵行切口。以左侧入路为例,头端观察通道切口约1 cm、尾端工作通道切口约1.2 cm。经通道插入初级扩张器和椎板解剖器,将其穿过椎旁肌并汇集于同侧上位棘突基底与椎板下缘交界处的骨性表面,C臂透视明确汇集点位置。沿棘突基底向外侧逐级扩张创造工作空间,取出扩张器置入关节镜冲洗系统;③ 镜下操作要点:在内镜直视下清理骨性结构和软组织并仔细止血。向外、下显露下关节尖部及关节突关节,向上显露棘突与上位椎板下缘移行部,向下显露下位椎板的上缘,初步形成一个操作空间,我们称为“初始的营地”。切除下关节突、一部分上位椎板下缘及部分下位椎板上缘,显露黄韧带的起点和止点;在行走根和出口根之间创造空间,用磨钻及枪钳去除部分上关节突以扩大同侧神经根管入口和骨性侧隐窝。对于严重的中央管狭窄、双侧侧隐窝区狭窄或有双侧症状的患者,可同时行对侧减压。适当倾斜内镜,使用带保护鞘的磨钻、骨刀小心去除棘突根部骨性结构以显露黄韧带中线。调整内镜方向,将内镜镜头跨过黄韧带中间缝隙实现“过顶”技术。④ 手术完成的标志:在完成骨性减压后,用枪钳、髓核钳完整地去除覆盖硬脊膜和神经根上的黄韧带,证实硬脊膜和双侧神经根完全显露,表面血管充盈并自由搏动,神经根恢复正常形态和走行并可见神经根松弛标志着充分减压。

4. UBE技术的不足、优势及展望

UBE作为一种新型的脊柱内镜手术,是腰椎微创减压和融合手术的新的选择,但与传统开放手术、显微镜及单通道内镜技术比较,其长期疗效还需更高等级的科学证据支持。这也是本研究的局限性,所以需要多中心、更大样本量的研究及长期的随访评估此技术的长期疗效。文献报道在学习曲线早期应用UBE技术容易发生围手术期并发症,其中最常见的并发症为神经根损伤和硬膜撕裂,它们的发生率大概在5%~7.2% [8] [16] [18] 。除并发症外,外科医生和患者也不能忽视累积的辐射暴露。Meter等人研究表明,在PELD、UBE和MED三种术式中,PELD带来了最多的辐射暴露,其次是UBE和MED [19] 。然而,比较辐射暴露还缺乏高质量的RCT研究。近年来,随着内镜技术的兴起,学者们认识到,由于UBE的双通道设计,观察和工作通道相对独立,UBE具有操作方便灵活、具有充足的观察和操作空间、使用常规手术器械、效率高等优点 [20] [21] 。Kim等人分析了60例采用UBE技术进行椎间盘切除术的患者,发现UBE组患者的临床效果与传统的开放手术相似。但住院时间相对较短,腰痛的早期症状相对较轻 [18] 。Heo [22] 比较了UBE技术、传统显微镜技术和单通道脊柱内镜技术对中央管狭窄患者单纯减压的应用,发现UBE技术的临床效果与其他技术相似,但与传统技术相比,它具有术后早期腰痛程度较轻、舒适度相对较高的优点。Kang [23] 比较了UBE腰椎椎间融合术与显微内镜辅助腰椎融合术,发现两者的临床结果相似,但UBE组失血量和术后引流量相对较少。综上所述,UBE治疗腰椎退行性疾病具有良好的临床疗效,手术创伤及并发症较少,是治疗腰椎退行性疾病的一种安全有效的手术方式。

文章引用

麦吾兰·曼苏尔江,王 翀. 单侧双通道内镜技术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的研究进展
Research Progress of Unilateral Biportal En-doscopy in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Diseases[J]. 临床医学进展, 2023, 13(04): 5474-5478. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2023.134774

参考文献

  1. 1. Kambin, P. and Gellman, H. (1983) Percutaneous Lateral Discectomy of the Lumbar Spine: A Preliminary Report. Clini-cal Orthopaedics and Related Research, 174, 127-132. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198304000-00017

  2. 2. 田大胜, 刘建军, 朱斌, 等. 单边双通道内镜技术治疗腰椎间盘突出症和腰椎椎管狭窄症[J]. 中华骨科杂志, 2020, 40(17): 1155-1164.

