有限性椎板切除术治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症

采用有限性椎板切除术治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症６８例，经术后平均２７个月的随访，优良率９４．１％。文中将退行性腰椎管狭窄症分为中央性腰椎管狭窄，侧隐窝狭窄，混合性狭窄。分别采用中央开窗、潜行扩大减压，一侧或双侧扩大开窗、侧隐窝扩大，蝶形扩大减压术。作者还对有限性椎板切除术的理论依据及减压范围进行了讨论。     

选择性椎管减压术治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症

采用选择性椎管减压治疗行性腰椎管狭窄症６８例，经术后平均２７个月的随访、优良率９４．１％。文中将退行性腰椎管狭窄症分为中央性腰椎管狭窄，侧隐窝狭窄，混合性狭窄。分别采用中央开窗、潜行扩大减压、一侧或双侧扩大开窗、侧隐窝扩大，蝶形扩大减压术。文中还对选择性腰椎管减压术的理论依据及减压范围进行了讨论。     

腰椎管狭窄症的针对性减压治疗

目的 :探讨腰椎管狭窄的手术治疗方法。方法 :根据腰椎管狭窄的因素、形式、范围和程度的不同采取不同的减压术式 :全椎板切除治疗单纯中央管狭窄 8例 ;全椎板切除 小关节部分切除治疗严重的退变性中央管狭窄伴侧隐窝狭窄 12例 ;椎板间隙潜行扩大减压治疗椎板间水平的中央管狭窄伴侧隐窝狭窄 17例 ;半椎板切除 小关节部分切除治疗中央管一侧狭窄伴侧隐窝狭窄 13例 ;椎板间开窗减压治疗单纯侧隐窝狭窄 46例。同时行间盘突出髓核摘除 63例 ,腰椎不稳侧后方植骨融合 9例 (内固定 6例 )。结果 :本组 96例 ,平均随访 2年 8个月。疗效评定优良率 82 3 %。术后继发腰椎不稳 6例 (其中全椎板切除组 2例 ) ,发生率 6 2 5 %。再狭窄 4例 ,发生率 4 17%。腰椎融合失败 1例。结论 :针对性减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症手术疗效满意 ,并可减少继发性腰椎不稳和再狭窄发生率     

退行性腰椎管狭窄症的再认识（附50例分析报告）

目的 :通过 5 0例的分析 ,明确腰椎管狭窄的症状是由中央椎管狭窄还是由侧隐窝狭窄引起的 ,为临床有限手术提供依据。方法 :对 5 0例腰椎管狭窄症患者的临床症状、影像学检查及手术结果进行分析。结果 :针对引起症状的狭窄部位进行有限手术 ,5 0例患者中手术治疗的优良率为 90 %。结论 :诊断腰椎管狭窄症 ,应该明确症状是由中央椎管狭窄引起的还是由侧隐窝狭窄引起的。退行性腰椎管狭窄症 ,绝大多数是侧隐窝狭窄 ,以双侧椎板开窗入路最为适宜。     

腰椎管侧隐窝狭窄症的外科治疗

我院从１９８５年１月－１９９４年１０月，外科治疗腰椎管侧隐窝狭窄症３０３例，其中男１９３例，女１１０例，年龄２３－３６岁，平均４４．２岁?根据不同的病理特点，分别采用开窗式，半椎板，全椎板发除等方法，摘除椎间盘髓核，切除肥厚黄韧带，关节突和椎体后缘骨赘，扩大狭窄侧隐窝，神经根得到充分减压。     

手术治疗老年腰椎间盘突出症32例报告

目的 报告手术治疗老年性腰椎间盘突出症的手术方式及疗效。方法 本组32例均行了手术治疗,其中椎板开窗髓核摘出12例,半椎板切除加椎间关节内侧部份切除侧隐窝扩大神经根管扩大髓核摘除14例,保留棘突的全椎板切除,神经根管扩大侧隐窝扩大髓核摘除6例。结果 随访1－4年,优良21例,差11例,差者为采用单纯椎板开窗髓核摘出术术式者,术后远期疗效差。结论 老年腰椎间盘突出大多伴有腰椎管狭窄,在髓核摘出的同时,应行半椎板或双侧椎板切除减压,侧隐窝扩大,视术中情况是否神经根管扩大。     

