下腰椎病变三种固定方法的疗效对比研究

[目的] 探讨瞄准器引导下经皮单侧椎板关节突螺钉、单侧椎弓根螺钉并瞄准器引导下经皮对侧椎板关节突螺钉,以及双侧椎弓根螺钉三种固定方法联合椎间融合器植骨治疗下腰椎病变的优缺点.[方法] 自2007年6月～ 2009年12月分别采用瞄准器引导下经皮单侧椎板关节突螺钉固定联合椎间融合器植骨(A组)、单侧椎弓根螺钉并瞄准器引导下经皮对侧椎板关节突螺钉固定联合椎间融合器植骨(B组)、双侧椎弓根螺钉固定联合椎间融合器植骨(C组)三种方法治疗下腰椎病变共84例,均为单节段病变;其中A组26例,B组30例,C组28例;记录并对比三种手术方法其手术时间、切口长度、术中出血量、术后引流液量和住院费用;通过影像学评价三种手术方法病例其术前、术后、最后随访时的椎间隙高度的变化、内固定有无松动或断裂、椎间融合器有无移位及椎间植骨融合情况;采用JOA下腰痛评分系统评价其临床效果并进行对比.[结果] 三组病例在切口长度、手术时间、术中出血量和术后引流液量等方面A组优于B组和C组,B组优于C组,其差异均有统计学意义.三组病例均获随访,随访时间12 ～36个月(平均20个月).在病变节段椎间隙高度方面三组病例术后均获得较好的恢复,但最后随访时A组病例有明显的丢失,而B组和C组病例椎间隙高度获得良好的维持.最后随访时融合率为:A组96.2％,B组96.7％,C组92.9％,三组间无统计学差异;最后随访时JOA评分,三组间相比差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).[结论] 相对双侧椎弓根螺钉固定,单侧椎板关节突螺钉固定和单侧椎弓根螺钉联合对侧椎板关节突螺钉固定具有切口小、创伤小、操作简单、费用省等优点,特别是采用瞄准器引导下经皮椎板关节突螺钉的置入进一步减少了创伤,提高了置钉的准确性和安全性.但单侧椎板关节突螺钉固定强度有限,需慎重选择,而单侧椎弓根螺钉联合对侧椎板关节突螺钉固定稳定性好,临床效果良好,是一种较好的选择.     

两种固定方式治疗下腰椎病变3年随访结果分析

目的：比较单侧椎弓根螺钉暨经皮对侧椎板关节与双侧椎弓根螺钉两种固定方法联合椎间融合器植骨治疗下腰椎病变的3年随访结果。方法手术治疗62例单节段下腰椎病变患者,其中30例行单侧椎弓根螺钉暨经皮对侧椎板关节突螺钉固定联合椎间融合器植骨术（A 组）,32例行双侧椎弓根螺钉固定联合椎间融合器植骨术（B 组）,比较两组患者手术创伤和临床疗效。结果两组手术切口长度、手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量比较 A 组优于 B 组,差异均有统计学意义（P ＜0．05）。两组融合率比较差异无统计学意义（P ＞0．05）。腰痛 VAS 评分与 JOA 评分：术后各时点（术后1周和术后6、12、24、36个月）两组较术前明显改善（P ＜0．05）,两组之间比较差异无统计学意义（P ＞0．05）。结论单侧椎弓根螺钉暨经皮对侧椎板关节与双侧椎弓根螺钉两种固定方法联合椎间融合器植骨术治疗下腰椎病变3年随访疗效均满意;单侧椎弓根螺钉联合对侧经皮椎板关节突螺钉固定具有操作简单、创伤小、稳定性好、融合率高和并发症少等优点,是部分下腰椎病变固定融合的较好选择。     

