切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版) ›› 2021, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (03) : 232 -238. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-9450.2021.03.012

所属专题: 文献

论著

G型臂辅助下等离子射频消融术联合臭氧治疗包容型腰椎间盘突出症的临床观察及其复发的影响因素分析
黄磊1,(), 石可松1, 焦权明1, 张涛1, 孟朋1   
  1. 1. 102208 北京市昌平区中西医结合医院骨三科
  • 收稿日期:2021-04-10 出版日期:2021-06-01
  • 通信作者: 黄磊
  • 基金资助:
    北京市昌平区卫生科技发展专项(昌卫科2018-2-14)

Clinical observation of G-arm assisted plasma radiofrequency ablation combined with ozone in the treatment of inclusive lumbar disc herniation and analysis of the influencing factors of recurrence

Lei Huang1,(), Kesong Shi1, Quanming Jiao1, Tao Zhang1, Peng Meng1   

  1. 1. Department of Third Orthopedics, Beijing Changping Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine, Beijing 102208, China
  • Received:2021-04-10 Published:2021-06-01
  • Corresponding author: Lei Huang
引用本文:

黄磊, 石可松, 焦权明, 张涛, 孟朋. G型臂辅助下等离子射频消融术联合臭氧治疗包容型腰椎间盘突出症的临床观察及其复发的影响因素分析[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2021, 16(03): 232-238.

Lei Huang, Kesong Shi, Quanming Jiao, Tao Zhang, Peng Meng. Clinical observation of G-arm assisted plasma radiofrequency ablation combined with ozone in the treatment of inclusive lumbar disc herniation and analysis of the influencing factors of recurrence[J]. Chinese Journal of Injury Repair and Wound Healing(Electronic Edition), 2021, 16(03): 232-238.

目的

观察G型臂辅助下等离子射频消融术联合臭氧治疗包容型腰椎间盘突出症的疗效,分析影响腰椎间盘突出症复发的相关因素。

方法

选择2017年5月至2019年7月北京市昌平区中西医结合医院骨科收治的包容型腰椎间盘突出症患者353例,按照随机数字表法分为微创手术治疗组(n=180)和保守治疗组(n=173)。微创手术治疗组采用G型臂辅助下等离子射频消融术联合臭氧治疗,治疗1次,住院7 d为1个疗程;保守治疗组采用功能锻炼、对症止痛和物理治疗,1次/d,住院7 d为1个疗程。在治疗前,疗程结束后即刻,疗程结束后1、3、6、12个月采用视觉模拟评分法(VAS)观察疼痛改善情况,Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评分评估疗效,比较2组的VAS、ODI评分;采用Logistic回归分析影响腰椎间盘突出症复发的影响因素。组间数据比较采用秩和检验或独立样本t检验,组内数据比较采用配对样本t检验。

结果

失访21例,失访率为5.9%,其中微创手术治疗组失访9例,保守治疗组失访12例。微创手术治疗组、保守治疗组疗程结束后即刻与治疗前VAS评分比较,差异均有统计学意义(t=3.15、2.73,P=0.013、0.032);治疗前,微创手术治疗组与保守治疗组VAS评分比较,差异无统计学意义(t=0.66,P=0.596);疗程结束后即刻,疗程结束后1、3、6、12个月微创手术治疗组的VAS评分分别为(3.22±0.76)、(2.66±1.05)、(2.07±1.14)、(2.10±0.96)、(2.32±1.15)分,与保守治疗组[(4.07±1.37)、(3.76±1.14)、(2.63±1.17)、(2.63±1.41)、(3.23±1.21)分]比较,差异均有统计学意义(t=3.09、2.75、2.46、2.11、1.96,P=0.004、0.029、0.043、0.045、0.042)。微创手术治疗组、保守治疗组疗程结束后即刻与治疗前ODI得分比较,差异均有统计学意义(t=2.75、2.73,P=0.003、0.011);治疗前,微创手术治疗组与保守治疗组ODI得分比较,差异无统计学意义(Z=1.63,P=0.632);疗程结束后即刻,疗程结束后1、3、6、12个月微创手术治疗组的ODI得分分别为(19.70±14.31)、(22.31±12.60)、(16.46±10.11)、(13.17±10.45)、(12.63±10.11)分,与保守治疗组[(20.43±13.14)、(21.57±14.11)、(18.72±13.17)、(17.64±14.22)、(13.09±10.22)分]比较,差异均有统计学意义(Z= 2.24、1.95、1.66、1.78、1.69,P=0.013、0.032、0.036、0.040、0.044)。Logistic回归分析显示,患者年龄、负重劳累、生活作息、微创手术是腰椎间盘突出症复发的独立影响因素,差异均有统计学意义(P=0.012、0.011、0.004、0.001)。性别、并发基础疾病(高血压、糖尿病、冠心病、脑血管病)、门诊复查与腰椎间盘突出症复发无关,差异均无统计学意义(P=0.232、0.076、0.054、0.140、0.251、0.085)。

