单侧与双侧入路经皮椎体后凸成形术治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折的疗效比较

目的比较单侧椎弓根旁入路和双侧椎弓根入路行经皮椎体后凸成形术(PKP)治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折(OVCF)的临床疗效。方法将行PKP治疗的50例OVCF患者根据手术入路不同分为单侧组(采用单侧椎弓根旁入路,23例)和双侧组(采用双侧椎弓根入路,27例)。比较两组手术时间、骨水泥注入量、骨水泥渗漏情况、伤椎椎体高度压缩率、VAS评分及ODI。结果患者均顺利完成手术。手术时间单侧组明显少于双侧组(P<0.01);每椎骨水泥注入量两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。发生骨水泥渗漏:单侧组2例,双侧组3例。患者均获得随访,时间6~12个月。术后6个月,两组VAS评分、ODI及伤椎椎体高度压缩率均较术前明显改善(P<0.01),两组3项比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论单侧椎弓根旁入路和双侧椎弓根入路行PKP治疗OVCF均能取得满意临床疗效,单侧椎弓根旁入路较双侧椎弓根入路具有手术时间短、创伤小的优点。     

单双侧穿刺经皮椎体后凸成形术治疗多发椎体压缩性骨折的疗效比较

目的比较单侧和双侧经椎弓根穿刺经皮椎体后凸成形术(PKP)治疗多发骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折的疗效。方法将52例骨质疏松性多发椎体压缩性骨折患者(骨折椎≥2个)按照随机数字表法分为对照组和观察组,每组26例。对照组采用双侧椎弓根穿刺PKP,观察组采用单侧椎弓根穿刺PKP。比较两组手术时间、X线曝露时间、骨水泥注入量、住院时间、疼痛VAS评分、伤椎高度恢复率、胸腰椎后凸Cobb角及术后并发症情况。结果患者均获得随访,时间6个月～2年。手术时间、X线曝露时间、骨水泥注入量对照组长(多)于观察组(P 0. 001)。末次随访时VAS评分、伤椎高度恢复率、胸腰椎后凸Cobb角及住院时间两组比较差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05)。术后并发症发生率观察组明显低于对照组(P 0. 05)。结论单、双侧椎弓根穿刺PKP治疗骨质疏松性多发椎体压缩骨折均有效,但单侧椎弓根穿刺的手术时间短,医患X线接触少,患者术后并发症少。     

单侧与双侧椎弓根人路PKP治疗老年新鲜骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折的对比研究

目的 比较单、双侧椎弓根入路经皮椎体后凸成形术(PKP)治疗老年新鲜骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折(OVCFs)的临床效果.方法 对胸腰椎椎体压缩性骨折38例(47椎)应用PKP治疗,包括单球囊单侧椎弓根入路组(21例26椎)和单球囊双侧椎弓根入路组(17例21椎).结果 所有患者随访12～16个月,平均13.6个月.患者疼痛缓解明显,两组VAS评分、椎体Cobb角度、椎体前缘高度的恢复情况术前与术后比较,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05),但单侧及双侧人路组组间比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).双侧人路组手术时间、X线照射时间及骨水泥用量均显著大于单侧人路组(P＜0.05).结论 单侧及双侧人路PKP治疗骨质疏松性胸腰椎压缩骨折效果相似,但前者具有手术时间短、放射暴露少、骨水泥用量小等优点.     