单侧椎弓根钉结合对侧关节突螺钉内固定与双侧椎弓根钉固定治疗下腰椎退行性疾病的比较

目的比较后路减压椎间融合器植骨后行单侧椎弓根钉结合对侧椎板关节突螺钉固定与双侧椎弓根螺钉固定治疗下腰椎退行性疾病的优缺点。方法2010年1月至2012年1月采用后路减压椎间融合器植骨内固定治疗80例下腰椎退行性疾病患者,均为单节段病变。其中40例在可扩张管微创系统（Quadrant系统）辅助下行椎弓根钉结合对侧椎板关节突螺钉固定（微创组）,40例采用开放后路腰椎体间融合双侧弓根螺钉内固定（常规组）。使用0s—westry功能障碍指数（oswestry disability index,ODI）、疼痛视觉模拟评分（visual analogue score,VAS）评定临床疗效,并比较两组患者手术切口长度、手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、住院时间、并发症等指标。结果术后1周微创组腰痛VAS评分优于常规组（P〈0．05）。而其他时间相比两组VAS评分与ODI评分相比,差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。两组患者手术切口长度、手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、住院时间比较差异均有统计学意义,微创组少于常规组。随访过程中两组病例均未出现内固定物松动、移位、断裂等。融合率差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论与传统后路开放减压双侧椎弓根螺钉内固定术相比,微创通道下单侧椎弓根钉结合对侧椎板关节突螺钉内固定方法具有操作简单、创伤出血少、稳定可靠、疗效确切等优点,更加符合微创原则。     

单侧椎弓根螺钉固定与联合对侧椎板关节突螺钉固定应用于下腰椎单节段病变的临床研究

目的:对比单侧椎弓根螺钉固定并椎间融合器植骨与单侧椎弓根螺钉联合对侧椎板关节突螺钉固定并椎间融合器植骨两种手术方法治疗下腰椎单节段病变的临床优缺点。方法:选择2008年1月至2009年6月收治的62例下腰椎单节段病变患者,男16例,女46例;年龄27～72岁,平均51.6岁。其中腰椎间盘退行性病变22例,腰椎间盘突出症术后原位复发13例,腰椎间盘突出伴椎管狭窄症12例,巨大型腰椎间盘突出症5例,腰椎退行性滑脱(Ⅰ度)10例。L_3,4 5例,L_4,5 42例,L₅S₁ 15例。采用单侧椎弓根螺钉固定并椎间融合器植骨治疗30例(A组),采用单侧椎弓根螺钉联合对侧椎板关节突螺钉固定并椎间融合器植骨治疗32例(B组).对比两组患者的一般情况包括切口长度、手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流液量。根据影像资料观察内固定有无松动或断裂、椎间融合器有无移位、椎间融合情况,并比较两组患者术前、术后5 d和末次随访时病变节段椎间隙高度变化,以及术前和末次随访时腰椎冠状面和矢状面的Cobb角。对比两组病例术后72 h腰部切口疼痛程度,并采用JOA下腰痛评分系统评价临床疗效。结果:两组病例术后切口无感染及皮肤坏死。未出现神经根或马尾损伤,以及下肢神经功能恶化现象。两组在切口长度、术中出血量和术后切口引流液量方面差异无统计学意义,而A组手术时间少于B组(P<0.05).术后72 h腰部切口VAS评分两组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).两组病例均获随访,随访时间12～48个月,平均27.5个月。在椎间隙高度方面,两组病例术后5 d与术前相比,均获得良好的恢复,且末次随访时与术后5 d相比,均获得良好的维持。两组病例均未出现椎弓根螺钉或椎板关节突螺钉松动、移位、断裂,亦未出现椎间融合器移位现象。两组融合率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).两组病例末次随访时均获得良好的功能恢复,JOA评分与术前相比,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),两组间相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论:两种手术方式均具有切口小、创伤小、操作简单、稳定性可、植骨融合率高、恢复快、临床效果好及并发症少等优点。而且,与单侧椎弓根螺钉联合对侧椎板关节突螺钉固定方式相比,单侧椎弓根螺钉固定方式操作步骤少,不需要特殊器械,因而,在严格把握手术适应证、提高手术技巧的前提下,可在部分腰椎单节段病变的固定融合治疗中选择性应用。     