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

  4. 4. Wu, J.L., Liu, H., Ao, S.X., et al. (2018) Percutaneous En-doscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Experience with 2-Year Follow-up. BioMed Research International, 2018, Article ID: 5806037. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5806037

  5. 5. 马远, 程省, 郭雄飞, 宋博, 王挺, 李显博, 叶向阳. 椎管狭窄症两种经椎间孔椎体间融合术比较[J]. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2020, 28(19): 1729-1733.

  6. 6. 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

  7. 7. Kim, J.-E., Yoo, H.-S., Choi, D.-J., Park, E.J. and Jee, S.-M. (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

  8. 8. 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

  9. 9. Torudom, Y. and Dilokhuttakarn, T. (2016) Two Portal Percu-taneous Endoscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Preliminary Study. Asian Spine Journal, 10, 335-342. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2016.10.2.335

  10. 10. Eun, S.S., Eum, J.H., Lee, S.H. and Sabal, L.A. (2017) Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression for Lumbar Disk Herniation and Spinal Canal Stenosis: A Technical Note. Journal of Neurological Surgery Part A, 78, 390-396. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1592157

  11. 11. Lee, J.H., Choi, K.-C., Shim, H.K., Shin, S.H. and Lee, D.C. (2017) Percutaneous Biportal Endoscopic Surgery for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases. Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Sur-gery and Technique, 2, 15-19. https://doi.org/10.21182/jmisst.2017.00178

  12. 12. 吕剑伟, 朱斌, 钟华璋, 刘建军, 尤星宇, 余航, 赵庆中, 田大胜. 单侧双通道内镜下经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的早期疗效分析[J]. 中国脊柱脊髓杂志, 2022, 32(7): 586-594.

  13. 13. Soliman, H.M. (2015) Irrigation Endoscopic Decompressive Laminotomy. A New Endo-scopic Approach for Spinal Stenosis Decompression. The Spine Journal, 15, 2282-2289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.07.009

  14. 14. Eum, J.H., Heo, D.H., Son, S.K. and Park, C.K. (2016) Percuta-neous Biportal Endoscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Re-sults. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 24, 602-607. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.7.SPINE15304

  15. 15. Kim, J.-E. and Choi, D.-J. (2018) Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression by 30° Endoscopy in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Technical Note and Preliminary Report. Journal of Or-thopaedics, 15, 366-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2018.01.039

  16. 16. 朱斌, 田大胜, 陈磊, 等. 单边双通道内镜技术在腰椎疾病中的应用研究进展[J]. 中华骨科杂志, 2020, 40(15): 1030-1038.

  17. 17. 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) Compared With Conventional Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF): 1-Year Follow-up. Neurosurgical Re-view, 42, 753-761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-019-01114-3

  18. 18. Kim, S.-K., Kang, S.-S., Hong, Y.-H., Park, S.-W. and Lee, S.-C. (2018) Clinical Comparison of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Technique versus Open Microdiscectomy for Sin-gle-Level Lumbar Discectomy: A Multicenter, Retrospective Analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 13, Article No. 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0725-1

  19. 19. Merter, A., Karaeminogullari, O. and Shibayama, M. (2020) Comparison of Radiation Exposure among 3 Different Endoscopic Diskectomy Techniques for Lumbar Disk Herniation. World Neurosurgery, 139, e572-e579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.04.079

  20. 20. Choi, C.-M. (2020) Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery (BESS): Considering Merits and Pitfalls. Journal of Spine Surgery, 6, 457-465. https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2019.09.29

  21. 21. 王宁, 贝朝涌, 万健, 王洪岗. 单侧双通道脊柱内镜技术行腰椎椎间融合术学习曲线研究[J]. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2022, 36(10): 1229-1233.

  22. 22. Heo, D.H., Lee, D.C. and Park, C.K. (2019) Comparative Analysis of Three Types of Minimally Invasive Decompressive Surgery for Lumbar Central Stenosis: Biportal Endoscopy, Uniportal Endoscopy, and Microsurgery. Neurosurgical Focus, 46, E9. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.2.FOCUS197

  23. 23. Kang, M.-S., You, K.-H., Choi, J.-Y., et al. (2021) Minimally In-vasive 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

  24. NOTES

    *通讯作者。

期刊菜单