Objective To compare the clinical efficacy between one-stage combined posterior and anterior approaches (PA-approach) and simple posterior approach (P-approach) for lower lumbar tuberculosis so as to provide some clinical reference for different surgical procedures of lower lumbar tuberculosis. Methods A retrospective analysis was made on the clinical data of 48 patients with lower lumbar tuberculosis treated between January 2010 and November 2014. Of them, 28 patients underwent debridement, bone graft, and instrumentation by PA-approach (PA-approach group), and 20 patients underwent debridement, interbody fusion, and instrumentation by P-approach (P-approach group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, course of the disease, and destructive segment between 2 groups (P>0.05). The operation time, blood loss, bed rest time, visual analogue scale (VAS) and complication were recorded and compared between 2 groups; American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) grade was used to evaluate the nerve function, Bridwell classification and CT fusion criteria to assess bone fusion, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) to evaluate the tuberculosis control, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) to estimate lumbar function. Results The operation time, blood loss, and the bed rest time of the P-approach group were significantly less than those of the PA-approach group (P<0.05). Iliac vessels rupture was observed in 1 case of the PA-approach group and sinus tract formed in 2 cases of the P-approach group. The patients were followed up 13-35 months (mean, 15.7 months) in the PA-approach group and 15-37 months (mean, 16.3 months) in the P-approach group. At last follow-up, common toxic symptom of tuberculosis disappeared and the ASIA scale was improved to grade E. The VAS score and ESR at 1 year after operation and last follow-up, and ODI at last follow-up were significantly improved when compared with preoperative ones in 2 groups (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the 2 groups (P>0.05). During follow-up, no internal fixation broken, loosening, or pulling was found. Bridwell bone fusion rates were 89.29% (25/28) and 80.00% (16/20) respectively, and CT fusion rates were 96.43% (27/28) and 90.00% (18/20) respectively, showing no significant difference between the 2 groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Both one-stage PA-approach and simple P-approach could obtain good clinical efficacy. The PA-approach should be selected for patients with anterior-vertebral destroy, presacral or psoas major muscles abscess, and multiple vertebral body destroy, while P-approach should be selected for patient who could gain a good debridement evaluated by imaging before operation, especially for patients with middle-vertebral body destroy, block the iliac blood vessels and old patients.
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy discectomy (UBED) versus percutaneous uniportal endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) for the treatment of single lumbar disc herniation (sLDH). Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 52 patients with sLDH who underwent UBED or PEID at the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University between January 2022 and June 2023. Surgical parameters, clinical outcomes, and imaging indicators were compared between the two groups. For normally distributed quantitative data, mean ± standard deviation was used for representation, while for non-normally distributed data, median (lower quartile, upper quartile) was used for representation. Results No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of gender, age, disease duration, affected segments, preoperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain, preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, preoperative disc height ratio (DHR), or preoperative sagittal rotation angle (SRA) (P>0.05). All patients successfully underwent surgery. In the UBED group, one case of cerebrospinal fluid leakage and one case of pseudomeningocele syndrome occurred postoperatively. In the PEID group, two cases of pseudomeningocele syndrome occurred postoperatively, and one case of recurrence was observed 1.5 years after surgery. Both groups showed significant improvements in VAS scores for low back and leg pain and ODI scores postoperatively and during follow-up compared to preoperative values (P<0.05). Significant differences were found between the UBED and PEID groups in terms of operation time [(138.3±28.0) vs. (113.5±34.2) min], intraoperative blood loss [(58.6±24.4) vs. (45.7±20.3) mL], postoperative drainage volume [(48.7±16.9) vs. (30.0±13.4) mL], postoperative ambulation time [3.4 (3.0, 4.0) vs. 2.3 (2.0, 3.0) d], and VAS scores for low back pain on postoperative Day 1 (2.87±0.55 vs. 2.24±0.65) (P<0.05). No significant difference was observed in intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency, VAS scores for leg pain on postoperative Day 1, VAS scores for low back and leg pain 6 months and 1 year after operation, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complication rates, ODI scores 1 year after operation, DHR 1 year after operation, SRA 1 year after operation, or MacNab evaluation 1 year after operation (P>0.05). Conclusions Both UBED and PEID are safe and effective treatments for sLDH, with similar complication rates and clinical outcomes. However, PEID demonstrates advantages in reducing soft tissue damage and accelerating perioperative recovery.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) by unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression with ultrasounic osteotome and traditional tool total laminectomy decompression PLIF in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods The clinical data of 48 patients with single-stage degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis between January 2017 and June 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 27 patients were treated with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression PLIF with ultrasonic osteotome (group A), and 21 patients were treated with total laminectomy and decompression PLIF with traditional tools (group B). There was no significant difference in gender, age, stenosis segment, degree of spinal canal stenosis, and disease duration between the two groups (P>0.05), which was comparable. The time of laminectomy decompression, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and the occurrence of operation-related complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. Bridwell bone graft fusion standard was applied to evaluate bone graft fusion at last follow-up. Visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate the patients’ lumbar and back pain at 3 days, 3 months, and 6 months after operation. Oswestry disability index (ODI) score was used to evaluate the patients’ lumbar and back function improvement before operation and at 6 months after operation. Results The time of laminectomy decompression in group A was significantly longer than that in group B, and the intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume were significantly less than those in group B (P<0.05). There was no nerve root injury, dural tear, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, and hematoma formation during and after operation in the two groups. All patients were followed up after operation, the follow-up time in group A was 6-18 months (mean, 10.5 months) and in group B was 6-20 months (mean, 9.3 months). There was no complication such as internal fixation fracture, loosening and nail pulling occurred during the follow-up period of the two groups. There was no significant difference in VAS scores between the two groups at 3 days after operation (t=1.448, P=0.154); the VAS score of group A was significantly lower than that of group B at 3 and 6 months after operation (P<0.05). The ODI scores of the two groups were significantly improved at 6 months after operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in ODI scores between the two groups before operation and at 6 months after operation (P>0.05). At last follow-up, according to Bridwell criteria, there was no significant difference in bone graft fusion between the two groups (Z=–0.065, P=0.949); the fusion rates of groups A and B were 96.3% (26/27) and 95.2% (20/21) respectively, with no significant difference (χ2=0.001, P=0.979 ). Conclusion The treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression PLIF with ultrasonic osteotome can achieve similar effectiveness as traditional tool total laminectomy and decompression PLIF, reduce intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage, and reduce lumbar back pain during short-term follow-up. It is a safe and effective operation method.