小切口单侧椎弓根螺钉联合对侧经皮椎板关节突螺钉固定并椎间融合治疗腰椎病变的并发症分析

目的 :总结小切口单侧椎弓根螺钉联合对侧经皮椎板关节突螺钉固定并椎间融合治疗腰椎病变并发症的发生特点和原因。方法:对2008年1月至2013年12月采用小切口单侧椎弓根螺钉联合瞄准器引导下经皮对侧椎板关节突螺钉固定并椎间融合器植骨治疗的166例腰椎病变患者进行回顾性分析,其中男64例,女102例;年龄24~74岁,平均51.9岁;病程8个月~30年,平均47.5个月;腰椎间盘退变49例,腰椎间盘突出症术后原位复发17例,巨大型腰椎间盘突出23例,腰椎间盘突出伴椎管狭窄27例,腰椎退行性Ⅰ度滑脱(Meyerding分级系统)21例,极外侧型腰椎间盘突出5例;单节段病变124例,双节段病变42例;L_(3,4)6例,L_(4,5)97例,L_5S_121例,L_(2,3)、L_(3,4)1例,L_(3,4)、L_(4,5)26例,L_(4,5)、L_5S_115例。结果 :166例患者术中无异常出血,均未输血;术中硬脊膜损伤并脑脊液漏1例、椎弓根(椎弓根入点)骨折4例、终板损伤2例。切口皮肤无坏死,切口无感染。术后未出现脑脊液漏,神经根损伤1例。椎弓根螺钉位置Ⅰ度163例371枚螺钉,Ⅱ度3例3枚螺钉;椎板关节突螺钉Ⅰ型157例199枚螺钉,Ⅱ型8例8枚螺钉,Ⅲ型1例1枚螺钉;椎板关节突螺钉偏短2例。失访5例,死亡2例,其余病例获得12~60个月的随访,平均35.4个月。随访过程中出现终板切割并融合器部分嵌入椎体14例14个节段。出现异常的双下肢疼痛1例。除11例11个节段不能明确外,其余148例189个节段获得椎间融合。未发现椎弓根螺钉与椎板关节突螺钉松动、移位、断裂,椎间融合器亦无前后向移位,未观察到邻近节段的明显退变现象。末次随访时腰椎冠状面Cobb角、矢状面Cobb角及JOA评分较术前均有明显的改善。结论:虽然小切口单侧椎弓根螺钉联合瞄准器引导下经皮对侧椎板关节突螺钉固定并椎间融合器植骨治疗腰椎病变是一较好的手术方式,但仍面临着并发症的问题,要求术者具有丰富的脊柱外科手术经验、术中严谨的操作、充分利用影像辅助系统,以有效地降低手术并发症的发生。     

腰椎单侧或双侧椎弓根螺钉固定结合单枚融合器植入的临床对比研究

背景:双侧椎弓根螺钉固定已广泛应用于腰椎退变性疾病的治疗,但长期随访发现坚强内固定可导致相邻节段应力增加,退变加速。目的:比较腰椎单侧和双侧椎弓根螺钉固定结合单枚融合器植入术式的安全性及有效性。方法:2009年7月至2010年5月,将在我院治疗的腰椎单节段病变行手术内固定的60例患者分为两组:单侧固定组27例,采用单侧椎弓根螺钉固定附加单枚融合器植入;双侧固定组33例,采用双侧椎弓根螺钉固定附加单枚融合器植入。所有患者术前、术后及末次随访时进行JOA评分和VAS评分评估,比较两组的手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、JOA评分及VAS评分、融合率、并发症发生率及住院费用。结果:两组随访时间24～30个月,平均26个月。两组JOA评分和VAS评分术后与术前比较均有显著统计学差异(P<0.001)。但单侧固定组术后VAS评分显著低于双侧固定组(P<0.001)。两组在临床疗效满意率、融合率和并发症发生率方面无统计学差异,但在手术时间、出血量、住院天数及住院费用方面有显著统计学差异(P<0.001)。结论:腰椎单侧椎弓根螺钉固定结合单枚融合器植入可以达到与双侧椎弓根螺钉固定相同的手术效果,但可以明显缩短手术时间、减少出血量和住院时间,降低住院费用。     

