经皮椎间孔镜技术与TLIF治疗极外侧腰椎间盘突出症的疗效比较

目的比较经皮椎间孔镜技术与经椎间孔腰椎间融合术(TLIF)治疗极外侧腰椎间盘突出症的疗效。方法纳入自2013-02—2015-08诊治的36例极外侧腰椎间盘突出症,采用经皮椎间孔镜技术治疗17例(椎间孔镜组),采用TLIF治疗19例(TLIF组)。结果 36例均获得随访4~8个月,平均6.2个月。椎间孔镜组手术时间、住院时间、恢复日常生活时间明显少于TLIF组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。2组术后3个月、末次随访时腰腿痛VAS评分及ODI指数较术前明显改善,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后3个月及末次随访时,2组腰腿痛VAS评分及ODI指数差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。末次随访时2组Mac Nab评分优良率差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论经皮椎间孔镜技术治疗极外侧腰椎间盘突出症可以取得与开放手术相当的近期疗效,且具有创伤小、手术时间短、术后恢复快等优点。     

经皮椎间孔镜技术治疗极外侧型腰椎间盘突出症的效果

目的探讨经皮椎间孔镜技术治疗极外侧型腰椎间盘突出症(PLID)的效果。方法对36例极外侧型PLID患者实施经皮穿刺椎间孔镜下髓核摘除、神经根减压术。回顾性分析患者的临床资料。结果36例患者均成功完成手术。手术时间(82.49±27.17)min,术中出血量(131.30±46.80)mL,住院时间(6.20±2.26)d。术后随访12~18个月,术后各时段的腰腿痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)均明显低于术前;术后3个月和末次随访时改良Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)低于术前。差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。末次随访依据MacNab标准判定疗效,治疗优良率为91.67%(33/36)。结论经皮椎间孔镜技术治疗极外侧型PLID,创伤小,术后恢复及症状缓解快,能有效提高患者的生活质量。     

经皮椎间孔镜与椎板开窗髓核摘除术治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症的疗效比较

目的比较经皮椎间孔镜和椎板开窗髓核摘除术治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2012-06—2014-02诊治的单节段同侧椎板开窗髓核摘除术后复发性腰椎间盘突出症42例,采用经皮椎间孔镜技术治疗18例(椎间孔镜组),采用椎板开窗髓核摘除术治疗24例(椎板开窗组)。采用VAS评分和ODI指数评价2组手术疗效。结果 2组均获得随访8~12个月,平均10.7个月。2组术后腰痛、腿痛VAS评分及ODI指数较术前明显降低,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。椎间孔镜组与椎板开窗组术后1 d、1个月、6个月、末次随访时腰痛VAS评分比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。椎间孔镜组术后1 d腿痛VAS评分低于椎板开窗组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);但2组术后1个月、6个月、末次随访时的腿痛VAS评分比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论经皮椎间孔镜手术是治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症的有效方法,但手术费用较昂贵,学习曲线长。     

经皮椎间孔镜微创手术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效

目的探讨经皮椎间孔镜微创手术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法经皮椎间孔镜微创手术治疗非手术治疗无效的62例腰椎间盘突出症患者,采用疼痛VAS评分、ODI和改良MacNab标准评价临床疗效。结果患者均获得随访,时间6~12(7.8±3.4)个月。无硬膜破裂、神经根损伤等并发症发生。术后1 d和术后1、3、6个月腰腿痛VAS评分、ODI较术前均明显降低(P<0.01)。末次随访时改良MacNab标准评价疗效优良率为91.93%(57/62)。结论经皮椎间孔镜微创手术治疗腰椎间盘突出症创伤小,并发症少,术后恢复快,近期疗效可靠。     

椎间孔镜技术与椎板间开窗治疗双节段腰椎间盘突出症的疗效观察

目的比较椎间孔镜技术与椎板间开窗治疗双节段腰椎间盘突出症的疗效。方法将100例初次腰椎间盘突出症患者分为椎间孔镜组(50例)和开窗组(50例)。椎间孔镜组在局部麻醉下行经皮椎间孔镜髓核摘除手术,开窗组在硬膜外麻醉下行后路椎板间开窗髓核摘除手术。比较两组手术时间、手术前后腰、腿痛VAS评分及ODI评分,并根据中华医学会骨科分会脊柱学组手术疗效标准进行疗效评估。结果两组患者均获得随访,时间12~16个月。两组术前各项评分及手术时间比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后两组腿痛VAS及ODI评分均较术前降低(P0.05)。术后1~14 d腰痛VAS评分椎间孔镜组远低于开窗组(P0.05),术后3~12个月两组腰痛VAS评分比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后1~12个月两组ODI评分比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。末次随访时优良率:椎间孔镜组为92%,开窗组为94%(P0.05)。结论两种手术均可有效治疗患者神经根压迫造成的症状,但经皮椎间孔镜髓核摘除手术创伤小,是治疗腰椎间盘突出症更为理想的方法。     

