相邻两节段脊髓型颈椎病前路不同术式的比较

[目的]比较前路颈椎体次全切除植骨融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion,ACCF)和前路颈椎间盘切除植骨融合术(anterior cervical discectomy with fusion,ACDF)两种术式在相邻两节段脊髓型颈椎病手术治疗中的应用.[方法]对2006年6月～ 2010年3月相邻两节段脊髓型颈椎病手术治疗患者的临床资料和影像学资料进行回顾性研究,共67例符合研究要求,其中ACCF 36例,ACDF 31例.评估、比较两组的围手术期指标(住院日、出血量、手术时间、取骨处并发症以及颈部并发症)、临床疗效指标(脊髓神经功能JOA评分、颈部及上肢疼痛VAS评分)及影像学指标(颈椎矢状曲度情况、颈椎前凸角度、颈椎活动度、融合节段活动度、融合节段前后缘高度及融合率).[结果]平均随访时间ACCF (28.96±13.21)个月,ACDF (26.81±11.02)个月.两组间比较时,手术时间及术中出血量ACCF比ACDF多,并发症发生率更高,有显著性差异,而术后随访时颈椎前凸角度以及融合节段高度ACCF比ACDF低,有显著性差异,其他参数无显著性差异.但组内比较时,术后即刻与术前、术后6周时与术后即刻有显著性差异,末次随访时与术后6周时ACCF融合节段后缘高度相比有显著性差异,其余指标及ACDF组内无显著性差异.[结论] ACCF、ACDF均是治疗相邻两节段脊髓型颈椎病的有效术式,但ACDF在手术时间、出血量、并发症发生率以及一些影像学指标上有显著性优势,具体的手术方式选择应根据脊髓受压迫需要减压的部位而定.     

两种颈椎前路减压融合术治疗多节段颈椎病

目的比较前路椎间盘切除减压融合术(ACDF)与前路椎体次全切除减压融合术(ACCF)治疗脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效及影像学结果。方法对40例脊髓型颈椎病分别采用ACDF(24例)和ACCF(16例)治疗。结果本组获随访13～34个月,两组术后、末次随访时JOA评分较术前有显著改善(P<0.05),但组间比较则差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);ACCF组末次随访椎间高度丢失较ACDF组明显(P<0.05),ACDF组颈椎曲度维持优于ACCF组(P<0.05)。结论两种手术均可获得较好的临床疗效,相对于ACCF,ACDF对椎间高度、颈椎曲度的维持更有优势。     

两种前路手术治疗邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床效果

目的 :比较双节段前路椎间盘切除减压融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)和单节段前路椎体次全切除减压融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion,ACCF)对邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病的治疗结果。方法:对2010年09月~2013年7月应用双节段椎间盘切除减压聚醚醚酮融合器(Polyetheretherketone cage,PEEK cage)植骨融合术及单节段椎体次全切减压钛网植骨融合术进行治疗的54例邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病患者进行回顾性分析,ACCF组23例,ACDF组31例。比较两组患者基线资料、住院天数、手术时间、出血量、日本骨科协会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA)评分及疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue score,VAS)的不同。通过测量术前、术后3d、末次随访时的影像学图片,分析两组患者颈椎曲度、融合节段高度及融合率的变化。结果:年龄、性别、病变节段、矢状位序列、植骨材料、住院天数和手术时间两组间差异无统计学意义,ACDF组的出血量显著少于ACCF组(175.4±12.1ml VS 201.3±80.4ml)。ACDF组JOA及VAS评分在术前(13.06±0.81、6.48±1.43)与末次随访时(15.45±1.06、2.97±1.28)比较均有显著统计学意义(P=0.000),ACCF组JOA及VAS评分同ACDF组,术后与术前比较均有统计学意义(P0.05);但组间比较未发现明显差别(P0.05)。两组颈椎曲度和融合节段高度术后3d时较术前均有增加(P0.05),而末次随访时轻度下降(P0.05),ACDF组改善程度明显大于ACCF组(P0.05)。两组均获得了100%的融合率。结论 :在邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病的手术治疗中,ACDF出血量相对较少,能更好地改善颈椎曲度和维持融合节段高度。     