椎弓根外穿刺行单侧PVP或PKP术治疗上中位胸椎椎体骨折

目的:探讨椎弓根外穿刺行单侧PVP或PKP术治疗上中位胸椎骨质疏松性压缩骨折(OVCFs)的特点与疗效。方法:回顾性分析2004年11月～2010年3月我院收治的上、中胸椎OVCFs患者26例39个椎体,均采用椎弓根外穿刺行单侧PVP或PKP术,其中男8例,女18例;平均年龄71.3±1.3岁;原发性OVCFs 19例,继发OVCFs 7例。骨折时间平均3.5周,骨折椎体分布:T3 1个、T4 3个,T5 4个,T6 4个,T7 6个、T8 10个、T9 6个、T10 5个。1个节段17例,2个节段5例,3个节段4例。PVP 15例27个节段,PKP 11例12个节段。术中观察穿刺针针尖达到椎体中线的比率,术后1d及末次随访时测量骨折椎体前缘和椎体中间高度的恢复值、VAS评分的改善率、骨水泥向椎体外渗漏率以及患者的满意度。结果:39个椎体均经单侧胸椎椎弓根外途径穿刺完成PVP和PKP操作。均穿刺成功、骨水泥在椎体内左右对称分布。手术时间为25～35min/椎,无穿刺并发症。骨水泥平均注射量3.5ml/椎。骨水泥渗漏4例,渗漏率10.25%。平均随访时间14个月。VAS评分术前平均为9.8±0.3分,术后1d平均为5.7±0.4分,末次随访时为3.3±0.4分,术前与术后1d及末次随访时的VAS评分比较,疼痛均得到了明显改善(P<0.05);椎体前缘高度恢复值和椎体中间高度恢复值分别为为63.1±18.6%和68.5±25.3%,均较术前明显恢复(P<0.05)。患者对治疗的满意率达100%。结论:治疗上、中位胸椎骨质疏松性压缩性骨折,椎弓根外穿刺行单侧PVP和PKP术是一种安全、可行和有效的治疗方法。     

单侧与双侧经皮椎体后凸成形术治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折的疗效比较

目的 比较单侧与双侧经皮椎体后凸成形术(PKP)治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折(OVCFs)的临床疗效.方法 60例胸腰椎OVCFs患者分为两组,采用单侧PKP治疗31例38椎(单侧组)、双侧PKP治疗29例34椎(双侧组);比较两组术前、术后和术后6个月疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、Cobb角及椎体高度、手术时间、X线照射时间及骨水泥注射量等,评价疗效.结果 60例患者均获随访,时间3 ～15(9.6±1.2)个月.患者疼痛均明显缓解;两组VAS评分、椎体Cobb角度、椎体前缘高度的恢复情况与术前比较,差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05);但两组间比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).双侧组手术时间、X线照射时间及骨水泥用量均大于单侧组(P＜0.05).结论 单侧PKP与双侧PKP治疗OVCFs疗效相似;但单侧PKP具有创伤小、手术时间短、放射暴露少、风险小等优点,应是治疗OVCFs的优先选择.     

双侧与单侧PKP治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折

目的比较双侧与单侧经椎弓根穿刺椎体后凸成形术治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折的疗效。方法 2005-05-2010-03,应用经皮球囊扩张椎体后凸成形术治疗62例骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折患者,其中32例经双侧椎弓根穿刺,30例经单侧椎弓根穿刺,按照VAS评分、影像学资料、Oswestry评分标准分别对患者疼痛、椎体高度和Cobb’s角、日常活动功能进行疗效比较。结果所有手术均顺利完成,无严重手术并发症。有7个椎体发生骨水泥渗漏,均未出现临床症状。术后1周、1年时,两种穿刺方法椎体前缘高度、椎体后凸Cobb’s角、VAS评分及Oswestry功能评分较术前均有改善（P〈0.05）。术后1周与最终随访时差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。术后1周双侧组与单侧组比较,伤椎前缘的高度、椎体后凸Cobb角、VAS评分有显著性差异（P〈0.05）,最终随访两者疼痛恢复无显著性差异（P〉0.05）。结论两种不同穿刺方法治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折均是安全有效的;伤椎前缘高度的恢复、椎体后凸Cobb角及早期VAS评分的改善方面,双侧穿刺组优于单侧穿刺组。     

单侧与双侧椎弓根入路PKP治疗老年新鲜骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折的对比研究

目的比较单、双侧椎弓根入路经皮椎体后凸成形术（PKP）治疗老年新鲜骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折（OVCFs）的临床效果。方法对胸腰椎椎体压缩性骨折38例伟7椎）应用PKP治疗,包括单球囊单侧椎弓根入路组（21例26椎）和单球囊双侧椎弓根入路组（17例21椎）。结果所有患者随访12-16个月,平均13．6个月。患者疼痛缓解明显,两组VAS评分、椎体Cobb角度、椎体前缘高度的恢复情况术前与术后比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）,但单侧及双侧入路组组间比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。双侧入路组手术时间、X线照射时间及骨水泥用量均显著大于单侧入路组（P〈0．05）。结论单侧及双侧入路PKP治疗骨质疏松性胸腰椎压缩骨折效果相似。但前者具有手术时间短、放射暴露少、骨水泥用量小等优点。     

