颈椎ACCF术后出现钛笼下沉的危险因素Logistic回归分析

目的进行脊髓型颈椎病颈椎体次全切除融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion,ACCF)术后出现钛笼下沉的危险因素Logistic回归分析,为其预后的改善提供理论依据。方法纳入2014年6月～2017年6于我院行ACCF术治疗的102例脊髓型颈椎病患者,随访6个月,将钛笼下沉者设为下沉组,其余设为未下沉组。调查两组患者性别、影像检查等病历资料,采用单因素、多因素分析确定颈椎ACCF术后出现钛笼下沉的独立危险因素。结果术后20例发生钛笼下沉,下沉率19.61%;两组钛笼直径、椎体撑开程度、钛笼倾斜角、钛笼前缘与临近椎体前缘距离、钉板夹角差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);多因素分析钛笼直径(OR=2.321)、椎体撑开程度(OR=1.897)、钛笼倾斜角(OR=2.043)、钛笼前缘与临近椎体前缘距离(OR=2.248)是颈椎ACCF术后出现钛笼下沉的独立危险因素。结论脊髓型颈椎病患者ACCF术后钛笼下沉发生率较高,钛笼直径、椎体撑开程度、钛笼倾斜角、钛笼前缘与临近椎体前缘距离等均会增加钛笼下沉风险。     

单节段颈椎椎体次全切除钛笼植骨融合术后钛笼下沉相关危险因素分析

目的 :分析单节段应用钛笼植骨的颈椎椎体次全切除融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion,ACCF)术后钛笼下沉的相关危险因素。方法:统计并回顾性分析我院2014年7月~2016年6月间应用钛笼植骨的单节段ACCF的44例患者临床资料,测量术前、术后3d内和术后3个月复查时所拍摄的颈椎X线平片,根据术后3个月随访时融合节段高度与术后3d内融合节段相比高度变化,将患者分为下沉组(高度丢失2mm)与未下沉组(高度丢失≤2mm),测量并分析两组间撑开角、钛笼倾斜角、钛笼深度、钉板夹角之间是否存在统计学差异,并通过Logistic回归分析分析钛笼下沉的危险因素。结果:术后3个月随访时,17例(38.64%)患者纳入未下沉组(高度丢失≤2mm),27例(61.36%)患者纳入下沉组(高度丢失2mm)。下沉组与未下沉组之间钛笼倾斜角、钛笼深度、钉板夹角差异有统计学意义(P0.05),撑开角差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。多因素Logistic回归分析结果提示,钛笼倾斜角增加是钛笼下沉的危险因素[95%置信区间(1.065,1.374),P0.05]。结论:钛笼下沉为ACCF术后常见的现象。钛笼倾斜角为钛笼下沉的独立危险因素,若该角度8.6°将增加钛笼下沉的风险。     

双节段颈椎前路椎体次全切除融合术后钛笼下沉的探讨

目的：探讨经颈椎前路椎体次全切除钛笼植骨钛板内固定术治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病术后钛笼下沉的相关影响因素。方法：回顾性分析我院2011年1月至2013年4月收治的86例行颈椎前路椎体次全切除钛笼植骨融合钛板内固定术患者的颈椎正侧位片及临床资料,随访6个月,根据下沉与否分为下沉组和非下沉组进行观察,分析术后钛笼下沉与年龄、性别、手术节段、临床疗效、病变节段撑开角度、和安置位置的相关性。结果：术后6个月时86例患者中有22例发生钛笼下沉（25.6%）,下沉组和非下沉组患者术前平均年龄、性别、手术节段（C5-C7）比较存在统计学差异（P<0.05）,余比较无统计学差异（P>0.05）。两组术后JOA评分均较术前明显改善,存在统计学差异（P<0.05）,两组间比较存在显著统计学差异（P<0.01）。两组融合率比较无明显统计学差异（P>0.05）。撑开角度<30°者共63例,下沉组12例（19.0%）,撑开角度≥30°者共23例,下沉组10例（43.5%）。撑开角度<30°与撑开角度≥30°对于下沉发生率的影响比较有统计学差异（P<0.05）。椎体前缘与钛笼前缘间距<1mm者共66例,下沉组13例（19.7%）,椎体前缘与钛笼前缘间距>1mm者共20例,下沉9例（45.0%）,椎体前缘与钛笼前缘间距>1mm与椎体前缘与钛笼前缘间距<1mm对于下沉发生率的影响比较有统计学差异（P<0.05）。结论：撑开角度和安放位置可能是影响钛笼术后下沉的重要因素,此外年龄、性别、手术节段（C5-C7）、骨密度、BMI对钛笼下沉均有不同程度的影响。     