单侧微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术采用椎弓根螺钉结合经椎板关节突螺钉混合内固定可行性研究

目的 探讨单侧切口微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术(MIS-TLIF)采用椎弓根螺钉结合对侧经椎板关节突螺钉混合内固定的可行性和安全性.方法 2010年1月至6月18例单节段腰椎退变性疾病患者,采用单侧切口METRxTM X-tube进行MIS-TLIF手术,同侧置入椎弓根螺钉后进行加压固定,同一切口向对侧置入经椎板关节突螺钉,进行围手术期指标观察、影像学和术后疗效评价.结果 所有患者均顺利完成手术,未出现并发症.平均手术时间(107±19)min,术中出血量(62±21)ml,术后平均下床活动时间(21±5)h.经椎板关节突螺钉平均长度(52± 2) mm.术后X线和CT显示螺钉均穿过关节突关节,术后和随访期间腰痛和腿痛视觉模拟评分与Oswestry功能障碍指数评分与术前相比均明显改善(F =42.221 ～259.833,P＜0.01).结论 单侧切口MIS-TLIF可完成椎弓根螺钉结合经椎板关节突螺钉的双侧混合内固定,具有创伤小、恢复快、缩短手术时间、节省内固定费用等优点.     

下腰椎不同固定方式的生物力学对比研究

目的 观察下腰椎不同固定方式对腰椎稳定性的影响.方法 新鲜成人尸体下腰椎标本6具,测定L4/5节段屈伸、左右侧屈、左右旋转6个方向ROM和刚度值的变化,按5组顺序依次测试:A组(正常下腰椎标本组);B组(单侧椎板关节突螺钉固定+椎间单枚Cage);C组(单侧椎弓根螺钉固定+椎间单枚Cage);D组(单侧椎弓根螺钉联合对侧椎板关节突螺钉固定+椎间单枚Cage);E组(双侧椎弓根螺钉固定+椎间单枚Cage).结果 与A组比较,B组各运动状态ROM有减少,而刚度明显增加,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05);与B组比较,C组各运动方向ROM与刚度,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);与C组比较,D组各运动状态ROM有减少,而刚度增加,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05);与E组比较,D组各运动方向ROM与刚度,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);与E组比较,C组各运动状态ROM有增加,而刚度减少,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 单侧椎板关节突螺钉固定并椎间融合器植骨方法提供了一定的稳定性,而单侧椎弓根螺钉联合对侧椎板关节突螺钉固定并椎间融合器植骨具有与双侧椎弓根螺钉固定相同的稳定性,临床上可根据病例的具体情况,如身高体质量指数、病变类型及病变节段稳定程度选择性地应用上述两种固定融合方法.     

单、双侧椎弓根螺钉固定在微创TLIF中的疗效比较

目的比较单侧和双侧椎弓根螺钉固定TLIF治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症的疗效。方法回顾性研究应用单侧或双侧椎弓根螺钉固定进行单节段经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合治疗的患者36例,对比分析其手术时间、失血量、并发症等。结果两组术后VAS、ODI评分均有改善,但两组之间无统计学差异;双侧椎弓根螺钉固定组失血量多,单侧椎弓根螺钉内固定组手术时间短,两组融合率无显著差异(P0.05)。两组无椎弓根螺钉内固定并发症的发生。结论单侧椎弓根螺钉固定经椎间孔椎间融合在术后1年的临床疗效方面,与双侧椎弓根螺钉固定相似。     