单侧与双侧经皮椎体后凸成形术治疗老年骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折的疗效

目的比较单侧与双侧椎弓根入路经皮椎体后凸成形术(PKP)治疗老年新鲜骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折(OVCF)的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2014年1月至2017年6月接受PKP治疗的134例胸腰椎单椎体OVCF患者的临床资料,按手术入路将患者分为单侧组(经单侧椎弓根入路)和双侧组(经双侧椎弓根入路)。观察患者术后椎体高度恢复率、后凸角改善情况、疼痛改善情况,以及术中骨水泥注入量和骨水泥渗漏情况等。结果单侧组61例,平均年龄(74.7±9.6)岁,双侧组73例,平均年龄(75.1±8.6)岁。两组患者术后伤椎椎体前缘和中间高度的丢失率以及后凸角均较术前减小(P0.05)。Ⅰ°骨折患者,术后伤椎的椎体前缘和中间高度恢复率、后凸角恢复率两组比较无差异(P0.05),单侧组术后骨水泥侧漏少于双侧组(P0.05)。Ⅱ°/Ⅲ°骨折患者,术后伤椎的椎体前缘和中间高度恢复率、后凸角恢复率双侧组均优于单侧组(P0.05),两组骨水泥侧漏情况无差异(P0.05)。与术前相比,两组患者术后3d和末次随访时的VAS均明显降低(P0.05),但两组间术后3d及末次随访的VAS比较无差异(P0.05)。结论单椎体OVCF骨折患者,如果为Ⅰ°骨折或一侧椎弓根破坏严重、进针困难时宜选择单侧入路PKP手术,Ⅱ°或Ⅲ°骨折时宜选择灌注高黏度骨水泥的双侧入路PKP手术。     

经皮椎体后凸成形术中单双侧经椎弓根穿刺路径的选择

[目的]探讨骨质疏松性椎体骨折经皮后凸成形术中单双侧经椎弓根入路的选择.[方法]36例骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折患者,术前根据伤椎椎弓根CT层面经椎弓根进针线确定单、双侧入路,采用球囊或Sky扩张器行椎体后凸成形术.术前、术后1周及1年时摄x线片测量椎体高度恢复率、后凸Cobb's角及疼痛视觉类比评分(VAS).[结果]36例50节骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折中,44节椎体行经皮椎体后凸成形术.术前计划单侧经椎弓根入路32节椎体,双侧经椎弓根入路12节椎体;术中单侧入路22节椎体,双侧入路22节椎体,其中10节椎体由单侧入路改为双侧入路.术后1周及1年时VAS评分、椎体后凸Cobb's角及椎体高度恢复率较术前均改善(P<0.05).但单侧组与双侧组比较,上述参数无显著性差异(P>0.05).[结论]根据术前伤椎CT椎弓根进针线可以初步确定单、双侧椎弓根穿刺路径.腰椎及大部分胸椎可以采用单侧经椎弓根入路行经皮椎体后凸成形术,部分下胸椎骨质疏松性骨折患者需行双侧经椎弓根入路.     

单侧椎弓根旁入路与双侧椎弓根入路PKP疗效分析

目的 探讨经单侧椎弓根旁入路或双侧椎弓根入路行椎体后凸成形术(percutaneous kyphoplasty,P KP)治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折的临床疗效.方法 回顾性分析2007年6月至2008年11月行PKP治疗的134例(167椎)骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折患者的临床资料,单侧椎弓根旁入路组共96例118椎,男32例,女64例;年龄55～82岁,平均年龄67岁.双侧经椎弓根入路组38例49椎,男13例,女25例;年龄57～78岁,平均年龄66.7岁.观察患者手术前后VAS评分变化及椎体平均高度恢复情况.结果 所有患者均顺利完成手术.单侧组平均手术时间(40±15) min,双侧组平均手术时间(63±24) min,两组间比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).单侧组平均每椎体注射骨水泥(6.7±2.7) mL,双侧组平均每椎体注射骨水泥(7.2±2.1) mL,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).两组术后及末次随访时VAS评分均较术前明显降低(P＜0.05),两组间比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);术后两组椎体平均高度较术前均有显著恢复(P＜0.05),组间比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);单侧组骨水泥渗漏发生率为8.47％,双侧组为10.20％,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 经单侧椎弓根旁入路PKP治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折,可取得双侧经椎弓根入路PKP同样满意的临床效果,且具有手术时间短、骨水泥渗漏率低等优点.     