3D打印解剖型钛笼与传统钛笼在ACCF术中应用的比较研究

目的评估3D打印解剖型钛笼在单节段颈椎前路椎体次全切除植骨融合(ACCF)术中应用效果及其安全性。方法回顾性分析自2014-06—2015-12行C5椎体ACCF的56例脊髓型颈椎病,27例ACCF术中应用3D打印解剖型钛笼(观察组),29例ACCF术中应用传统钛笼(对照组)。比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、JOA评分改善率。术后3 d及末次随访于颈椎正侧位X线片上观察钛笼下沉距离、骨融合及融合节段Cobb角。结果 56例均获得随访,观察组随访时间(15.34±3.61)个月,对照组随访时间(15.42±2.98)个月。所有患者均达到骨性融合,融合率100%。观察组21例钛笼下沉,下沉0.3~0.7(0.52±0.21)mm,无严重下沉患者;对照组25例钛笼下沉,下沉2.3~4.2(2.93±0.42)mm,3例严重下沉;观察组钛笼下沉距离小于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。观察组末次随访时JOA评分改善率为69.5%,对照组为67.0%,2组差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。观察组融合节段Cobb角小于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 3D打印解剖型钛笼在ACCF治疗单节段脊髓型颈椎病术中应用能够获得与传统钛笼相似的临床效果及骨性融合率,并且可以有效减少钛笼下沉现象,使用安全。     

颈椎前路椎体次全切除术后钛网下沉的原因分析及其对疗效的影响

目的探讨颈椎前路椎体次全切除术后出现钛网下沉的主要原因,以及钛网下沉对手术疗效是否有所影响。方法随机选择了2013-09-2015-09行颈椎前路椎体次全切除术的51例患者,术后均获得1年以上随访,其中17例术后出现钛网下沉。依据患者术后是否出现钛网下沉,将其分为两组:下沉组和未下沉组。对两组患者的术后JOA评分(17分制)改善率进行组间对比,同时统计其性别、年龄、手术节段分布、椎体撑开角度等相关指标,进行组间单因素分析和多因素Logistic回归分析。结果:单因素分析提示,年龄、手术节段及椎体撑开角度均与术后钛网下沉的发生有明显相关性(P0.05);多因素Logistic回归分析提示,年龄、手术节段、椎体撑开角度均为独立的危险因素。末次随访时,下沉组术后JOA评分改善率仅为(54.8±6.1)%,显著低于未下沉组的(67.2±4.3)%,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:颈椎前路椎体次全切除术后出现钛网下沉现象受诸多因素影响,其中,年龄偏高、手术节段多、椎间撑开角度过大,均是独立的危险因素;同时,钛网下沉对术后神经功能改善有一定的不良影响,应引起临床重视。     

颈椎前路减压融合术后钛笼下沉临床分析

目的:探讨颈椎前路减压融合术治疗脊髓型颈椎病术后影响钛笼下沉的相关因素。方法:回顾性分析2005年6月～2009年6月我院收治的104例行颈椎融合钛笼植骨患者的颈椎平片和手术资料,分析撑开程度、钛笼直径和安放部位与钛笼下沉的相关性。结果:104例手术患者中,术后6个月复查时发现16例(15.4%)钛笼发生下沉。46例钛笼直径10mm者中9例发生下沉(19.6%),而58例直径12mm者中7例发生下沉(12.1%),差异有显著性(P<0.05)。钛笼前缘与椎体前缘距离在1mm以内者89例,距离大于1mm者15例,发生下沉例数分别为13例和3例,差异有显著性(P<0.05)。开槽节段相邻椎体终板延长线成角,其中角度在20°～30°者82例,成角大于30°者22例,两组发生下沉例数分别为11例和5例,发生率有显著性差异(P<0.05)。结论:椎间撑开程度、钛笼直径和安放部位可能是影响钛笼下沉的重要因素。     

邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病患者的外科治疗方案研究

目的比较颈前路椎间盘切除植骨融合术(ACDF)和颈前路椎体次全切除融合术(ACCF)对邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病的治疗效果。方法回顾性分析在我院接受手术治疗的邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病的50例患者,其中采用颈前路椎间盘切除植骨融合术的患者25例(ACDF组),采用颈前路椎体次全切除融合术的患者25例(ACCF组)。比较两组患者的手术时间、住院时间、出血量,JOA评分和VAS评分以及两组患者手术前后的颈椎曲度和融合节段高度。结果 ACCF组手术时间明显低于ACDF组,术中的出血量明显多于ACDF组(P0.05),但住院时间差异不具有统计学意义(P0.05);两组患者手术后的JOA评分明显高于手术前,VAS评分明显低于手术前(P0.05);但两组患者间的JOA评分和VAS评分差异不具有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组患者手术前的颈椎曲度差异不具有统计学意义(P0.05),手术后3 d以及术后1年随访,ACCF组中患者的颈椎曲度明显小于ACDF组(P0.05);两组融合节段高度均明显高于手术前(P0.05),但两组患者手术前后的融合节段高度差异不明显。结论 ACDF具有出血量少,能更好地改善颈椎曲度,但ACCF具有手术时间短的优点。临床医师应根据患者的实际情况,采用适当的手术方式治疗邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病。     

两种手术方法治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效比较研究

目的比较经椎间隙减压植骨融合术(ACDF,A组)和保留椎体后壁的椎体次全切除减压植骨融合术(ACCF,B组)治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效。方法回顾性分析自2006年3月~2010年2月行手术治疗并获得随访的双节段脊髓型颈椎病32例,采用双节段椎间隙减压、植骨融合术15例,保留椎体后壁的椎体次全切除减压组17例。结果 A组手术时间及术中出血量均少于B组(P<0.05)。两组术后1周、3个月及12个月JOA评分与术前比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),两组各时间段比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组术后12个月复查均达到骨性融合。两组间术后1周融合节段曲度、全颈椎曲度及融合节段高度的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后3个月及12个月,两组融合节段曲度和全颈椎曲度的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),而融合节段高度A组明显高于B组(P<0.05)。结论 2种方法均可获得满意的效果,ACCF视野清楚,操作更方便,但其创伤大、出血多,而且在维持融合椎体高度方面比ACDF差,存在钛网下沉现象。     

颈前路手术治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病

目的分析颈前路减压融合手术治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法对124例3节段脊髓型颈椎病患者行颈前路手术治疗,78例行颈前路椎间盘切除减压融合术(ACDF),46例行颈前路椎体次全切除减压融合术(ACCF)。评估术后JOA评分及其改善率、植骨融合情况以及颈椎曲度。结果患者均获得随访,时间:ACDF组13~54(36.7±15.1)个月,ACCF组14~53(33.6±18.7)个月。两组患者术后JOA评分及颈椎Cobb角均较术前显著提高及恢复,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。ACDF组在手术时间、术中出血量及颈椎生理曲度恢复程度方面均优于ACCF组,且并发症发生率更低(P0.05)。两组术后JOA评分及其改善率、植骨融合率比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ACDF与ACCF治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病均可达到满意的神经功能恢复;ACDF治疗后颈椎生理曲度恢复较好,且并发症发生率较低。     

颈前路ACCF联合ACDF治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效观察

目的探讨颈前路椎体次全切除(ACCF)联合椎间植骨融合内固定(ACDF)治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2010-01—2014-10诊治的75例多节段脊髓型颈椎病,采用ACCF ACDF治疗40例(观察组),采用后路单开门椎管扩大成形术治疗35例(对照组)。比较2组手术时间、围手术期出血量,术后1年JOA评分、NDI指数、颈椎曲度。结果 75例均获得随访,随访时间平均13(12~24)个月。2组术后1年JOA评分、NDI指数均较术前明显改善,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);但术后1年观察组与对照组JOA评分、NDI指数比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。观察组术后1年颈椎曲度较术前明显改善,且优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ACCF联合ACDF治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病能在有效改善神经功能的同时恢复和维持颈椎正常曲度,对周围软组织干扰小,短期疗效满意。     