两种术式治疗多节段颈椎病的疗效比较

目的比较前路椎间盘减压融合术(ACDF)与前路椎体次全切除减压融合术(ACCF)对多节段颈椎病的临床疗效。方法将62例多节段颈椎病患者按照随机数字表法分为ACDF组和ACCF组,每组31例,记录术中出血量、术后引流量,采用颈椎活动度、颈椎曲度C值、颈椎前柱高度、JOA评分评价疗效。结果两组患者均随访24个月。术中出血量和术后引流量ACDF组均少于ACCF组(P 0. 05)。术后3、6、12个月,颈椎活动度、颈椎曲度C值两组比较差异均无统计学意义(P 0. 05);颈椎前柱高度ACDF组高于ACCF组(P 0. 05)。术后12个月JOA评分ACDF组高于ACCF组(P 0. 05)。结论 ACDF和ACCF均能有效恢复脊柱形态,减轻脊髓神经压迫,最大限度恢复患者感觉、运动功能,但ACDF创伤更小、术后功能恢复更为理想。     

两种前路手术治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效比较

目的比较颈前路椎间盘切除减压融合术(ACDF)和颈前路椎体次全切减压融合术(ACCF)治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法将43例双节段脊髓型颈椎病患者按治疗方法分为两组,ACDF组23例,ACCF组20例。比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、并发症发生率、术后JOA评分、植骨融合率和颈椎生理曲度改善情况。结果患者均获得随访,时间15~46个月。手术时间ACDF组为(106±23)min,ACCF组为(142±35)min;术中出血量ACDF组为(121±76)ml,ACCF组为(208±125)ml;两组两项比较差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组住院时间、并发症发生率、植骨融合率比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。末次随访时JOA评分ACDF组从术前(10.32±1.47)分增加到(14.55±1.65)分,改善率62.82%±12.58%;ACCF组从术前(10.21±1.53)分增加到(14.39±1.76)分,改善率59.91%±13.28%;两组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后颈椎生理曲度均得到明显改善,但ACDF组优于ACCF组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ACDF和ACCF治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病均可取得满意的临床疗效,ACDF具有手术时间短、出血少、创伤小等优点。     

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。     

ACDF联合ACCF术中运用Solis融合器、颈前路钛板与n-HA/PA66支撑体治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病

目的探讨颈前路间盘切除减压融合术(Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)联合颈前路椎体次全切除减压融合术(Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion,ACCF)中运用Solis融合器、颈前路钛板与n-HA/PA66支撑体治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效。方法回顾性分析自2015-04—2017-06采用ACDF联合ACCF治疗的46例3节段脊髓型颈椎病,术中联合运用Solis融合器、颈前路钛板与n-HA/PA66支撑体,比较术前与末次随访时的JOA评分、颈椎整体曲度、融合节段Cobb角、融合节段前柱高度。结果 46例均顺利完成手术并获得完整随访,随访时间36～48个月,平均42.1个月。46例切口均一期愈合,术后12个月均获得植骨融合。2例出现一过性吞咽困难,1例出现脑脊液漏,1例出现n-HA/PA66支撑体下沉,对症治疗后均治愈。末次随访时JOA评分较术前高,颈椎整体曲度、融合节段Cobb角、融合节段前柱高度较术前大,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。末次随访时按JOA评分改善率评价疗效:优17例,良23例,可6例,优良率86.96%。结论 ACDF联合ACCF术中运用Solis融合器、颈前路钛板与n-HA/PA66支撑体治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病可有效恢复颈椎高度,改善并维持颈椎曲度,减少并发症的发生率。     