经皮椎间孔镜下微创治疗腰椎间盘突出症

目的探讨经皮椎间孔镜下微创治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法 2012-10-2013-12对150例腰椎间盘突出症患者进行经皮椎间孔镜下微创治疗。疗效评定依据视觉模拟量表(Visual Analogue Scale,VAS),功能障碍指数(Oswestry Disability Index,ODI)和Macnab腰腿痛评定标准。结果随访3~18个月,平均6个月。下肢神经痛VAS评分术前(5.6±1.1)分,术后1周(2.0±0.5)分,术后3个月(0.7±0.3)分,手术前后结果差异有统计学意义(P0.05);ODI评分术前(63.5±13.3)分,术后1周(20.4±5.4)分,术后3月(15.1±3.6)分,手术前后结果差异有统计学意义(P0.05);Macnab腰腿痛评定标准结果为优109例,良27例,可12例,差2例,优良率90.7%。结论经皮椎间孔镜下微创治疗腰椎间盘突出症对脊柱稳定性破坏小,近期效果优良,是治疗腰椎间盘突出症的优选术式。     

经皮椎间孔镜技术治疗老年腰椎间盘突出症

目的探讨经皮椎间孔镜技术治疗老年腰椎间盘突出症的手术技巧及疗效。方法回顾性分析自2012-05—2015-08经皮椎间孔镜技术治疗的36例老年椎间盘突出症,其中30例行椎间孔扩大成形术。比较手术前后VAS评分及ODI指数,末次随访时采用Mac Nab标准评定疗效。结果本组手术时间平均68.6(52~93)min,无神经根损伤、硬膜囊撕裂及脑脊液漏发生。36例均获得随访,随访时间平均24.6(14~53)个月。术后VAS评分、ODI指数较术前明显降低,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);且术后1年VAS评分、ODI指数与术后3个月比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。末次随访时疗效采用Mac Nab标准评定:优22例,良11例,可3例(其中2例未行椎间孔扩大成形术)。结论经皮椎间孔镜技术治疗老年腰椎间盘突出症创伤小、出血少、术后恢复快,通过镜下精准减压、椎间孔扩大成形确保了手术效果。     

经皮椎间孔镜TESSYS技术治疗单节段双侧腰椎间盘突出症

目的:探讨经椎间孔镜TESSYS (transforaminal endoscopic spine system)技术治疗单节段双侧腰椎间盘突出症患者的早期临床效果。方法:对2016年2月至2018年2月行经皮椎间孔镜TESSYS技术治疗的单节段双侧腰椎间盘突出症38例患者进行回顾性分析,男26例,女12例;年龄30～55(35.2±6.4)岁;L3,46例,L4,522例,L5S110例。使用德国Joimax GmbH公司椎间孔镜,局部麻醉,透视下双侧穿刺至病变节段的椎间孔外侧,应用4级扩张导管逐级完成椎间孔扩大成形,环锯逐级扩大椎间孔,双侧置入椎间孔镜,摘除突出髓核,直至神经根完全松解。术后对患者进行定期的门诊复查、电话随访,分别比较术前、术后1、3、6、12个月的双下肢疼痛的视觉模拟疼痛评分(VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry Disability Index,ODI),末次随访应用改良的MacNab标准进行疗效评定。结果:36例患者手术顺利且获得12个月以上的随访。术后1、3、6、12月的双下肢疼痛VAS评分和ODI评分较术前均有明显改善(P0.05),术后1、3个月与术后6、12个月双下肢疼痛的VAS评分和ODI评分差异均有统计学意义(P0.05),而术后1个月与3个月、术后6个月与12个月双下肢疼痛VAS评分和ODI评分差异无统计学意义(P0.05),末次随访根据改良MacNab评价标准,优14例,良16例,可4例,差2例。结论:运用经皮椎间孔镜TESSYS技术从双侧摘除突出髓核的同时能够充分对神经根进行减压,可以有效应用于单节段双侧腰椎间盘突出症的患者。     

