中国实用医药
中國實用醫藥
중국실용의약
CHINA PRACTICAL MEDICAL
2014年
28期
12-13
,共2页
腰椎间盘突出症%经皮椎间盘切吸术%应用价值
腰椎間盤突齣癥%經皮椎間盤切吸術%應用價值
요추간반돌출증%경피추간반절흡술%응용개치
Protrusion of lumbar intervertebral disc%Percutaneous lumbar discectomy%Application value
目的：对经皮椎间盘切吸术在治疗腰椎间盘突出症中的价值进行分析与探讨。方法90例接受治疗的腰椎间盘突出症患者随机分为三组,即对照组1、对照组2与观察组。对对照组1患者实施传统小开窗手术治疗；对对照组2患者实施保守治疗；对观察组患者实施经皮椎间盘切吸术治疗,然后对比三组患者治疗后的Macnab与VARS评分。结果对三组患者实施相应治疗后,观察组患者治疗优良率90.0%,对照组1和对照组2患者治疗优良率为80.0%、26.7%,观察组和对照组2比较,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)；观察组和对照组1比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)；观察组患者VARS评分与Macnab评分均优于对照组1、2,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论研究表明,经皮椎间盘切吸术能够有效治疗腰椎间盘突出症,值得临床应用与推广。
目的：對經皮椎間盤切吸術在治療腰椎間盤突齣癥中的價值進行分析與探討。方法90例接受治療的腰椎間盤突齣癥患者隨機分為三組,即對照組1、對照組2與觀察組。對對照組1患者實施傳統小開窗手術治療；對對照組2患者實施保守治療；對觀察組患者實施經皮椎間盤切吸術治療,然後對比三組患者治療後的Macnab與VARS評分。結果對三組患者實施相應治療後,觀察組患者治療優良率90.0%,對照組1和對照組2患者治療優良率為80.0%、26.7%,觀察組和對照組2比較,差異具有統計學意義(P<0.05)；觀察組和對照組1比較,差異無統計學意義(P>0.05)；觀察組患者VARS評分與Macnab評分均優于對照組1、2,差異具有統計學意義(P<0.05)。結論研究錶明,經皮椎間盤切吸術能夠有效治療腰椎間盤突齣癥,值得臨床應用與推廣。
목적：대경피추간반절흡술재치료요추간반돌출증중적개치진행분석여탐토。방법90례접수치료적요추간반돌출증환자수궤분위삼조,즉대조조1、대조조2여관찰조。대대조조1환자실시전통소개창수술치료；대대조조2환자실시보수치료；대관찰조환자실시경피추간반절흡술치료,연후대비삼조환자치료후적Macnab여VARS평분。결과대삼조환자실시상응치료후,관찰조환자치료우량솔90.0%,대조조1화대조조2환자치료우량솔위80.0%、26.7%,관찰조화대조조2비교,차이구유통계학의의(P<0.05)；관찰조화대조조1비교,차이무통계학의의(P>0.05)；관찰조환자VARS평분여Macnab평분균우우대조조1、2,차이구유통계학의의(P<0.05)。결론연구표명,경피추간반절흡술능구유효치료요추간반돌출증,치득림상응용여추엄。
Objective To analyze and investigate the value of percutaneous lumbar discectomy in the treatment of protrusion of lumbar intervertebral disc. Methods A total of 90 cases of protrusion of lumbar intervertebral disc were randomly divided into three groups as the 1st control group, the 2nd control group and the observation group. The 1st control group was treated by conventional small fenestration operation, and the 2nd control group was treated by conservative treatment, while the observation group received percutaneous lumbar discectomy. Scores of Macnab and VARS were compared in the groups after treatment. Results After receiving corresponding treatment, the good rate of the observation group was 90.0%, and those of the 1st and 2nd control groups were 80.0%and 26.7%. The difference between the observation group and 2nd control group was statistically significant (P<0.05), and the difference between the observation group and the 1st control group had no statistical significance (P>0.05). Scores of VARS and Macnab in the observation group were all better than those in the two control groups, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion The study shows that percutaneous lumbar discectomy is an effective method for treating potrusion of lumbar intervertebral disc, and it is worthy of clinical application and promotion.