两种颈前路减压融合术治疗两节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效分析

目的:探讨颈前路椎间盘切除融合术(anterior cervical discectomy with fusion,ACDF)与颈前路椎体次全切减压融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion,ACCF)治疗相邻两节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法:对2016年1月至2017年12月收治的相邻两节段脊髓型颈椎病37例患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,男15例,女22例,年龄43～69岁,平均54.6岁。根据手术方法的不同分为ACDF治疗组(A组,17例)和ACCF治疗组(B组,20例)。记录两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量,比较两组患者术前及术后1、12个月颈椎融合节段Cobb角、颈椎曲度,采用日本矫形外科协会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA)评分评价临床疗效,并观察两组术后并发症情况。结果:所有患者获得随访,时间12～24个月,平均18.5个月。手术时间、术中出血量A组分别为(106.3±22.6) min、(52.2±26.4) ml,B组分别为(115.6±16.8) min、(61.7±20.7) ml,手术时间组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05),B组术中出血量大于A组(P0.05)。术前及术后1、12个月颈椎曲度和颈椎融合节段Cobb角A组分别为(11.28±1.40)°、(17.56±1.90)°、(16.64±1.80)°和(4.93±4.20)°、(9.44±2.60)°、(9.25±2.80)°,B组分别为(10.59±1.20)°、(16.26±2.10)°、(15.76±2.50)°和(4.75±3.90)°、(7.98±2.10)°、(7.79±3.00)°。两组患者术后颈椎融合节段Cobb角、颈椎曲度均较术前明显改善,且A组较B组恢复更明显(P0.05)。术前及术后1、12个月JOA评分A组分别为9.46±1.70、11.56±1.40、14.86±1.20,B组分别为9.11±1.50、11.40±1.30、15.12±1.60。两组患者术后JOA评分较术前均明显改善(P0.05),组间同时间段比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。末次随访A组出现吞咽梗阻感2例,cage移位1例,未发生钛板螺钉松动;B组出现吞咽梗阻感4例,钛网沉降2例,钛板螺钉松动1例。结论:两种颈前路减压融合术治疗两节段脊髓型颈椎病,均能有效减压,改善病椎Cobb角及颈椎生理曲度。ACDF术式可直接去除椎间水平的致压物,椎体破坏小,颈椎生理曲度恢复良好;ACCF术式椎体次全切除,操作空间大,易于去除椎体后缘骨赘及钙化的后纵韧带。长期随访显示,ACDF与ACCF术式效果良好,技术成熟,疗效接近。     

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。     

3种颈椎前路减压重建方式对稳定性影响的生物力学研究

[目的]研究颈椎前路不同减压、植骨固定方式对生物力学稳定性的影响。[方法]18具新鲜人尸体颈椎标本,随机分为三组,分别采用前路3节段椎间盘切除植骨融合固定(ACDF)、分节段混合减压植骨融合固定(ACHDF)及椎体次全切除植骨融合固定(ACCF),采用脊柱三维运动试验机依次测定正常状态、减压后、植骨后、钢板固定后的三维活动度,计算出中性区(NZ)、运动范围(ROM),并进一步计算出其稳定潜能指数(SPI);所得数据进行统计学处理,比较各组间差异。[结果]正常状态下,三组标本所测得的ROM、NZ统计学处理差异无显著性。三种不同方式减压后,SPIROM三组间无差异,但ACCF组三种状态下SPINZ和ACDF组相比,差异具有显著性;骨块植入后,ACCF组屈伸运动时的SPINZ和另外两组相比,差异有显著性(P<0.05),三组间不同状态下SPIROM比较,差异不具有显著性(P>0.05);钢板固定后,ACCF组屈伸运动时的SPIROM和ACDF及ACHDF组相比,差异具有显著性P<0.05)。[结论]3节段病变三种减压、植骨、固定方式术后均可恢复即刻稳定性,ACDF和ACHDF在恢复稳定性方面优于ACCF。     

系统综述颈椎间盘置换与椎间融合的临床疗效

[目的]系统评价多节段颈椎间盘置换术与颈椎前路减压椎间融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)临床疗效的比较。[方法]检索Pubmed、Medline、EBSC0、Springer、Ovid、CNKI、Cochrane Library、外文医学期刊全文数据库(foreign journals integrations system)等数据库。收集1995～2010年发表的关于椎间盘置换与椎间融合临床疗效的随机对照试验(RCT),按Cochrane系统评价的方法评价纳入研究的质量和提取资料,并采用RevMan软件进行统计分析。术后疗效评价包括颈部功能残障指数(neck disability index,NDI),视觉模拟评分法(visual analogscale,VAS)及相应节段运动范围(range of motion,ROM)等常见指标。[结果]共8篇文献符合纳入标准,包括1734例患者;术后2年和4年NDI合并权重均差(weighted mean difference,WMD)分别为-7.82,(95%CI,-8.73～-6.91),(P<0.0...     

