高级检索
当前位置: 首页 > 详情页

A Comparative Study of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression and Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression for Geriatric Patients with Lumbar Lateral Recess Stenosis

文献详情

资源类型:
WOS体系:
Pubmed体系:

收录情况: ◇ SCIE

机构: [1]Capital Med Univ, Beijing Tongren Hosp, Dept Orthoped, Beijing 100730, Peoples R China [2]Chengde Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp, Dept Orthoped, Chengde 067000, Peoples R China
出处:
ISSN:

关键词: lateral recess stenosis unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression endoscopic minimally invasive surgery

摘要:
Purpose: The purpose of this research was to compare the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression (UBE) and percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) in the treatment of elderly patients with single-level lumbar lateral recess stenosis (LRS).Materials and Methods: Data from January 2020 to March 2022 were analyzed. Thirty-eight patients in the PTED group and thirty-nine patients in the UBE group completed the minimum 12-month follow-up. The demographic data and perioperative outcomes were reviewed. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the VAS for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the modified MacNab criteria.Results: Both groups of patients completed surgery and a one-year follow-up. There was no significant difference between the two groups in demographics data. UBE has the advantage in operative duration and X-ray time; as far as incision length, blood loss, and drainage volume are concerned, PTED is advantageous. Under the modified MacNab criteria, UBE exhibited a good-to-excellent rate similar to that of PTED (84.6% vs 81.6%, P>0.05). There were no significant differences at any point in time between UBE and PTED with respect to ODI, VAS, or back pain scores (P>0.05). UBE and PTED did not differ significantly in terms of complications.Conclusion: Both PTED and UBE achieved favorable outcomes in single-level LRS. For operative time and X-ray times, UBE is more advantageous, while PTED offers better estimates of blood loss, incision length, and drainage volume.

语种:
被引次数:
WOS:
PubmedID:
中科院(CAS)分区:
出版当年[2022]版:
大类 | 3 区 医学
小类 | 4 区 临床神经病学
最新[2025]版:
大类 | 3 区 医学
小类 | 3 区 临床神经病学
JCR分区:
出版当年[2021]版:
Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
最新[2024]版:
Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY

影响因子: 最新[2024版] 最新五年平均 出版当年[2021版] 出版当年五年平均 出版前一年[2020版] 出版后一年[2022版]

第一作者:
第一作者机构: [1]Capital Med Univ, Beijing Tongren Hosp, Dept Orthoped, Beijing 100730, Peoples R China [2]Chengde Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp, Dept Orthoped, Chengde 067000, Peoples R China
共同第一作者:
通讯作者:
推荐引用方式(GB/T 7714):
APA:
MLA:

资源点击量:28508 今日访问量:0 总访问量:1584 更新日期:2025-09-01 建议使用谷歌、火狐浏览器 常见问题

版权所有©2020 首都医科大学附属北京同仁医院 技术支持:重庆聚合科技有限公司 地址:北京市东城区东交民巷1号(100730)