小切口有限开窗与传统扩大开窗术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效比较  

Comparison of clinical effect of small incision limited fenestration and traditional enlarged fenestration in treatment of lumbar disc herniation

作　　者：杨军[1] 韩庆[1] 徐晓丹[1] 

机构地区：[1]滁州市第二人民医院骨二科,安徽239000

出　　处：《齐齐哈尔医学院学报》2013年第20期2980-2982,共3页Journal of Qiqihar Medical University

摘　　要：目的 探讨小切口有限开窗术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效,并与传统扩大开窗术进行比较.方法 回顾2007年5月至2012年5月我科收治单节段腰椎间盘突出症患者179例,分为两组,分别接受小切口有限开窗术86例（小切口开窗组）,传统扩大开窗术93例（扩大开窗组）,观察两组的疗效及各项手术指标,并进行比较.结果 随访时间：小切口开窗组为8 ～48个月,平均38.9个月；扩大开窗组为7～50个月,平均39.6个月.按Nakai疗效标准评定,两组术后的优良率分别为96.5％和84.9％,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.两组各项手术指标的比较,小切口开窗组亦显出明显优势,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.结论 应用小切口有限开窗术治疗腰椎间盘突出症,具有创伤小、手术时间短、出血少和术后恢复快及短、中期疗效显著等优点,值得临床推广.Objective To explore the clinical effect of small incision limited fenestration in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation, and compare it with traditional enlarged fenestration. Methods We divided 179 patients with monosegment lumbar disc herniation into two groups and compared their healing effects and the operation indexes. Results The group of small incision limited fenestration were followed up for 8 - 48 months （average38.9months） , and the group of traditional enlarged fenestration were followed up for 7 -50 months （average39.6months）. According to Nakai criteria, the rates of excellent and good of two groups were 96.5% and 84.9% respectively. Small incision fenestration group showed obvious advantages. The differences between small incision limited fenestration and traditional enlarged fenestration were statistically significant （ P 〈 0. 05 ）, such as in blood loss, drainage volume, operation time, length of incision, the time lying in bed and hospital time ＇after operation. Conclusions The method of small incision limited fenestration is safe and effective with the advantages of minimal damage, short operation time, less blood loss, more rapid recovery, and so on. It has obvious better clinical effect and thus it is worth promoting.

关 键 词：小切口有限开窗 腰椎间盘突出症 髓核摘除术 传统扩大开窗 

分 类 号：R681.53[医药卫生—骨科学]