Comparison of anterior cervical fusion by titanium mesh cage versus nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide cage following single-level corpectomy

Purpose

The titanium mesh cage (TMC) is a typical metal cage device which has been widely used in cervical reconstruction for decades. Nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 (n-HA/PA66) cage is a novel biomimetic non-metal cage device growing in popularity in many medical centres in recent years. There has been no comparison of the efficacy between these two anterior reconstructing cages. The purpose of this study was to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of these two different devices.

Methods

Sixty-seven eligible patients with single-level ACCF using TMC or n-HA/PA66 cage for cervical degenerative diseases, with four-year minimum follow-up, were included in this prospective non-randomised comparative study. Their radiographic (cage subsidence, fusion status, segmental sagittal alignment [SSA]) and clinical (VAS and JOA scales) data before surgery and at each follow-up was recorded completely.

Results

The fusion rate of the n-HA/PA66 group was higher than TMC at one year after surgery (94 % vs. 84 %) though their finial fusion rates were similar (97 % vs. 94 %). Finial n-HA/PA66 cage subsidence was 1.5 mm with 6 % of severe subsidence over three millimetres, which was significantly lower than the respective 2.9 mm and 22 % of TMC (P < 0.0001). Lastly, SSA, VAS and JOA in TMC group were worse than in the n-HA/PA66 group (P = 0.235, 0.034 and 0.007, respectively).

Conclusions

The n-HA/PA66 cage is associated with earlier radiographic fusion, less subsidence and better clinical results than TMC within four years after one-level ACCF. With the added benefit of radiolucency, the n-HA/PA66 cage may be superior to TMC in anterior cervical construction.     

颈前路椎体切除植骨融合术后钛网沉陷的临床研究

目的探讨颈前路椎体切除植骨融合术后钛网沉陷的风险因素以及钛网沉陷对临床疗效的影响。方法 2003年5月～2007年8月采用颈前路椎体切除植骨融合术治疗颈椎疾病患者300例。分析患者的年龄、性别、切除节段、固定钢板的类型以及是否使用垫片这5个因素是否为钛网沉陷的风险因素,研究钛网沉陷对颈椎曲度及其他临床疗效的影响。结果随访1年,239例（79.7%）患者发生钛网沉陷,其中182例（60.7%）发生轻度沉陷（1～3mm）,57例（19.0%）发生严重沉陷（〉3mm）。双节段切除较单节段切除更易发生严重钛网沉陷。发生严重钛网沉陷的患者术后神经功能恢复率明显低于未发生钛网沉陷的患者。同时,钛网严重沉陷增加了患者颈肩部疼痛、神经症状复发以及内固定失败的发生率。结论钛网沉陷在颈前路椎体切除钛网植骨融合术后发生较为普遍。多节段切除是发生严重钛网沉陷的危险因素,严重钛网沉陷可导致手术疗效下降及相关并发症的发生。     

经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合术中融合器位置对融合器沉降的影响

目的评估经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合术(TLIF)中融合器位置对融合器沉降发生率的影响。方法回顾性分析2010年1月—2014年12月接受L_4/L_5单节段TLIF的83例腰椎退行性疾病患者的临床和影像学资料。根据术后即刻CT平扫上融合器与L_5椎体上终板的相对位置,将患者分为中央组(37例)与边缘组(46例),比较2组患者手术前后影像学参数(椎间隙高度、椎间孔高度、腰椎局部前凸角)及疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分等指标。结果2组患者术后即刻、末次随访时椎间隙高度、椎间孔高度及腰椎局部前凸角较术前明显升高,差异均有统计学意义(P 0.05);末次随访时,中央组患者椎间隙高度、腰椎局部前凸角较术后即刻均有明显丢失,差异均有统计学意义(P 0.05);末次随访时,边缘组患者椎间隙高度、腰椎局部前凸角显著高于中央组,差异均有统计学意义(P 0.05)。末次随访时,2组患者腰痛及下肢痛VAS评分较术前均明显改善,差异有统计学意义(P 0.05),但组间比较差异无统计学意义(P 0.05)。末次随访时共18例发生融合器沉降,中央组12例(32.4%),1例重度沉降,11例轻度沉降;边缘组6例(13.0%)均为轻度沉降,2组沉降率差异有统计学意义(P 0.05)。结论 TLIF中融合器位于终板中央区域会增加术后融合器沉降发生率,术中置入融合器时应放置于终板边缘区域,以降低术后融合器沉降的风险。     