经皮椎板间隙入路270°椎管减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症

[目的]探讨经皮椎板间隙入路的椎管减压技术治疗伴有双侧侧隐窝狭窄的腰椎管狭窄症临床疗效。[方法]本组单节段双侧侧隐窝腰椎管狭窄症患者20例,采取单侧经皮椎板间隙入路,通过改变内镜的倾斜角度并利用角度椎板钳和镜下磨钻行双侧侧隐窝和中央椎管270°减压,随访时间超过24个月,分析术后疗效参数如VAS评分、ODI评分、Macnab分级评分、单次连续行走距离和手术并发症。[结果]术后影像学证实所有患者进行了有效的中央椎管和双侧侧隐窝的减压。术后ODI评分和VAS评分较术前显著降低,差异有统计学意义;Macnab评分,80%的患者取得了满意或良好的疗效;单次连续行走距离较术前明显增加。[结论]单侧经皮椎板间隙入路双侧侧隐窝和中央椎管270°减压术,具有良好的中央椎管和双侧侧隐窝手术视野显示,可有效减压,是微创治疗退变性椎管狭窄症特别是合并双侧侧隐窝狭窄的有效安全的手术方式。     

腰椎退变性侧弯伴椎管狭窄的外科治疗

目的 探讨退变性脊柱侧弯伴椎管狭窄的特点、手术减压范围及其临床效果;方法 32例腰椎退变性侧弯伴椎管狭窄患者,5例行椎板间开窗侧隐窝扩大减压(A组),19例行全椎板切除减压椎弓根螺钉内固定椎间融合术(B组),8例行全椎板减压并神经根管扩大减压椎弓根螺钉内固定椎间融合术.对所有术前术后影像学特点、减压方式、减压范围和功能评分(症状、体征)进行比较和评估.结果 A组中5例行开窗减压患者中3例效果良好,1例有好转但仍有症状,1例术后症状无明显减轻;B组中16例效果良好,2例症状缓解不完全,1例出现马尾神经损伤症状;C组中8例效果良好.结论 退变性脊柱侧弯伴椎管狭窄病变较复杂,手术方案要根据椎管狭窄的程度、范围和侧弯的类型确定,外科治疗的主要目的 是神经减压和最大限度最大可能的稳定和重排脊柱.对单纯侧隐窝狭窄而中央椎管不狭窄者可选择椎板间开窗减压,但这种减压范围往往不能达到完全减压,部分患者会残留狭窄症状,对合并中央椎管和侧隐窝同时狭窄者要采用双侧全椎板减压,部分出现神经根管狭窄者要对狭窄的神经根管进行减压和扩大或者通过纠正侧弯和旋转改善狭窄的神经根管和改善神经根牵拉紧张状况. 状缓解不完全,1例出现马尾神经损伤症状 C组中8例效果良好.结论 退变性脊柱侧弯伴椎管狭窄病变较复杂,手术方案要根据椎管狭窄的程度、范围和侧弯的类型确定,外科治疗的主要目的 是神经减压和最大限度最大可能的稳定和重排脊柱.对单纯侧隐窝狭窄而中央椎管不狭窄者可选择椎板间开窗减压,但这种减压范围往往不能达到完全减压,部分患者会残留狭窄症状,对合并中央椎管和侧隐窝同时狭窄者要采用双侧全椎板减压,部分出现神经根管狭窄者要对狭窄的神经根管进行减压和扩大或者通过纠正侧弯和旋转改善狭窄的神经根管和改善神经根牵拉紧张状况. 状缓解不完全,1例出现马尾神经损伤症状 C组中8例效果良好.结论 退变性脊柱侧弯伴椎管狭窄病变较复杂,手术方案要根据椎管狭窄的程度、范围和侧弯的类型确定,外科治疗的主要目的 是神经减压和最大限度最大可能的稳定和重排脊柱.对单纯侧隐窝狭窄而中央椎管不狭窄者可选择椎板间开窗减压,但这种减压范围往往不能达到完全减压,部分患者会残留狭窄症状,对合并中央椎管和侧隐窝同时狭窄     

