单侧双通道内镜技术与传统椎板间开窗技术椎管减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症的短期疗效比较

目的 比较单侧双通道内镜技术（unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy,UBE）与传统椎板间开窗椎管减压术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的疗效。方法 回顾性分析2018年1月至2021年10月接受UBE技术或传统椎板间开窗减压技术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的56例病人,其中28例接受UBE技术减压治疗（UBE组）,28例接受传统椎板间开窗椎管减压术（椎板间开窗组）。记录两组的手术时间、切口长度、术后住院时间和并发症情况;术前、术后1个月、术后3个月及末次随访时腰腿痛视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）及改良MacNab评分。结果 UBE组手术时间明显长于椎板间开窗组,切口长度和术后住院时间明显小于传统开窗组,两组各出现1例术中硬膜囊破裂。两组术后VAS评分及ODI指数均较术前改善（P＜0.05）。UBE组腰痛VAS评分、ODI指数在术后1、3个月时均低于椎板间开窗组,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。末次随访时根据改良MacNab标准,UBE组优25例,良2例,可1例,椎板间开窗组优24例,良2例,可2例,两组差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 单侧双通道脊柱内镜技术相较于传统椎板间开窗手术能够明显减轻术后早期腰背痛,缩短住院时间,且创伤小,并可获得同样的短期疗效。     

经皮内镜技术治疗腰椎管狭窄症合并单节段腰椎不稳的疗效分析

目的 探讨经皮内镜下腰椎减压椎间融合联合经皮椎弓根螺钉固定治疗腰椎管狭窄症（LSS）合并腰椎不稳的安全性和有效性。方法 回顾性分析2019年4月至2020年11月我院收治的30例单节段LSS合并腰椎不稳病人的临床资料,均采用经皮内镜下腰椎减压椎间融合术联合经皮椎弓根螺钉固定术治疗。记录手术时间、术中出血量、平均切口长度、住院时间、并发症等围手术期相关参数。采用疼痛视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分和Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）评价病人的腰腿痛和功能障碍情况。通过腰椎正侧位片、动力位片和CT三维重建评价植骨融合及腰椎稳定性。末次随访时采用改良MacNab标准评估疗效。结果 30例病人均顺利完成手术,手术时间为（267.8±74.3） min,出血量为（83.6±13.3） mL,切口长度为（1.7±0.3） cm,住院时间为（9.6±1.9） d。随访时间为（13.6±1.3）个月,VAS评分及ODI较术前显著改善（P＜0.05）,融合器、钉棒位置良好,融合满意。末次随访时改良MacNab疗效结果：优良率为96.67%。结论 经皮内镜下腰椎减压椎间融合联合经皮椎弓根螺钉固定术治疗LSS合并腰椎不稳的病人创伤小,术后恢复快,短期随访疗效满意。     

单侧双通道内窥镜技术治疗腰椎椎管狭窄症

目的 对比分析单侧双通道内窥镜（UBE）技术及传统腰椎后路椎板减压术治疗腰椎椎管狭窄症（LSS）的安全性和临床疗效。方法 2018年5月-2021年6月,宁波市康复医院收治60岁以上LSS患者73例,其中35例采用UBE技术治疗（UBE组）,38例采用传统开放腰椎后路椎板减压术治疗（对照组）。记录2组患者手术时间、术中出血量、术后恢复时间、住院时间及并发症发生情况。术前及术后3、6、12个月时采用疼痛视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分和Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）评估腰腿痛程度及腰椎功能。采用改良MacNab标准评估疗效。结果 所有手术顺利完成,所有患者随访（10.9±0.8）个月。与对照组相比,UBE组术中出血量更少,手术时间、术后恢复时间、住院时间更短,差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。2组术后各随访时间点VAS评分、ODI较术前明显改善,UBE组术后12个月VAS评分优于对照组,UBE组术后各随访时间点ODI优于对照组,差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。改良MacNab标准评价疗效,UBE组疗效优良率为82.85%,对照组为78.94%,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。UBE组发生伤口感染1例;对照组发生伤口感染3例,脑脊液漏1例,神经牵拉伤1例;经对症处理后均明显改善。结论 相较于传统腰椎后路椎板减压术,UBE 技术可以安全有效地对LSS患者进行减压,具有创伤小,出血量少,手术时间、术后恢复时间及住院时间短,术后并发症少等诸多优势,值得临床优先选择。     

腰椎椎管狭窄并退行性脊柱侧凸的手术治疗

目的 探讨短节段减压融合内固定术治疗腰椎椎管狭窄症（LSS）并退行性脊柱侧凸（DS）的临床疗效。方法 2013年12月—2018年6月,收治LSS并Lenke-SilvaⅡ~Ⅳ级DS患者26例,均采用经Wiltse入路手术治疗。观察手术前后腰椎侧凸Cobb角、腰椎前凸角（LL）、冠状面偏移（C₇PL-CSVL）、矢状面偏移（C₇PL-SVA）、骨盆倾斜角（PT）和骶骨倾斜角（SS）的变化。采用Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）、日本骨科学会（JOA）评分及疼痛视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分评估临床疗效。结果 所有手术顺利完成,所有患者术后随访（24.2±1.7）个月,侧凸矫正率为58%。末次随访时,所有患者C₇PL-CSVL、C₇PL-SVA、腰椎侧凸Cobb角、LL、PT和SS均较术前改善,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。末次随访时,ODI、JOA评分及VAS评分均较术前改善,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）,ODI改善优良率为96%,JOA评分改善优良率为92%。结论 短节段减压融合内固定术治疗LSS并Lenke-Silva Ⅱ~Ⅳ级DS可取得良好的临床疗效。     