前路联合术式与后路单开门治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效观察

目的:比较前路颈椎间盘切除融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)联合前路椎体次全切钛网植骨融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion,ACCF)与颈后路单开门微型钛板内固定术治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法:对2014年3月至2016年3月手术治疗的63例(男39例,女24例)3节段脊髓型颈椎病患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,其中43例行ACDF联合ACCF(前路组),20例行颈后路单开门微型钛板内固定术(后路组)。比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症发生率,并按照JOA评分标准评定两组患者的临床疗效。结果:所有病例获得随访,时间16~40个月,平均25.8个月。前路组与后路组患者手术时间分别为(123.70±6.21)min和(118.70±5.41)min,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);术中出血量分别(85.23±7.51)ml和(107.18±9.41)ml,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。前路组发生轴性症状6例,吞咽困难1例,未发生C5神经根麻痹、声音嘶哑及呛咳等并发症,并发症发生率为16.3℅(7/43);后路组发生轴性症状5例,C5神经根麻痹1例,未发生吞咽困难、声音嘶哑及呛咳等并发症,并发症发生率为30.0℅(6/20),两组并发症发生率比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。前路组术后1周及末次随访时的JOA评分均优于后路组(P0.05)。结论 :两种手术方式治疗脊髓型颈椎病均能提供即刻的稳定性,前路联合手术在术中出血量、并发症发生率、临床疗效方面均优于后路组,因此对于连续性3节段脊髓型颈椎病的治疗倾向于前路联合手术。     

椎体次全切除术与椎管扩大椎板成形术术后颈椎矢状位平衡的对比研究

目的对比分析椎体次全切除植骨融合术与椎管扩大椎板成形术术后颈椎矢状位平衡的变化。方法收集2010年2月—2013年1月本院收治的100例因脊髓性颈椎病伴椎管狭窄症并接受颈椎椎体次全切除植骨融合术(前路组,n=53)或颈椎椎管扩大椎板成形术(后路组,n=47)患者的临床及影像学资料,通过对比术前及末次随访时日本骨科学会(JOA)评分、C_(2~7) Cobb角、矢状面轴向垂直距离(SVA)、T_1倾斜角(T_1-slope)的变化,分析不同术式术后患者矢状位平衡的变化。结果所有手术均顺利完成,随访(25.5±3.2)个月。2组患者术前JOA评分、C_(2~7) Cobb角、SVA、T_1-slope差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。末次随访时JOA评分、C_(2~7) Cobb角、SVA均较术前明显改善,且组间差异有统计学意义(P0.05);前路组中,术前高T_1-slope患者与低T_1-slope患者术后颈椎后凸发生率差异无统计学意义(P0.05);后路组中,高T_1-slope患者颈椎后凸发生率显著高于低T_1-slope患者,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论颈椎前路椎体次全切除术对术后颈椎矢状位平衡的影响优于颈椎后路椎管扩大椎板成形术;当术前患者T1-slope较高时,为减少术后矢状位平衡失代偿,可尽量选择前路手术。     

Is 3D-printed prosthesis stable and economic enough for anterior spinal column reconstruction after spinal tumor resection? A retrospective comparative study between 3D-printed off-the-shelf prosthesis and titanium mesh cage

Object

To investigate the stability and cost-effectiveness of the three-dimensional-printed (3DP) off-the-shelf (OTS) prosthesis in the reconstruction of the anterior column of the thoracic/lumbar spine after tumor resection.