椎间盘造影染色在椎间孔镜治疗极外侧型腰椎间盘突出症中的应用

[目的]探讨椎间盘造影及染色在椎间孔镜治疗极外侧型腰椎间盘突出症中的临床应用价值。[方法]回顾性分析2013年1月~2016年12月48例极外侧型腰椎间盘突出症(far-lateral lumbar disc herniation,lumbar FLDH)患者,术前行椎间盘造影和亚甲蓝染色,继之行椎间盘薄层CT扫描,明确责任节段椎间盘及受累神经根。所有患者在局麻下行经皮椎间孔镜腰椎间盘切除术(percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy,PELD),术前、术后24 h及术后1和3个月采用疼痛视觉模拟评分法(visual analog scale,VAS)和改良的Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)评估手术疗效,术后3个月末次随访时按Mac Nab标准评估治疗有效率。[结果]所有患者均顺利完成腰椎间盘造影和亚甲蓝染色及椎间孔镜手术,术中镜下可以清晰识别受压的神经根和突(脱)出的蓝染髓核组织。术后疼痛症状较术前明显减轻,VAS评分由术前(8.78±1.47)分降低至术后24 h时(2.00±0.42)分和术后3个月时(0.89±0.14)分,ODI由术前(83.70±5.59)%减少至术后24 h时(45.92±3.39)%和术后3个月时(13.33±2.23)%,按Mac Nab标准总体优良率为93.75%。[结论]椎间盘造影及亚甲蓝染色有助于明确责任椎间盘节段和受累神经根,提高FLDH诊断的准确性,对于指导PELD术中发现髓核突出及神经根致压部位、提高手术疗效具有重要的临床价值。     

经皮椎间孔镜技术治疗极外侧型腰椎间盘突出症的临床观察

目的观察经皮椎间孔镜技术治疗极外侧型腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法自2013-09-2015-02,共收治26例极外侧型腰椎间盘突出症患者,均予以经皮椎间孔镜手术治疗。术后随访2年以上,进行疗效评定。结果 26例患者均顺利完成手术,无一例发生术中神经根或硬膜损伤等并发症。患者手术时间为63-102 min,平均73.6 min;住院时间4-7 d,平均5.1 d。术后即时和不同随访时间,其腰、腿痛的VAS评分均较术前有显著下降(P0.05)。术后随访2年时,采用改良MacNab疗效评价,26例中,优16例,良7例,可1例,差2例,总优良率为88.5%。结论极外侧型腰椎间盘突出症行经皮椎间孔镜技术治疗,近期疗效良好。     

两种椎体间融合术治疗老年腰椎滑脱合并腰椎管狭窄疗效比较

目的比较经椎间孔椎体间融合术(TLIF)和经后路椎体间融合术(PLIF)治疗老年腰椎滑脱合并腰椎管狭窄的效果。方法将50例合并腰椎管狭窄的退行性腰椎滑脱患者根据手术方法分为TLIF组(25例)和PLIF组(25例),分析两组的临床疗效及并发症发生率。结果两组术后12个月疼痛VAS评分均低于术前(P0.05);两组术后12个月Prolo评分均高于术前(P0.05)。术后VAS评分、并发症发生率TLIF组均低于PLIF组(P0.05),术后Prolo评分及优良率TLIF组均高于PLIF组(P0.05)。结论 TLIF治疗老年退行性腰椎滑脱合并腰椎管狭窄症的临床效果较好,并可降低术后并发症发生率。     

单侧经椎间孔椎体间融合术治疗腰椎退变性疾病

目的探讨单侧经椎间孔椎体间融合术治疗腰椎退变性疾病的临床效果。方法 2003年1月至2005年12月,应用经椎间孔椎体间融合术治疗36例腰椎退变性疾病。男22例,女14例;年龄43～66岁,平均55岁。术前诊断：腰椎间盘突出症合并椎管狭窄12例,腰椎间盘切除术后复发4例,腰椎退变性滑脱症8例,腰椎管狭窄症12例。单融合节段：L3～43例,L4～515例,L5S18例;双融合节段：L3～4和L4～54例,L4～5和L5S16例。内植物：椎弓根钉＋钛网26例,椎弓根钉＋椎间融合器10例。临床疗效应用日本骨科学会下腰痛评分系统（JOA评分）对手术前和末次随访时进行评价。根据JOA评分计算改善率。结果 36例患者均获得随访,随访时间1年8个月至4年9个月,平均3年5个月。术前JOA评分为（6.2±1.3）分,术后JOA评分为（12.6±2.2）分。手术前后JOA评分比较有显著性差异（P〈0.05）,术后平均改善率为72.7%,临床疗效满意。随访时正侧位X线片显示：40个椎间植骨融合;6个椎间植骨可能融合。并发症1例术中神经根牵拉伤未完全恢复,且术后2年出现伤口深部感染,X线片显示椎体间融合,经清创、取出椎弓根内固定、置管冲洗后治愈。结论单侧经椎间孔椎体间融合术治疗退变性腰椎疾病的临床疗效满意,创伤小,融合率高。     