结论

等离子射频消融术联合臭氧治疗包容型腰椎间盘突出症可取得显著的治疗效果,有效缓解患者的疼痛症状,改善患者ODI得分;随访发现保持规律的生活作息、避免腰部负重、早期积极微创手术干预可明显减少腰椎间盘突出症复发。

Objective

To observe the effect of G-arm assisted plasma radiofrequency ablation combined with ozone in the treatment of inclusive lumbar disc herniation(LDH), and to analyze the relevant factors that affect the recurrence of LDH.

Methods

A total of 353 patients with inclusive LDH who were admitted to the Department of Third Orthopedics, Beijing Changping Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine from May 2017 to July 2019 were divided into minimally invasive surgery treatment group (n=180) and conservative treatment group (n=173) according to the random number table method. The minimally invasive surgical treatment group was treated with plasma radiofrequency ablation assisted by G-arm combined with ozone therapy, the patients were treated once and hospitalized for 7 days as a course of treatment. The conservative treatment group used functional exercise, symptomatic analgesia and physical therapy, once a day, 7 days of hospitalization as a course of treatment. Before treatment, immediately after the course of treatment, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the course of treatment, the visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to observe the improvement of pain, the Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) score was used to evaluate the effect, and the VAS and ODI scores of the two groups were compared. Logistic regression was used to analyze the factors affecting the recurrence of lumbar intervertebral LDH. Rank sum test or independent-sample t test was used for data between groups, and paired-sample t-test was used for data within groups.

Results

Twenty-one cases were lost to follow-up, the rate of loss to follow-up was 5.9%, including 9 cases in the minimally invasive surgery group and 12 cases in the conservative treatment group. The minimally invasive surgical treatment group and conservative treatment group immediately after the end of the course of treatment compared with the VAS score before treatment, the differences were statistically significant (t=3.15, 2.73; P=0.013, 0.032). Before treatment, there was no significant difference in VAS score between the minimally invasive surgery treatment group and the conservative treatment group (t=0.66, P=0.596); Immediately after the treatment course, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the treatment course the VAS scores of the surgical treatment group were (3.22±0.76), (2.66±1.05), (2.07±1.14), (2.10±0.96), (2.32±1.15) points, respectively, compared with the conservative treatment group [(4.07±1.37), (3.76±1.14), (2.63±1.17), (2.63±1.41), (3.23±1.21) points], the differences were statistically significant (t=3.09, 2.75, 2.46, 2.11, 1.96; P=0.004, 0.029, 0.043, 0.045, 0.042). The minimally invasive surgical treatment group and conservative treatment group immediately after the end of the course of treatment compared with the pre-treatment ODI scores, the differences werer statistically significant (t= 2.75, 2.73; P=0.003, 0.011). Before treatment, there was no significant difference in ODI scores between the minimally invasive surgery treatment group and the conservative treatment group (Z=1.63, P=0.632). Immediately after the treatment, 1, 3, 6, 12 months after the treatment, the ODI scores of the surgical treatment group were (19.70±14.31), (22.31±12.60), (16.46±10.11), (13.17±10.45), (12.63±10.11) points, compared with the conservative treatment group [(20.43±13.14), (21.57±14.11), (18.72±13.17), (17.64±14.22), (13.09±10.22) points], the differences were statistically significant (Z=2.24, 1.95, 1.66, 1.78, 1.69; P= 0.013, 0.032, 0.036, 0.040, 0.044). Logistic regression analysis showed that the patients′ age, weight-bearing fatigue, living life, and minimally invasive surgery were independent factors influencing the recurrence of LDH, which were statistically significant (P=0.012, 0.011, 0.004, 0.001). Gender, concurrent underlying diseases (hypertension, diabetes, coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease), outpatient reexamination were not associated with recurrence, which were not statistically significant (P=0.232, 0.076, 0.054, 0.140, 0.251, 0.085).