Methods

Thirty-five patients (26 with primary malignant tumors and nine with metastatic malignant tumors) who underwent tumor resection and anterior column reconstruction between January 2014 and January 2019 were included in a single institute. Patients were divided into the 3DP OTS prosthesis (3DP) group (n = 14) and the titanium mesh cage (TMC) group (n = 21) by the type of implant. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, history of radiotherapy, surgical level and total cost were collected and compared between the two groups. Mechanical complications and radiological parameters including mean vertebral height, subsidence, fixation failure(nonunion, migration, screw loosening, rod breakage) rate were recorded at preoperation, 1 week, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months after surgery then at 1 year interval or stop until the end of survival. The follow-up patients were also sent with short form-36 to assess their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and questions about the current condition of their disease.

Results

The mean overall follow-up was 24.6 months. Of the 35 patients involved, six patients died and six were lost to follow-up. The differences between the two groups in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stay were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The differences in fixation failure and the subsidence rate between the two groups were not statistical significant (p > 0.05). The difference of subsidence rate between the cases with and without osteoporosis, cases with and without radiotherapy was statistically significant within each group (p < 0.05). However, the difference of subsidence rate between the surgical level above or below T10 was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The response rate of the questionnaire among the survived patients was 100% (23/23 patients). The results of the Short Form- (SF-)36 between the two groups were similar (p > 0.05). The total cost was higher in the 3DP group (p < 0.05) with its higher graft cost (p < 0.05), but the differences in internal fixation cost and other cost were not statistically significant between groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Compared to TMC, the 3DP OTS prosthesis achieved similar clinical and radiological results in spinal anterior spinal column reconstruction of thoracic/lumbar spinal tumor resection. However, the 3DP OTS prosthesis was more expansive than TMC.

     

前路减压n-HA/PA66支撑体植骨融合术治疗下颈椎骨折脱位的临床观察

目的：探讨前路减压、纳米羟基磷灰石／聚酰胺66（n-HA／PA66）支撑体植骨融合内固定术治疗下颈椎骨折脱位的中期临床效果。方法：回顾性分析2008年1月至2010年12月应用n-HA／PA66支撑体行植骨融合术治疗的42例下颈椎骨折脱位患者的临床资料,其中男29例,女13例;年龄20～65岁,平均46．8岁。损伤节段：C35例,C414例,C,12例,C67例,C74例。伤后神经功能损伤按Frankel分级：A级4例,B级11例,C级13例,D级9例,E级5例。28例行前路伤椎次全切减压,14例行椎问盘切除减压。根据FrankeⅠ分级评估神经功能恢复程度;依据疼痛视觉评分（VAS）评价临床症状改善情况;通过颈椎侧位X线片评估融合节段高度以及前凸角度;通过三维CT评估支撑体位置、外形以及植骨块融合情况。结果：42例均获随访,时间3-5．2年,平均4．1年。术后神经功能Frankel分级：A级2例,B级3例,C级11例,D级8例,E级18例,较术前明显改善（Z=-4．845,P〈0．001）。术后3d及朱次随访时VAS评分分别为2．6±1．8和1．3±1．0,均较术前改善（P〈0．05）。无支撑体脱出、塌陷、破裂等情况出现。末次随访时,1例患者（2．4％）支撑体轻微移位（〈2mm）,总体植骨融合率为97．6％（40／41）。患者术后融合节段高度及前凸角度较术前有明显提高（P〈0．001）,但术后各时间点之间差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。支撑体下沉距离平均为（1．5±1．1）mm,下沉率（下沉距离〉3m）为4．8％。结论：n-HA／PA66支撑体能有效恢复及维持融合节段生理高度及弧度,促进植骨融合,方便术后手术节段的影像学观察,是一种较为理想的颈椎前路支撑植骨材料。     