退变性腰椎间盘突出症的手术治疗

作者通过１００例退变性腰椎间盘突出症的手术治疗，结合影像学检查和手术所见，将退变性腰椎间盘突出部分：（１）单纯性腰椎间盘突出或膨出；（２）登工节段性椎管狭窄；（３）合并侧隐窝狭窄；（４）合并椎管、侧隐窝狭窄。术中讨论了退变性椎间盘突出的病理特点。手术治疗可获得较好的疗效。本组经术后半年－３．５年的随访，优良率为８９％。     

A retrospective study of epidural and intravenous steroids after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for large lumbar disc herniation

Objective: To assess the early curative effect of epidural or intravenous administration of steroids during a percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD). Methods: 28 consecutive patients who underwent PELD due to large lumbar disc herniation between November 2014 and January 2016 were followed up for 6 months. These patients were divided into two groups according to the treatment they received after PELD. 14 patients (Group A) were treated by PELD and epidural steroids, while the other 14 patients (Group B) were treated by PELD and intravenous steroids. We evaluated the effectiveness by the preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, and the postoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 3 weeks after surgery via the clinical charts and telephone interview. Postoperative hospital stay and time return to work were investigated as well. Results: There is a significant decrease in VAS (back, leg), ODI, and time return to work (p < 0.05). For VAS (back), Group A showed a significant decrease compared with Group B at 1 day and 1 week after surgery (p=0.011, p=0.017). As for VAS (leg), Group A showed a significant decrease compared with Group B at 1 day, 1 week, 3 weeks, and 3 months follow-up examinations (p=0.002, p=0.006, p < 0.001, p < 0.001). For ODI, Group A showed a notable decrease compared with Group B (p < 0.001). The postoperative hospital stay in two groups was not statistically different (p=0.636). But the time return to work in Group A was significantly shorter than that in Group B (p=0.023). Conclusion: Patients who underwent PELD with epidural steroid administration for large lumbar disc herniation showed favorable curative effect compared with those who underwent PELD with intravenous steroid administration.     

Outcomes and Complications following Posterior Long Lumbar Fusions Exceeding Three Levels

The outcomes and complications of posterior-only lumbar instrumented long fusions exceeding three segments with selective segmental transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis, kyphosis, or both combined with spondylolisthesis were analyzed to investigate risk factors associated with surgical instrumentation failure. Fifteen consecutive patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis, kyphosis, or both combined with spondylolisthesis were studied retrospectively. There were 5 male and 10 female patients, with a mean age of 71.8 years. All the patients were followed for a mean duration of 19.4 months postoperatively. Radiographic evaluation included coronal Cobb angle, lumbar lordosis (LL) angle, pelvic incidence (PI), and pelvic tilt (PT). The clinical outcomes were assessed by means of Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score. Patients were divided into two groups: group 1—7 patients with surgical complications; group 2—8 patients without complications. The preoperative and postoperative coronal Cobb''s angle were not significantly different between groups 1 and 2. The LL highly correlated with developing surgical complications. There were statistically significant differences in preoperative and postoperative LL and the mean difference between PI and the LL (PI–LL) between groups 1 and 2. Linear correlation and regression analysis showed that there was no correlation between JOA score and the coronal Cobb angle in degenerative scoliosis patients. However, we found a positive correlation between JOA and LL. Our series of long lumbar fusions had a high complication and instrumentation failure. Creating adequate LL angle in harmony with PI was a key to prevent surgical complications and attain neurological improvement.     

360°腰椎融合与后外侧融合治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效比较

[目的]分析360°腰椎融合与后外侧融合在治疗腰椎退行性疾病中的疗效.[方法]将2008年后在本科进行手术治疗的45例腰椎退行性疾病患者按融合方法不同分为360°腰椎融合组及后外侧融合组,回顾分析并比较两种融合方法在患者功能恢复、脊椎融合率、并发症的发生率及腰椎生理前凸保持方面的不同,评价两种融合方法的疗效差异.[结果]与术前相比,两组患者在生活质量及腰腿痛方面均有明显的改善,360°腰椎融合组患者改善更为明显.与后外侧融合组患者相比,360°腰椎融合组患者的腰椎生理前凸得到更好的保持,同时,腰椎融合率更高.[结论] 360°腰椎融合与后外侧融合相比,能更好的保持腰椎生理前凸,获得更高的融合率,减少并发症的发生,同时能使患者得到更好的功能恢复.     

