经皮脊柱内镜与显微内镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症疗效比较的meta分析.pdf

山西医科大学 （博）硕士学位论文 经皮脊柱内镜与显微内镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症疗效比较的 meta分析 摘 要 目的： 比较经皮脊柱 内镜椎 间盘切 除术 (percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy PELD)和显微内镜椎间盘切除术(micro endoscopic discectomy MED) 治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效。 方法： 计算机检索Cochrane、Embase、Pubmed、Web of science、中国知网、万方数 据库，时间截止为建库到2019年11月，根据严格的纳入和排除标准对检索到的文 献进行筛选、评价并提取所纳入的数据，应用Review Manager5.3软件进行 meta 分析。 结果： 最终纳入8篇文献，共 1028例，其中男559例，女469例；PELD组474例， MED组554例。Meta分析结果显示：与MED组相比，PELD组术中出血量少、住院时 间短、术后 VAS-back评分低、患者满意度调查好，差异有统计学意义；术后Oswestry 功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)评分、术后VAS-leg评分、手术 时间、并发症等比较差异无统计学意义。 结论： PELD和MED都是治疗腰椎间盘突出症的有效治疗方式，PELD较MED对组织损 伤更小，出血量更少，术后恢复更快，更具有微创优势。 I 山西医科大学 （博）硕士学位论文 关键词：经皮内镜腰椎间盘切除术；显微内镜椎间盘切除术；腰椎间盘突出症；meta 分析 Percutaneousendoscopiclumbardiscectomy versusmicro endoscopicdiscectomy forlumbardischerniation:a Meta-analysis Abstract Objective: To compare the effect of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and microendoscopicdiscectomy on lumbar discherniation. Methods: Computerized searches Cochrane, Embase, Pubmed, Web of science, China Zhiwang, Wanfang, Weipu database until November 2019, according to the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria to screen, evaluate and extract the included data, using theReview Manager 5.3software formetaanalysis. Results: Finally,8 literatures were included, with a total of 1028 cases, of which 559 were male and 469 were female;474 were PELD and 554 were MED. The results of meta-analysis showed that: compared with MED group, PELD group had less intraoperative bleeding, short hospitalization time, low postoperative VAS-back score, goodpatient satisfaction survey,andthe differencewas statistically significant;therewas no significant difference in postoper