颈椎前路手术应用端盖钛网治疗合并骨质疏松的老年脊髓型颈椎病对照研究

目的:比较颈前路椎体次全切除应用端盖钛网与无端盖钛网植骨融合术治疗合并骨质疏松的老年脊髓型颈椎病的影像结果及临床疗效。方法:对2011年1月至2016年1月采用颈前路单个椎体次全切除钛网植骨融合术治疗的60例合并骨质疏松老年脊髓型颈椎病患者进行回顾性分析,其中男26例,女34例,年龄68~79岁,平均75.8岁。根据术中所用钛网分为端盖钛网组(A组,32例)及无端盖钛网组(B组,28例)。通过JOA评分对两组患者的神经功能进行评定;通过X线对融合节段椎间高度及前凸角度(Cobb角)进行测量;通过CT评估钛网植骨融合率。结果:60例患者均获随访,随访时间1~2年,平均1.5年。临床疗效评价结果:A组术前JOA评分为9.3±1.7,术后1周、3个月、1年JOA评分分别为14.2±1.8、15.7±1.2、15.4±1.5;B组术前JOA评分为9.1±1.8,术后1周、3个月、1年JOA评分分别为14.5±1.3、14.9±1.7、15.2±1.6。两组术后JOA评分与术前相比均明显改善(P0.05)。术后1周、3个月、1年两组JOA评分比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。影像学评价结果:A组术前融合节段椎间高度为(42.1±2.4)mm,术后1周、3个月、1年分别为(45.3±3.2)mm、(44.7±2.9)mm、(44.5±3.0)mm;A组术前Cobb角为(5.3±1.2)°,术后1周、3个月、1年分别为(10.3±1.9)°、(10.1±1.7)°、(9.9±1.3)°;B组术前椎间高度为(43.4±2.3)mm,术后1周、3个月、1年分别为(45.7±2.8)mm、(44.2±2.7)mm、(41.5±2.1)mm;B组术前Cobb角为(5.4±1.0)°,术后1周、3个月、1年分别为(11.2±1.8)°、(10.8±1.6)°、(7.2±1.4)°。两组术后融合节段椎间高度、融合节段Cobb角与术前比较明显提高(P0.05)。术后1周、3个月A组椎间高度、融合节段Cobb角与B组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05),术后1年椎间高度、融合节段Cobb角A组均明显优于B组(P0.05),末次随访,A组钛网沉陷率为6%,B组为18%。结论:颈前路手术应用端盖钛网治疗合并骨质疏松的老年脊髓型颈椎病患者,术后维持椎间隙高度及融合节段前凸角度方面优于无端盖钛网,端盖钛网的应用可有效降低骨质疏松患者的钛网沉陷的发生率。     

Evaluation of a new type of titanium mesh cage versus the traditional titanium mesh cage for single-level, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion

Study design

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data in an academic institution.

Objective

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a new type of titanium mesh cage (TMC) in single-level, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF).

Methods

Fifty-eight patients consecutive with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) from cervical degenerative spondylosis and isolated ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament were treated with a single-level ACCF using either a new type of TMC (28 patients, group A) or the traditional TMC (30 patients, group B). We evaluated the patients for TMC subsidence, cervical lordosis (C2–C7 Cobb and Cobb of fused segments) and fusion status for a minimum of 30 months postoperatively based on spine radiographs. In addition, neurologic outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores. Neck pain was evaluated using a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS).

Results

The loss of height of the fused segments was less for group A than for group B (0.8 ± 0.3 vs. 2.8 ± 0.4 mm) (p < 0.01); also, there was a lower rate of severe subsidence (≥3 mm) in group A (4 %, 1/28) than in group B (17 %, 5/30) (p < 0.01). There were no differences in the C2–C7 Cobb and Cobb of fused segments between the groups preoperatively or at final follow-up (p > 0.05), but the Cobb of fused segments immediately postoperative were significantly less for group B than for group A (p < 0.01). All patients, however, had successful fusion (100 %, each). Both groups had marked improvement in the JOA score after operation (p < 0.01), with no significant differences in the JOA recovery ratio (p > 0.05). The postoperative VAS neck pain scores for group A were significantly less than that for group B (p < 0.05); severe subsidence was correlated with neck pain.

Conclusions

The new type of TMC provides comparable clinical results and fusion rates with the traditional TMC for patients undergoing single-level corpectomy. The new design TMC decreases postoperative subsidence (compared to the traditional TMC); the unique design of the new type of TMC matches the vertebral endplate morphology which appears to decrease the severity of subsidence-related neck pain in follow-up.