应用PLIF及TLIF治疗腰椎退变性疾病的比较研究

目的评价经后路椎间融合术(posterior lumbar interbody fusion,PLIF)与经椎间孔椎间融合术(transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF)治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效。方法分析2012-12-2015-06应用PLIF和TLIF治疗腰椎退行性疾病患者73例,比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、手术并发症及椎间融合效果;比较两组病例组内及组间术前、术后6个月的腰痛VAS(Visual Analogue Score)评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数调查表(The Oswestry Disability Index,ODI)评分。结果 PLIF组手术时间、术中出血量及术后引流量均较TLIF组高;PLIF组及TLIF组腰痛VAS评分术后6个月较术前均明显改善,两组组间比较术前腰痛VAS评分无明显差异,术后6个月腰痛VAS评分PLIF组较TLIF组高,差异有统计学意义;两组术后6个月较术前ODI评分明显改善,组间比较术前及术后ODI评分无明显差异。结论两种手术方法均可以有效缓解腰椎退行性疾病的症状,TLIF在手术时间、失血量及并发症的发生上都较PLIF低,对于单侧症状患者可选择TLIF的手术方式,对于双侧压迫患者可选用PLIF技术。     

后路腰椎椎体间植骨融合术与经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间植骨融合术治疗腰椎退行性病变的近期疗效对比

目的比较后路腰椎椎体间植骨融合术(PLIF)与经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间植骨融合术(TLIF)治疗腰椎退行性病变的近期疗效。方法 62例于我院接受单节段手术治疗的部分腰椎退行性病变患者,其中接受PLIF手术患者34例,接受TLIF手术患者28例。比较两组手术时间、出血量、住院时间、并发症及植骨融合率。手术效果按照视觉疼痛模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)、JOA评分(Japanese orthopaedic association scores,JOA)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(oswestry disability index,ODI)和改良MacNab标准进行评定。结果 PLIF组与TILF组手术时间、出血量比较差异有统计学意义(P0.01);住院时间和植骨融合率比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。PLIF组和TILF组并发症发生率分别为26.5%(9/34)和14.3%(4/28),TLIF组低于PILF组(P0.01)。PLIF组和TILF组患者术后随访时间为6个月。两组患者术后各随访时间点腰腿痛VAS评分、JOA评分、ODI指数较术前均明显改善(P0.01),但PILF组术后1个月内腰痛VAS评分高于TLIF组。PLIF组和TILF组患者末次随访时按改良MacNab标准评定优良率分别为91.8%和87.5%,组间比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论单节段PLIF与TILF治疗腰椎退行性病变均可取得满意的近期临床疗效,但TLIF创伤小、出血少、对脊柱稳定性破坏较少。     

Different operative possibilities for treatment of lumbar disc herniations — how to choose the best method for the individual patient

Summary The indications for operative treatment of lumbar disc herniations are outlined and the advantages, short-comings and temptations of discolysis, microoperation and large approach discussed.The following indication scheme is proposed:Discolysis: Non-displaced disc herniation without other major causative pathologyMicro-operation: Displaced disc herniation; nondisplaced disc herniation with monosegmental additional causative factorsLarge approach: Multiple disc herniations with suspected displacement and multisegmental additional pathologies.     

斜外侧腰椎体间融合术初次术后邻近节段退变

[目的]评价斜外侧腰椎体间融合术(oblique lumbar interbody fusion,0LIF)治疗腰椎融合术后邻近节段退变的临床效果。[方法]回顾性分析2016年12月一2019年12月本院脊柱外科采用0LIF术治疗腰椎融合术后邻近节段退变50例患者的临床资料。[结果]50例患者均顺利完成手术,均未发生严重并发症。所有患者随访12?16个月,平均(13.74±1.63)个月。术后(12.66±3.64)周患者恢复完全负重活动。随访期间,患者术后疼痛逐步减缓,功能逐步改善。与术前相比较,末次随访时VAS和0DI评分均显著下降(P<0.05)。影像方面,与术前相比,末次随访时患者的腰椎前凸角(LL)显著增加(P<0.05),而侧凸Cobb角显著减少(P<0.05)。至末次随访时,50例患者再次手术椎间隙均达到骨性融合,椎间融合器无移位、下沉。[结论]采用0LIF治疗腰椎融合术后邻近节段退变具有较好的安全性和有效性。