后外侧及内侧联合入路手术治疗三踝骨折

2008年3月～2011年1月,我科根据踝关节的解剖学特点,采用后外侧及内侧联合入路治疗三踝骨折12例,疗效满意,报道如下。1材料与方法1.1病例资料本组12例,男7例,女5例,年龄24～68(44±1.4)岁。骨折根据Lange-Hansen分型:旋后外旋型4例,     

Similar Superior Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Anterior and Posterolateral Approaches After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Postoperative Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Improvement After 3 months in 12,774 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties Using the Anterior,Anterolateral, Straight Lateral,or Posterolateral Approach

Background

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to evaluate the outcome of total hip arthroplasty (THA). We determined the effect of surgical approach on PROMs after primary THA.

肌间隙入路和传统入路在腰椎融合术中的对比研究

目的:比较经肌间隙入路和传统入路对腰椎融合手术患者的影响。方法:对2016年5月至2017年5月因腰椎间盘突出或MeyerdingⅡ度以内腰椎滑脱行2个节段以内腰椎融合手术治疗的70例患者进行回顾性分析。70例患者根据手术入路分为两组,肌间隙入路组35例,男18例,女17例,年龄(52±11)岁;传统入路组35例,男19例,女16例,年龄(51±14)岁。70例患者中包括腰椎间盘突出症38例,腰椎滑脱32例。记录两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量,术后引流量、腰腿痛VAS评分、外周血CK浓度以及MRI上多裂肌横截面积。结果:肌间隙入路组手术时间、术中出血量和术后引流量均少于传统入路组(P0.05)。术后7 d和3个月两组患者的VAS腰痛评分差异有统计学意义(P0.05);两组患者VAS腿痛评分,术后7 d差异无统计学意义(P0.05),术后3个月差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后1 d和3 d外周血CK浓度:肌间隙入路组分别为(400±103) U/L和(176±58) U/L,传统入路组分别为(598±57) U/L和(222±50) U/L,两组间差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组患者MRI上多裂肌横截面积:术前肌间隙入路组为(424±66) mm~2,传统入路组为(428±82)mm~2,组间差异无统计学意义(P=0.8);术后3个月肌间隙入路组为(347±73) mm~2,传统入路组为(239±78) mm~2,组间差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:行腰椎融合手术,肌间隙入路与传统后正中入路相比,确实拥有手术时间短、对椎旁肌损伤小、术后腰腿痛缓解明显等优势,但在确定手术方案时,术者也应充分认识到Wiltse间隙在不同层面的解剖学差异可能对手术操作产生的影响。     

The Direct Anterior Approach is Associated With Early Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Background

The direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) has generated increased interest recently. The purpose of this study was to compare the duration to failure and reasons for revision of primary THA performed elsewhere and subsequently revised at our institution after the direct anterior vs other nonanterior surgical approaches to the hip.