腰椎椎间融合联合单侧皮质骨通道螺钉与对侧经椎板关节突螺钉内固定治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效观察

目的探讨腰椎椎间融合联合单侧皮质骨通道螺钉与对侧经椎板关节突螺钉内固定治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2016-11—2018-01采用腰椎椎间融合联合单侧皮质骨通道螺钉与对侧经椎板关节突螺钉内固定治疗的30例腰椎退行性疾病,比较术前与末次随访时的JOA评分,记录末次随访时内固定与骨性融合情况。结果30例均顺利完成手术并获得至少13个月的随访。未出现硬脊膜损伤、脑脊液漏、切口感染、神经功能障碍等并发症。末次随访时X线及CT片显示30例皮质骨通道螺钉及经椎板关节突螺钉位置均满意,未出现松动、断裂等并发症,椎板关节突螺钉固定侧的关节突出现了不同程度的骨性融合现象。末次随访时JOA评分较术前增加,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论腰椎椎间融合联合单侧皮质骨通道螺钉与对侧经椎板关节突螺钉内固定治疗腰椎退行性疾病具有创伤小、术中出血量少、术后恢复快、安全性高等优点,临床疗效满意。     

经伤椎单、双侧置钉内固定治疗胸腰椎骨折的疗效

目的探讨经伤椎单、双侧置钉内固定治疗胸腰椎骨折的疗效。方法采用后路短节段内固定治疗76例胸腰椎单一椎体骨折患者,按内固定方式的不同分成3组:跨伤椎4钉固定(A组)30例,伤椎单侧5钉固定(B组)16例,伤椎双侧6钉固定(C组)30例。比较3组患者术中出血量、手术时间、术后伤椎高度矫正率、末次随访伤椎高度和后凸角的矫正丢失率、内固定失效等。结果 3组患者术中出血量、手术时间及术后伤椎高度矫正率比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。患者均获得随访,时间13~28个月。末次随访伤椎高度和后凸角的矫正丢失率:A组差于B、C组,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05,P0.01),B、C两组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。B、C两组未出现断钉断棒等现象,A组有3例断钉。结论与传统的后路跨伤椎短节段内固定相比,经伤椎单、双侧置钉治疗胸腰椎骨折均能获得良好的复位和固定效果,内固定失效率低。     

单侧椎弓根螺钉联合对侧经皮椎板关节突螺钉固定治疗下腰椎病变的临床观察

 目的 探讨单侧椎弓根螺钉联合对侧经皮椎板关节突螺钉固定治疗下腰椎病变的可行性和疗效。方法 男 8例.女 22例;年龄 39~68岁.平均 53.7岁。腰椎间盘退变 11例.腰椎间盘突出症术后原位复发 4例.巨大型腰椎间盘突出 5例.腰椎间盘突出伴椎管狭窄 4例.腰椎退行性滑脱(I度) 6例。 L_3.4 2例、L_4.5 20例、L₅S₁ 8例。采用单侧显露、减压、同侧椎弓根螺钉固定.同时在自行设计的瞄准器引导下经皮对侧进行椎板关节突螺钉固定并椎间融合器植骨方法治疗。观察手术时间、术中出血量和术后引流量。通过影像学评价椎板关节突螺钉位置。采用日本骨科学会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association. JOA)下腰痛评分系统(29分法)评价疗效。结果 手术时间 75~110 min.平均 89 min;术中出血量为 180~500 ml.平均 285 ml.均未输血。椎板关节突螺钉位置I型 24例. II 型 6例。术后 2例病例出现终板切割.融合器部分陷入终板及椎体内。随访时间 12~36个月.平均 22.5个月。除 1例不能明确外.其余均获得骨性融合.融合率为 96.7%。随访过程中椎弓根螺钉与椎板关节突螺钉未出现松动、移位、断裂.椎间融合器亦无移位现象。 JOA评分由术前的 10~16分(平均 13.0分)提高到 22~27分(平均 25.2分).改善率为 61.7%~90.5%.平均 72.5%。结论 单侧椎弓根螺钉联合对侧经皮椎板关节突螺钉固定具有操作简单、创伤小、稳定性好、融合率高和并发症少等优点.是部分下腰椎病变固定融合的较好选择。     