椎板间隙入路椎间盘镜治疗腰椎管狭窄症

目的：探讨在椎板间隙入路椎间盘镜下有限化手术治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症。方法：选取退行性腰椎管狭窄症病例，在椎板间隙入路椎间盘镜下行椎管有限减压。咬除病变间隙上位椎板下缘、肥厚的黄韧带和下位椎板上缘，摘除突出椎间盘髓核，松解神经根粘连，侧隐窝减压，必要时切除部分关节突。结果：应用椎板间隙入路椎间盘镜治疗迟行性腰椎管狭窄症，行椎管有限减压87例，减压彻底。82例得到随访，优良串92．7％，手术效果满意。结论：单纯腰椎间盘膨出或突出、黄韧带肥厚和小关节增生引起的退行性腰椎管狭窄症是椎板间隙入路椎间盘镜下椎管有限减压的适应证。满意的手术效果取决于：病人选择适当，术中操作精细，减压彻底。     

腰椎管侧隐窝狭窄症的外科治疗（附303例临床分析）

我院从１９８５年１月～１９９４年１０月，外科治疗腰椎管侧隐窝狭窄症３０３例，其中男１９３例，女１１０例，年龄２３～３６岁，平均４４．２岁。根据不同的病理特点，分别采用开窗式、半椎板、全椎板切除等方法，摘除椎间盘髓核，切除肥厚黄韧带，关节突和椎体后缘骨赘，扩大狭窄侧隐窝，神经根得到充分减压。手术证实腰椎管侧隐窝狭窄合并腰椎间盘突出２７５例，单纯侧隐窝狭窄２８例，所有病例经１～１０年随访，平均为５年。结果优２７９例，良１１例，进步１２例，差１例，优良率９６％。     

腰椎上关节突保留行侧隐窝狭窄扩大术

目的：探讨保留腰椎上关节突侧隐窝狭窄扩大的手术方法与疗效。方法：将受累节段上关了突内侧皮质隆起与增生骨赘切除,扩大狭窄的隐窝。结果：８４例病人随访１４～９６个月,平均６０个月,７４例手术后疗效良好,占８８％;１０例术后无明显改善,占１１％。结论：有限的椎板切除及保持小关节突的完整,最大程度保留了腰椎后柱结构,避免了腰椎运动节段性不稳的发生,效果良好。     

后路椎间盘镜在治疗腰椎管狭窄症中的应用

目的：探讨后路椎间盘镜在治疗腰椎管狭窄症中的应用。方法：2000年2月--2001年12月退行性腰椎管狭窄症142例行后路椎间盘镜下椎管有限减压、全椎板或半椎板切除减压、开窗减压术。结果：应用后路椎间盘镜行椎管有限减压87例，减压松解充分。82例随访平均18月，优良率92．7％(优58例，良18例)。无并发症。结论：单纯腰椎间盘膨出或突出、黄韧带肥厚和小关节增生引起的退行性腰椎管狭窄症是后路椎间盘镜下椎管有限减压的适应证。满意的手术效果取决于：病人选择适当，术中操作精细，减压彻底。     