Transoral vs. Endoscopic Endonasal Approach for Clival/Upper Cervical Chordoma

The surgical results of 18 cases of clival/upper cervical chordoma treated in the last decade via the endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA, 9 cases) and the transoral-transpalatal approach (TO-TPA, 9 cases) were compared. Each group showed the same incidence of subdural invasion, with 5 cases each. The superior (frontal base) and lateral surgical fields were wider by EEA, but the inferior view lower than the cranio-vertebral junction (CVJ) was wider by TO-TPA. Gross total removal was achieved in 3 cases in the EEA group, but in only 1 case in the TO-TPA group. Differences in radicality might be due to the extent of the lateral and subdural overview. However for large tumors extending below the CVJ, TO-TPA was the only viable approach for surgical removal. Surgical complications were higher in the EEA (4 cases) than the TO-TPA group (1 case), and were mainly caused by aggressive management of subdural invasion in the EEA group. Post-operative oral intake was earlier and the operative time was shorter in the EEA group. The surgical results were more radical and less invasive in the EEA group than the TO-TPA group. However in tumors extending below the CVJ, the surgical field in EEA was limited, indicating the need to use the transoral route or a combination of routes. A higher complication rate following subdural management was a negative factor that requires improvement in the EEA group and two-staged EEA followed by a transcranial approach may be considered for the cases with subdural invasion.     

Microsurgical anatomy and related techniques to an anterolateral transthoracic approach to thoracic disc herniations

The microsurgical anatomy and related techniques of a modified anterolateral transthoracic approach to the thoracic disc space is presented. This procedure was performed on at least three thoracic levels of 12 cadavers within a few hours after death. Such an approach allows a safe decompression of the spinal cord and roots under full visual control. There is minimal risk to radiculome-dullary vessels, minimal osteoligamental resection, and no compromise of stability of the spinal column. Therefore, this procedure does not require surgical stabilization of the spinal column, postoperative bracing, or prolonged bed rest. The difference between this approach and anterolateral transthoracic, posterolateral, and transpedicular approaches is discussed.     

Accessing the Basilar Artery Apex: Is the Temporopolar Transcavernous Route an Anatomically Advantageous Alternative?

The restricted operative field, difficulty of obtaining proximal vascular control, and close relationship to important anatomic structures limit approaches to basilar apex aneurysms. We used a cadaveric model to compare three surgical transcavernous routes to the basilar apex in the neutral configuration. Five cadaveric heads were dissected and analyzed. Working areas and length of exposure provided by the transcavernous (TC) approach via pterional, orbitozygomatic, and temporopolar (TP) routes were measured along with assessment of anatomic variation for the basilar apex region. In the pterional TC and orbitozygomatic TC approaches, the mean length of exposure of the basilar artery measured 6.9 and 7.2 mm, respectively (p = NS). The mean length of exposure in a TP TC approach increased to 9.3 mm (p < 0.05). Compared with the pterional and orbitozygomatic approaches, the TP TC approach provided a larger peribasilar area of exposure ipsilaterally and contralaterally (p < 0.05). The multiplanar working area related to the TP TC approach was 77.7 and 69.5% wider than for the pterional TC and orbitozygomatic TC, respectively. For a basilar apex in the neutral position, the TP TC approach may be advantageous, providing a wider working area for the basilar apex region, improving maneuverability for clip application, fine visualization of perforators, and better proximal control.     

单一入路手术治疗巨大侵袭性脊柱神经鞘瘤

目的探讨单一入路手术治疗巨大侵袭性脊柱神经鞘瘤的方法、疗效与安全性。方法回顾性分析自2013-01—2016-01采用单一入路手术治疗的11例巨大侵袭性脊柱神经鞘瘤。1例颈椎肿瘤行前路手术,2例颈椎肿瘤行后外侧入路手术。胸腰椎肿瘤4例中3例行后路手术,1例行前路手术。骶椎肿瘤4例行后路手术。结果本组手术时间120~290(210±55)min,术中出血量150~1 200(537±306)ml。1例S1神经根结扎后下肢肌力下降,双侧S4神经根结扎后出现二便功能障碍,术后半年逐渐恢复。本组均获得4~28(13.2±6.8)个月随访,所有患者均未发现肿瘤复发和转移,内固定位置良好。术前痛区VAS评分1~8(4.5±2.0)分,末次随访时VAS评分1~3(1.8±0.6)分;末次随访时疼痛较术前明显缓解,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。术前7例有神经功能障碍者ASIA评分:左侧39~49(44.5±3.9)分,右侧40~49(45.7±3.0)分;末次随访ASIA评分:左侧42~49(46.7±2.5)分,右侧45~49(47.4±1.4)分;手术前后ASIA评分差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论单一入路手术能够完整切除巨大侵袭性脊柱神经鞘瘤,彻底减压并重建脊柱稳定性,疗效确切,并发症少。