3种前路手术治疗单节段脊髓型颈椎病的中期疗效比较

目的比较分析颈前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)、颈前路椎体次全切除融合术(ACCF)和人工颈椎间盘置换术(CADR)治疗单节段脊髓型颈椎病的中期疗效。方法回顾性分析自2004-01—2012-01行ACDF、ACCF和CADR手术治疗的79例单节段脊髓型颈椎病。ACDF组44例,ACCF组22例,CADR组13例。比较3组手术时间、术中出血量,术后6、60个月VAS评分、JOA评分、NDI指数、SF-12评分及颈椎曲度。结果 79例均获得61~88(69.8±12.7)个月随访。ACDF组与ACCF组植骨融合时间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后6个月时,ACCF组JOA评分均高于ACDF组及CADR组,ACDF组与ACCF组颈椎曲度优于CADR组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);而3组VAS评分、NDI指数和SF-12评分比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后60个月时,ACDF组与CADR组VAS评分、NDI指数低于ACCF组,而SF-12评分高于ACCF组;ACDF组颈椎曲度优于ACCF组与CADR组,且CADR组优于ACCF组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);而3组JOA评分差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ACCF在短期内神经功能恢复优于ACDF和CADR,但在随访中期ACCF在症状缓解、生活质量改善及颈椎曲度的维持方面却差于ACDF和CADR。     

Comparison between anterior cervical discectomy fusion and cervical corpectomy fusion using titanium cages for reconstruction: analysis of outcome and long-term follow-up

Retrospective comparative study of 80 consecutive patients treated with either anterior cervical discectomy fusion (ACDF) or anterior cervical corpectomy fusion (ACCF) for multi-level cervical spondylosis. To compare clinical outcome, fusion rates, and complications of anterior cervical reconstruction of multi-level ACDF and single-/multi-level ACCF performed using titanium mesh cages (TMCs) filled with autograft and anterior cervical plates (ACPs). Reconstruction of the cervical spine after discectomy or corpectomy with titanium cages filled with autograft has become an acceptable alternative to both allograft and autograft; however, there is no data comparing the outcome of multi-level ACDF and single-/multi-level ACCF using this reconstruction. We evaluated 80 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for the treatment of multi-level cervical spondylosis at our institution from 1998 to 2001. In this series, 42 patients underwent multi-level ACDF (Group 1) and 38 patients underwent ACCF (Group 2). Interbody TMCs and local autograft bone with ACPs were used in both procedures. Medical records were reviewed to assess outcome. Clinical outcome was measured by Odom’s criteria. Operative time and blood loss were noted. Radiographs were obtained at 6 and 12 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years (if necessary). Early hardware failures and pseudarthroses were noted. Cervical sagittal curvature was measured by Ishihara’s index at 1 year. Group 1 had a mean age 46.2 years (range 35–60 years). Group 2 had a mean age 50.1 years (range 35–70 years).The operative time was significantly lower (P < 0.001) and blood loss significantly higher (P < 0.001) in Group 2 than in Group 1. At a minimum of 1 year follow up, patients in both groups had equivalent improvement in their clinical symptoms. The fusion rates for Group 1 were 97.6 and 92.1% for Group 2. The rates of early hardware failure were higher in Group 2 (2.6%) than in Group 1 (0%). The fusion rates for Group 1 were not significantly higher than Group 2 (P > 0.28). There was one patient in Group 1 and 2 patients in Group 2 with pseudarthroses. Complication rates in Group 2 were not significantly higher (P > 0.341). Cervical lordosis was well-maintained (80%) in both groups. Both multi-level ACDF and ACCF with anterior cervical reconstruction using TMC filled with autograft and ACP for treatment of multi-level cervical spondylosis have high fusion rates and good clinical outcome. However, there is a higher rate of early hardware failure and pseudarthroses after ACCF than ACDF. Hence, in the absence of specific pathology requiring removal of vertebral body, multi-level ACDF using interbody cages and autologous bone graft could result in lower morbidity.     