单椎板切除双侧减压和保守治疗腰椎管狭窄疗效的比较

目的 比较单椎板切除和保守治疗对轻或中度单侧腿疼的腰椎管狭窄患者的治疗效果。方法 38例符合条件的病人随机分为两组，一组采用单椎板切除双侧减压手术治疗，另外一组行保守治疗。结果 2年后复查单椎板切除双侧减压治疗有效率达68％，而保守治疗组仅33％，经统计学处理，两组之间有显著差异。结论 对于轻或中度单侧腿痛的腰椎管狭窄患者，单椎板切除治疗的效果较保守治疗要好，而且可以避免因为全椎板切除而产生的并发症。     

Surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis

Eighty consecutive patients with lumbar spinal stenosis surgically treated during a 5-year period by the author were reviewed. Patients were placed in the following categories: lateral spinal stenosis (10), central-mixed stenosis (29), spinal stenosis after laminectomy and/or fusion (32), and spinal stenosis with degenerative scoliosis (9). Contrast-enhanced computed tomographic (CT) scans were helpful in determining the levels requiring decompression. However, in the multiply operated patient, contrast-enhanced CT scans were misleading in six patients. Patients with lateral spinal stenosis were treated with unilateral laminectomy and partial facetectomy. The 29 patients with central-mixed stenosis underwent decompressive laminectomy and bilateral facetectomies. Six fusions were done. In the nine patients with spinal stenosis and scoliosis, concaveside partial facetectomies and laminectomies were done as well as spinal fusions. The 32 patients with spinal stenosis after previous laminectomy and spinal fusions were the most difficult group to analyze, and their treatment was the least standardized. There were 19 good, eight fair, and five poor results in those who had undergone previous surgery. Fifty-seven of the 80 patients (71%) experienced a good result from their surgical treatment.     

单纯有限减压治疗老年腰椎管狭窄症的疗效分析

目的探讨采用单纯有限减压治疗老年腰椎管狭窄症的中远期治疗效果。方法对82例老年腰椎管狭窄症患者，采用保留关节突的全椎板黄韧带切除术36例，椎板间隙相邻椎板部分切除及黄韧带切除16例，部分关节突切除神经根管扩大术30例。减压术后不做植骨融合及内固定术。结果82例随访18—62个月，优70例（85％），良10例（12％），差2例（3％）。有2例症状加重接受内固定及融合术。结论在严格手术指征的前提下，根据腰椎管狭窄症的病因学分析选择单纯有限减压术式可以取得满意的临床疗效。     

腰椎狭窄软性椎管的应力改变分析

目的 探讨腰椎软性椎管改变与椎管狭窄的关系。方法 在本研究52例中分为椎管狭窄组和对照组，2003年1月至2007年12月，推管狭窄组从因腰椎管狭窄病行后路椎板减压术的患者中取黄韧带标本对照组黄韧带标本共为10例，取自青年腰椎骨折行后路椎板减压术患者，后纵韧带标本共4例取自腰椎爆裂骨折前路椎体减压术患者。分别观察两组标本切片镜下的表现并加以分析。结果 在腰椎管狭窄病组，黄韧带及后纵韧带镜下表现为纤维肥大，基质内可见脂肪及小囊肿；对照组则表现为纤维细胞排列规则、无纤维化表现。结论 腰椎管软性椎管的应力改变及退行性变，是导致腰椎管狭窄的一个因素。     

Multilevel lumbar laminotomies: an alternative to laminectomy in the treatment of lumbar stenosis

The traditional treatment for lumbar stenosis is a wide laminectomy. This procedure has a high success rate and a low, but not insignificant, incidence of complications. Recently, however, a better understanding of the pathophysiology of spondylotic lumbar stenosis has led several authors to propose a more limited decompression directed specifically toward the offending area of compression. Over the past 5 years, we have treated 32 patients with lumbar stenosis using decompressive laminotomies. Our patients all had focal lateral recess stenosis that was diagnosed by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. We performed decompressive laminotomies and foraminotomies at appropriate levels. This procedure is less disruptive than a full laminectomy and, in experienced hands, requires less operating time. At last follow-up, 90% of the patients so treated reported an excellent outcome--namely, total relief of symptoms and/or return to normal daily activities. There was no significant postoperative morbidity or mortality. We conclude that in a selected subgroup of patients with lumbar stenosis, multilevel laminotomies may be an acceptable alternative to laminectomy.     