Conclusions

Plasma radiofrequency ablation combined with ozone for treatment of inclusive LDH can achieve significant therapeutic effects, effectively alleviate the patient′s pain symptoms and improve the patient′s ODI score. The follow-up found to maintain regular life habits, avoid lumbar weight bearing, and early active minimally invasive surgical intervention can significantly reduce the recurrence of LDH.

表1 2组包容型腰椎间盘突出症患者一般资料比较
图1 穿刺针达椎间盘后缘1/3处
图2 穿刺针回退至椎间孔区
表2 2组包容型腰椎间盘突出症患者VAS评分情况比较(分,±s)
表3 2组包容型腰椎间盘突出症患者ODI评分情况比较(分,±s)
表4 腰椎间盘突出症复发的影响因素的Logistic回归分析
[1]
Rogerson A, Aidlen J, Jenis LG. Persistent radiculopathy after surgical tratment for lumbar disc herniation:causes and treatment options[J].I nt Orthop, 2019, 43(4): 969-973.
[2]
Robinson WA, Nassr AN, Sebastian AS. Thoracic disc herniation, avoidance, and management of the surgical complications[J]. Int Orthop, 2019, 43(4): 817-823.
[3]
Liu C, Zhou Y. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for massive lumbar disc herniation[J]. Clin Neurol Neurosurg, 2019, 176: 19-24.
[4]
中华医学会骨科学分会脊柱外科学组,中华医学会骨科学分会骨科康复学组. 腰椎间盘突出症诊疗指南[J]. 中华骨科杂志,2020, 40(8): 477-487.
[5]
方申雲,范海涛,张西锋,等. 不同入路经皮椎间孔镜腰椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出的临床疗效分析[J/CD]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2015, 10(4): 343-345.
[6]
瞿群威,沈玉杰. 低温等离子靶点消融术联合臭氧治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床研究[J]. 中国疼痛医学杂志,2017, 23(2): 144-147.
[7]
Chen YC, Lee SH, Chen D. Intradiscal pressure study of percutaneous disc decompression with nucleoplasty in hunan cadavers[J]. Spine, 2003, 28(7): 661-665.
[8]
李延荣,田玉良,娄丹,等. 低温等离子髓核消融术联合神经根射频和臭氧治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效观察[J]. 中国医刊,2020, 55(11): 1221-1225.
[9]
Singh V, Piryani C, Liao K, et al. Role of percutaneous disc decompression using coblation in managing chronic discogenic low back pain: a prospective,observational study[J]. Pain Physician, 2004, 7(4): 419-425.
[10]
刘海平,郝定均,王晓东,等. 两种微创手术方法治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效比较[J].中国疼痛医学杂志,2017, 23(6): 438-442.
[11]
李鹏洋,李春根,叶超,等. 应用低温等离子髓核消融术治疗老年腰椎间盘突出症患者疗效及其病程的相关性研究[J]. 医学研究杂志,2014, 43(8): 109-113.
[12]
陈叶海,王忠,王点宾,等. 等离子射频消融术治疗椎间盘突出症的临床效果[J]. 中国医学创新,2014, 11(32): 40-42.
[13]
刘益鸣,张挺杰,冯艺,等. CT引导下低温等离子射频消融术联合臭氧治疗包容型腰椎间盘突出症的疗效分析[J]. 中国疼痛医学杂志,2015, 21(3): 197-199.
[14]
范月茂. 低温等离子髓核消融术联合腰椎间盘内臭氧注射术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的效果评价[J]. 当代医药论丛,2019, 17(2): 71-72.
[15]
Seuk JW, Bae J, Shin SH, et al. Long-term minimum clinically important difference in Health-Related Quality of Life Scores after instrumented iumbar interbody fusion for low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis[J]. World Neurosurg, 2018, 117: e493-e499.