Outcomes of three anterior decompression and fusion techniques in the treatment of three-level cervical spondylosis

The purpose of this article is to compare the outcomes of three different anterior approaches for three-level cervical spondylosis. The records of 120 patients who underwent anterior approaches because of three-level cervical spondylosis between 2006 and 2008 were reviewed. Based on the type of surgery, the patients were divided into three groups: Group 1 was three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF); Group 2 anterior cervical hybrid decompression and fusion (ACHDF, combination of ACDF and ACCF); and Group 3 two-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF). The clinical outcomes including blood loss, operation time, complications, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, C2–C7 angle, segmental angle, and fusion rate were compared. There were no significant differences in JOA improvement and fusion rate among three groups. However, in terms of segmental angle and C2–C7 angle improvement, Group 2 was superior to Group 3 and inferior to Group 1 (all P < 0.01). Group 2 was less in operation time than Group 3 (P < 0.01) and more than Group 1 (P < 0.01). Group 3 had more blood loss than Group 1 and Group 2 (all P < 0.01) and had higher complication rate than Group 1 (P < 0.05). No significant differences in blood loss and complication rate were observed between Group 1 and Group 2 (P > 0.05). ACDF was superior in most outcomes to ACCF and ACHDF. If the compressive pathology could be resolved by discectomy, ACDF should be the treatment of choice. ACHDF was an ideal alternative procedure to ACDF if retro-vertebral pathology existed. ACCF was the last choice considered.     

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。     

Efficacy of multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus corpectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a minimum 5-year follow-up study

Purpose

We evaluated radiologic and clinical outcomes to compare the efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).

Methods

A total of 40 patients who underwent ACDF or ACCF for multilevel CSM were divided into two groups. Group A (n = 25) underwent ACDF and group B (n = 15) ACCF. Clinical outcomes (JOA and VAS scores), perioperative parameters (length of hospital stay, blood loss, operation time), radiological parameters (fusion rate, segmental height, cervical lordosis), and complications were compared.

Results

Both group A and group B demonstrated significant increases in JOA scores and significant decreases in VAS. Patients who underwent ACDF experienced significantly shorter hospital stays (p = 0.031), less blood loss (p = 0.001), and shorter operation times (p = 0.024). Both groups showed significant increases in postoperative cervical lordosis and achieved satisfactory fusion rates (88.0 and 93.3 %, respectively). There were no significant differences in the incidence of complications among the groups.

Conclusions

Both ACDF and ACCF provide satisfactory clinical outcomes and fusion rates for multilevel CSM. However, multilevel ACDF is associated with better radiologic parameters, shorter hospital stays, less blood loss, and shorter operative times.     

前路减压植骨内固定术治疗多节段颈椎病的临床分析

[目的]探讨多节段颈椎病前路椎间盘切除减压植骨内固定术的临床应用价值。[方法]对30例多节段颈椎病患者,采用前路多节段椎间盘切除减压植骨内固定术治疗,观察患者临床表现、神经功能改善、椎间隙高度、颈椎生理曲度恢复和矫形重建。[结果]所有患者术后JOA评分均有改善,颈椎Cobb角、D值和椎间高度术后与术前比较均有显著性差异(P<0.01)。术后X线片均显示融合节段融合。[结论]多节段颈椎病如果致压物来自前方,没有后纵韧带骨化,经前路多节段椎间盘切除减压植骨内固定术治疗,临床效果满意。     

前路椎间盘切除减压融合与椎体次全切除减压融合治疗多节段颈椎病疗效比较

目的比较前路椎间盘减压融合(ACDF)与前路椎体次全切除减压融合(ACCF)治疗多节段颈椎病的效果。方法将138例多节段脊髓型颈椎病患者按照治疗方式的不同分为观察组(行ACDF治疗)和对照组(行ACCF治疗),比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、术前与术后6个月颈椎总活动度、颈椎曲度、颈椎节段性高度及JOA评分。结果手术时间:观察组(128.3±32.4)min,对照组(163.2±43.6)min;术中出血量:观察组(161.4±122.5)ml,对照组(319.2±308.7)ml;以上指标观察组均少于对照组(P0.05)。术后住院时间:观察组(8.1±3.6)d,对照组(9.5±4.2)d;术后6个月时JOA评分:观察组(12.1±2.2)分,对照组(11.7±2.1)分;颈椎总活动度:观察组26.6°±7.3°,对照组30.5°±8.1°;以上指标两组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后颈椎曲度:观察组23.5°±7.4°,对照组16.1°±7.2°;椎间节段性高度:观察组5.6°±0.4°,对照组4.7°±0.8°;以上指标两组比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ACDF较ACCF手术时间短、术中出血量少、颈椎生理弯曲和椎间节段高度恢复更好。