两种手术方法治疗腰椎管狭窄症182例的临床研究

目的：通过精确责任神经根定位微创开窗减压和全椎板切除椎管减压椎弓根钉内固定术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效,讨论两种方法的优缺点及适应证。方法：2007年3月～2013年3月收治的腰椎管狭窄症患者182例,男97例,女85例;年龄46～82岁,平均58．6岁。所有患者均行腰椎正侧、双斜、过伸、过屈位片及CT、MRI检查。中央管狭窄17例,侧隐窝狭窄95例,混合性狭窄70例,合并腰椎假性滑脱或不稳定者56例。患者分为：微创开窗减压治疗组88例,全椎板切除椎管减压椎弓根钉内固定术治疗组94例。结果：按NAKAI疗效评定标准,优良率：微创开窗减压组90．9％（80／88）,全椎板切除椎弓根钉内固定术治疗组92．6％（87／94）,两组优良率差异无显著性。微创开窗减压治疗组,手术时间、术中失血量、镇痛药使用、术后下床活动时间、住院时间均少于全椎板切除椎管减压椎弓根钉内固定术治疗组（P〈0．01）,两组间脑脊液漏的发生率和术后疗效优良率差异无显著性（P〉0．05）。腰椎失败综合证3例发生于全椎板切除椎弓根钉内固定术治疗组。结论：微创开窗减压与全椎板切除椎管减压椎弓根钉内固定术治疗腰椎管狭窄症疗效无明显差异,微创开窗减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症创伤小,术后恢复快,疗效确切。全椎板切除椎管减压椎弓根钉内固定术应用于合并腰椎假性滑脱或不稳定患者更为合理。     

Coexisting cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis: diagnosis and management

An attempt has been made to identify and manage patients symptomatic from both cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis. The order of operative intervention was related to the degree of myelopathy and radiculopathy. Patients requiring cervical surgery first had absolute stenosis with a spinal canal equal to or less than 10 mm in anteroposterior diameter. Those requiring lumbar surgery first presented with stenosis and a canal between 11 and 13 mm in depth. In the latter group, patients presented with radiculopathy in their upper and lower extremities. A significant portion (50%) had intermittent neurogenic claudication (INC). Motor and sensory changes were severe in those with absolute as compared to relative stenosis. After cervical laminectomy, myelopathy improved or stabilized, and the subsequent lumbar decompression could be completed with less risk. Cervical cord decompression often resulted in improvement in lumbar symptoms with resolution of pain, spasticity, and sensory deficits of myelopathic origin. However, latent symptoms of INC caused by lumbar stenosis were not affected by cervial decompression and increased in severity. Electrodiagnostic studies were helpful in that somatosensory evoked potentials showed conduction delays in the cervical cord in patients with significant disease. The identification of motor neuron disease and peripheral neuropathies was essential. The surgical management included extensive, multiple level laminectomy, unroofing of the lateral recesses, and foraminotomy. Neurolysis and untethering of the spinal cord was essential. Significant improvement was shown by 90% of these patients.     

Minimally invasive approaches to the surgical treatment of lumbar stenosis

A literature review of minimally invasive treatment options for lumbar spinal stenosis was conducted to determine the efficacy and outcomes of existing and evolving techniques. This study focuses on minimally invasive interlaminar decompression, unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression, and internal indirect decompression devices/interlaminar stabilization. We found that both minimally invasive interlaminar decompression and unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression can lead to acceptable and effective outcomes for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Indirect decompression via devices that provide interlaminar stabilization, including the Superion, X-STOP, and Coflex implants, has led to mixed results, but further research is still required.