单侧椎弓根螺钉固定椎体间融合治疗腰椎退行性疾病

目的 探讨单侧椎弓根螺钉固定经椎间孔椎体间融合(transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF)联合后外侧融合(posterolateral fusion,PLF)技术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的可行性及有效性.方法 分析2006年12月至2008年8月收治的因患腰椎退行性疾病行腰椎后路融合术并获得随访的患者78例.采用单侧椎弓根螺钉固定TLIF联合PLF技术治疗48例(单侧组),男25例,女23例;年龄31～64岁,平均47.6岁.采用双侧椎弓根螺钉固定TLIF联合PLF技术治疗30例(双侧组),男21例,女9例;年龄26～66岁,平均50.5岁.使用Oswestry功能障碍指数,疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue score,VAS)评估两组患者术后疗效,并比较两组患者手术时间、出血量、融合率和椎间隙塌陷率等指标.结果 两组患者的Oswestry功能障碍指数、腰痛VAS评分、腿痛VAS评分在术前与术后3个月以及术后3个月与术后1年之间比较差异均有统计学意义,在术前与术后1年的评分改善方面差值比较无统计学意义.两组患者手术时间、出血量及住院费用比较差异均有统计学意义,单侧组少于双侧组.两组患者术后住院时间比较差异无统计学意义.单、双侧组融合率分别为91.7%(44/48)和93.3%(28/30).结论 椎间植骨联合单侧椎弓根螺钉固定能提供较好的脊柱即刻稳定性.单侧椎弓根固定TLIF联合PLF技术作为一种治疗腰椎退行性疾病的方法,疗效满意.     

Efficacy of translaminar facet screw fixation in circumferential interbody fusions as compared to pedicle screw fixation

OBJECTIVES: Posterior lumbar fixation with translaminar facet screws is a minimally invasive technique with good success rates. Long-term follow-ups show reduced reoperation rates, a decrease in pain scores, and few complications compared with pedicle screw fixation devices. The purpose of this study was to compare the reoperation rate of translaminar facet screw fixation with that of pedicle screw fixation in 360 degrees anterior and posterior fusions for incapacitating low back pain due to lumbar disc degeneration unresponsive to at least 6 months of aggressive nonoperative treatment. METHODS: One hundred five patients underwent a combined circumferential lumbar fusion with posterior fixation for discogenic pain by one surgeon between August 1993 and February 2003. Seventeen patients were excluded from the study owing to their preoperative etiology for fusion or a prior instrumented posterior fusion. A retrospective chart review was done on all 88 remaining patients. Patients were followed in the office, by phone, or by mail to obtain functional outcome measures. Any subsequent operations by this surgeon or another were recorded. The comparison focused on the rate of reoperation on the region of posterior lumbar fixation. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients have had at least a 2-year follow-up. Twenty-four patients had a posterior fusion with pedicle screws, and 43 had translaminar facet screw fixation. Nine patients of the pedicle screw population (37.5%) had a reoperation to remove their instrumentation. Two patients of the translaminar facet screw population (4.7%) had reoperations on their lumbar spine. There was a significant association between posterior instrumentation type and reoperation (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The success of translaminar facet screws in circumferential fusions is justified.     