[16]
何明伟,葛维鹏,马骏,等. 低温等离子射频消融联合双针穿刺臭氧注射治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床研究[J]. 中国康复医学杂志,2015, 30(6): 567-571.
[17]
侯会桢. 低温等离子射频消融髓核成形术对腰椎间盘突出症患者术后疼痛程度及ODI评分的影响[J]. 山西卫生健康职业学院学报,2019, 29(5): 35-37.
[18]
杜昌洪. 经皮穿刺低温等离子消融术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床研究[J/CD]. 现代医学与健康研究电子杂志,2018, 2(12): 67-68.
[19]
Gerszten PC, Smuck M, Rathmell JP, et al. Plasma disc decompression compared with luoroscopy-guided transforaminal epidural steroid injections for symptomatic contained lumbar disc herniation: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial[J]. J Neurosurg Spine, 2010, 12(4): 357-371.
[20]
张年春,周跃,初同伟,等. 低温等离子消融髓核成形术与保守疗法治疗腰椎间盘突出症的对比研究[J]. 中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2005, 12(15): 722-725.
[1] 叶艳娜, 叶瑞婷, 陈艳玲, 彭雯, 刘乐, 肖文秋, 黄辉, 李明深, 钟慕仪, 叶娴. 基于影像学表现和临床病理特征预测良性与交界性乳腺叶状肿瘤复发的列线图模型[J]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 229-237.
[2] 阿冲罗布, 陈颖, 谢德坤. 腹腔镜外囊完整剥离术治疗肝包虫病效果及对患者肝功能、预后的影响[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 666-669.
[3] 崔占斌, 乔军利, 张丽丽, 韩明强. 尿碘水平与甲状腺乳头状癌患者术后复发危险度分层的相关性[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 615-618.
[4] 陈垚, 徐伯群, 高志慧. 改良式中间上入路根治术治疗甲状腺癌的有效性安全性研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 619-622.
[5] 郑泽坤, 刘卓恒, 邹浩, 胡会元, 李妲, 吴巍. 扩大根治性手术切除复发性巨大腹膜后去分化脂肪肉瘤1例[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 588-590.
[6] 罗辉, 熊珍珍, 黄令杰, 林山, 李金雨. 盆腔淋巴结大小对膀胱癌复发的影响[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 495-499.
[7] 邢晓伟, 刘雨辰, 赵冰, 王明刚. 基于术前腹部CT的卷积神经网络对腹壁切口疝术后复发预测价值[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 677-681.
[8] 姜明, 罗锐, 龙成超. 闭孔疝的诊断与治疗:10年73例患者诊疗经验总结[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 706-710.
[9] 蒋正东, 李徐奇, 王曙逢, 魏光兵. 复发性腹股沟疝的腹腔镜手术策略及疗效观察[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 539-543.
[10] 韦笑韩, 任振, 潘晨, 吴立胜. 再次经腹腹膜前腹腔镜修补术治疗复发性腹股沟疝的专科单中心疗效分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 385-389.
[11] 孙中伟, 郭宏坤, 薛意恒, 孟岩. 脱细胞基质补片和聚丙烯补片在腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术后复发的对比研究[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 419-422.
[12] 张文华, 陶焠, 胡添松. 不同部位外生型肝癌临床病理特点及其对术后肝内复发和预后影响[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 651-655.
[13] 叶文涛, 吴忠均, 廖锐. 癌旁组织ALOX15表达与肝癌根治性切除术后预后的关系[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 708-712.
[14] 张政赢, 鞠阳, 刘晓宁. 二甲双胍对2型糖尿病患者大肠腺瘤术后复发的影响[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 485-488.
[15] 符梅沙, 周玉华, 李慧, 薛春颜. 淋巴细胞免疫治疗对复发性流产患者外周血T淋巴细胞亚群分布与PD1/PD-L1表达的影响及意义[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 726-730.
阅读次数
全文


摘要