Less invasive posterior fixation method following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Current surgical trends increasingly emphasize the minimization of surgical exposure and tissue morbidity. Previous research questioned the ability of unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation to adequately stabilize posterior fusion constructs. No study to date has addressed the effects of reduced posterior instrumentation mass on interbody construct techniques. Unilateral surgical exposure for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) allows ipsilateral pedicle screw placement. Theoretically, percutanous contralateral facet screw placement could provide supplemental construct support without additional surgical exposure. PURPOSE: Identify the biomechanical effects of reduced spinal fusion instrumentation mass on interbody construct stability. STUDY DESIGN: An in vitro biomechanical study using human lumbar spines comparing stability of TLIF constructs augmented by: (1) bilateral pedicle screw fixation, (2) unilateral pedicle screw fixation, or (3) a novel unilateral pedicle screw fixation supplemented with contralateral facet screw construct. METHODS: Seven fresh frozen human cadaveric specimens were tested in random construct order in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation using +/-5.0 Nm torques and 50 N axial compressive loads. Analysis of torque rotation curves determined construct stability. Using paired statistical methods, comparison of construct stiffness and total range of motion within each specimen were performed using the Wilcoxon signed ranks test with a Holm-Sidák multiple comparison procedure (alpha=0.05). RESULTS: In flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, there were no measurable differences in either stiffness or range of motion between the standard bilateral pedicle screw and the novel construct after TLIF. After TLIF, the unilateral pedicle screw construct provided only half of the improvement in stiffness compared with bilateral or novel constructs and allows for significant off-axis rotational motions, which could be detrimental to stability and the promotion for fusion. CONCLUSIONS: All tested TLIF constructs with posterior instrumentation decreased segmental range of motion and increased segmental stiffness. While placing unilateral posterior instrumentation decreases overall implant bulk and dissection, it allows for significantly increased segmental range of motion, less stiffness, and produces off-axis movement. The technique of contralateral facet screw placement provides the surgical advantages of unilateral pedicle screw placement with stability comparable to TLIF with bilateral pedicle screws.     

单侧椎弓根螺钉内固定椎间融合治疗腰椎退行性疾病的中期疗效评价

目的:探讨单侧神经减压椎间融合椎弓根螺钉固定治疗腰椎退行性疾病的可行性和中期临床疗效。方法:对2005年8月至2010年5月收治并获得随访的56例腰椎退行性疾病患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析。根据固定方法分为两组,其中,单侧组27例,男18例,女9例,年龄41～66岁,平均(57.5±7.1)岁,采用单侧神经减压椎间融合椎弓根螺钉固定治疗;双侧组29例,男19例,女10例,年龄43～68岁,平均(54.6±5.1)岁,在上述基础上加行对侧椎弓根螺钉固定。对两组患者的手术时间、出血量、住院时间和住院费用等进行比较,采用JOA评分评估两组患者临床疗效,随访观察植骨融合情况及融合器相关并发症的发生情况。结果:随访36～60个月,平均45.8个月。两组患者术中均无医源性神经、血管、脏器等损伤。单侧组在手术时间、出血量、住院时间和住院费用等指标上均优于双侧组(P<0.05);两组手术前后JOA评分及术后改善率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);末次随访,单侧组融合器移位1例,沉降1例,双侧组透光未融合2例,但差异无统计学意义(χ²=0.305,P=0.58).结论:单侧椎间融合椎弓根螺钉固定作为治疗腰椎退行性疾病的一种方法,中期效果满意,但应严格掌握适应证。     

Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal fusion

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study of 87 patients who underwent unilateral or bilateral pedicle screw fixation. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether unilateral pedicle screw fixation is comparable with bilateral fixation in one- or two-segment lumbar spinal fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Clinical results for unilateral variable screw placement instrumentation in isolated L4-L5 fusion have been reported to be as good as those for bilateral instrumentation. However, unilateral instrumentation may not be recommended for multilevel fusion. METHODS: Eighty-seven patients were assigned to either unilateral (n = 47) or bilateral (n = 40) pedicle screw instrumentation groups. Two kinds of pedicle screw system (Moss Miami, DePuy, Warsaw, IN, and Steffee VSP, AcroMed, Cleveland, OH) were used. Operating time, blood loss, duration of hospital stay, clinical outcomes, fusion rates, complication rates, and medical expenses were studied and tested with independent sample t test and chi2 test. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in blood loss, clinically satisfactory results, fusion rate, and complication rate. There were significant differences in duration of operating time, duration of hospital stay, and medical expenses. The number of fusion segments or kinds of instrumentation did not affect the fusion rate or clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Unilateral pedicle screw fixation was as effective as bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal fusion independent of the number of fusion segments (one or two segments) or pedicle screw systems. Based on the results of this study, unilateral fixation could be used in two-segment lumbar spinal fusion.     

经后路椎体次全切除、钛网及椎弓根钉重建术治疗严重胸腰椎骨折

目的 探讨经后路椎体次全切除、钛网及椎弓根钉重建术治疗严重胸腰椎骨折的临床价值.方法 2006年1月至2007年8月,对36例严重胸腰椎骨折患者采用本术式治疗.按AO骨折分型,均为A3亚型;术前神经功能ASIA分级:A级8例,B级16例,C级8例,D级4例.手术采用后正中入路,显露伤椎及其上、下邻椎的椎板、关节突及椎弓根钉进钉点,在上、下邻椎内置入椎弓根钉,通过椎弓根内同定试行撑开复位或矫正脊柱序列,临时固定.切除伤椎椎板及相关的关节突间关节,切除一侧或双侧椎弓根内缘创建后外侧工作通道,然后通过后外侧工作通道用骨刀对伤椎进行适当的壳内次全切除,并将钛网置人伤椎椎体次全切除后的骨缺损区,透视满意后加压椎弓根钉使钛网牢固.通过比较术前、术后和随访时X线及CT片上Cobb角和骨块椎管占位比例来评价后凸畸形矫正情况、椎管减压程度及植骨融合情况.结果 术后随访12～24个月,平均18个月.所有患者在术后12个月时ASIA神经功能分级均有1级或1级以上的恢复.术后12个月时X线和CT片显示减压和复位效果满意.脊柱序列恢复正常,植骨融合率为97.3%.35例患者无继发性后凸畸形.1例患者出现钛网塌陷及后凸畸形.结论 经后路椎体次全切除、钛网及椎弓根钉重建术可结合前后路手术优势,一个切口一次完成减压、复位、固定、融合,重建三柱的稳定性;但尚须大宗病例的积累及长期随访验证.     

Transfacet screw placement for posterior fixation of C-7

OBJECT: Lateral mass screws are traditionally used to fixate the subaxial cervical spine, while pedicle screws are used in the thoracic spine. Lateral mass fixation at C-7 is challenging due to thin facets, and placing pedicle screws is difficult due to the narrow pedicles. The authors describe their clinical experience with a novel technique for transfacet screw placement for fixation at C-7. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was undertaken in all patients who underwent transfacet screw placement at C-7. The technique of screw insertion was the same for each patient. Polyaxial screws between 8- and 10-mm-long were used in each case and placed through the facet from a perpendicular orientation. Postoperative radiography and clinical follow-up were analyzed for aberrant screw placement or construct failure. RESULTS: Ten patients underwent C-7 transfacet screw placement between June 2006 and March 2007. In all but 1 patient screws were placed bilaterally, and the construct lengths ranged from C-3 to T-5. One patient with a unilateral screw had a prior facet fracture that precluded bilateral screw placement. There were no intraoperative complications or screw failures in these patients. After an average of 6 months of follow-up there were no hardware failures, and all patients showed excellent alignment. CONCLUSIONS: The authors present the first clinical demonstration of a novel technique of posterior transfacet screw placement at C-7. These results provide evidence that this technique is safe to perform and adds stability to cervicothoracic fixation.