经椎间孔入路经皮内窥镜下椎间盘切除术中采用可视化椎间孔成形技术治疗单节段腰椎椎管狭窄症

目的 探讨经椎间孔入路经皮内窥镜下椎间盘切除术（PETD）中采用可视化椎间孔成形技术治疗单节段腰椎椎管狭窄症（LSS）的疗效和安全性。方法 回顾分析2018年3月—2019年3月采用PETD治疗的58例单节段LSS患者临床资料,其中36例采用“V”区解剖引导的可视化椎间孔成形技术（观察组）,22例采用传统椎间孔成形技术（对照组）。记录2组手术时间、术中透视次数、术中出血量、住院时间及并发症（神经根损伤、硬膜囊损伤、血管损伤等）发生情况。术前及术后1、12个月时采用疼痛视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分和Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）评估腰腿痛程度及腰椎功能。采用改良MacNab标准评估疗效。结果 所有手术顺利完成,患者随访（13.54±0.56）个月。观察组手术时间、术中透视次数显著低于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）;2组术中出血量和住院时间差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。2组患者术后各时间点VAS评分、ODI均较术前显著改善,差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）,且VAS评分、ODI均随术后随访时间增加进一步改善;观察组术后1个月VAS评分、ODI显著低于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）,2组术后12个月VAS评分、ODI相比,差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。2组疗效优良率差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。2组术后均未发生严重并发症。结论 PETD中采用可视化椎间孔成形技术治疗单节段LSS与传统椎间孔成形技术疗效相当,并可减少穿刺次数和成形扩张操作次数,减轻患者机体创伤,缩短恢复时间,并可降低医患辐射量,值得临床推广。     

经皮内窥镜下经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎椎管狭窄症

目的 对比分析经皮内窥镜下经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合术（TLIF）与单纯椎板切除术治疗腰椎椎管狭窄症（LSS）的临床疗效。方法 2018年5月-2020年5月收治LSS患者180例,采用随机数字表法分为2组,其中90例采用经皮内窥镜下TLIF治疗（内窥镜组）,其余90例采用椎板切除术治疗（对照组）。记录2组切口长度、手术时间、住院时间及切口感染、脑脊液漏、硬膜囊损伤等并发症发生情况,采用疼痛视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分评估腰腿痛程度,采用生活质量评价量表（SF-36）评分评估患者生活质量,采用改良MacNab标准评定疗效并计算疗效优良率。结果 所有手术顺利完成,所有患者随访（11.26±1.35）个月。与对照组相比,内窥镜组切口更小,手术时间、住院时间更短,差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。2组术后12个月腰腿痛VAS评分均较术前明显改善,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）,组间差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。2组术后12个月SF-36各维度评分较术前均显著提升,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）,组间差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。2组临床疗效优良率差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。2组并发症发生率差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论 经皮内窥镜下TLIF和椎板切除术治疗LSS均可获得良好疗效,可有效减轻患者腰腿痛程度,改善患者生活质量,但经皮内窥镜下TLIF具有创伤更小、术后恢复更快等优点,临床中可依据患者情况和意愿灵活选择。     

全内镜大通道下单侧入路双侧减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症的短期疗效

目的 探讨脊柱全内镜大通道下单侧入路双侧减压（Endo-ULBD）治疗单节段腰椎管狭窄症（LSS）的短期临床疗效。方法 前瞻性分析我院2020年6月至2022年6月采用Endo-ULBD治疗的33例单节段LSS的病人。术前术后采用疼痛视觉模拟量表（VAS）、Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）、改良MacNab标准评价临床疗效。结果 所有病人手术顺利，1例病人术后失访，最终32例病人获得随访，随访时间为（16.52±4.28）个月。腰痛VAS评分由术前的（6.28±1.71）分降为术后12个月的（1.59±1.29）分，腿痛VAS评分由术前的（5.88±2.59）分降为术后12个月的（1.66±1.26）分，ODI由术前的67.47%±10.28%降至17.50%±15.72%，手术前后差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。术前与末次随访时椎间高度指数、腰椎前凸角比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。末次随访MacNab优良率为93.75%（30/32）。术中出现1例硬膜囊撕裂，1例硬膜外血肿，对症处理后症状缓解。结论 Endo-ULBD治疗单节段LSS的短期临床效果良好，但长期疗效需进一步随访。     

Delta大通道内镜下经皮单侧椎板间入路270°环形椎管减压治疗老年腰椎管狭窄症

目的:探讨Delta大通道内镜下经皮单侧椎板间入路270°环形减压治疗老年腰椎管狭窄症(lumbar spinal stenosis,LSS) 的临床疗效。方法:对2018年 12月至 2021年1月采用Delta大通道内镜下经皮单侧椎板间入路270°环形减压术治疗的29例LSS进行回顾性分析,其中男12例,女17例;年龄63~83(71.52±10.82)岁;患者均伴有明确的间歇性跛行,以双下肢神经源性症状为主;均为单节段椎管狭窄,L_3,4 5例,L_4,5 21例,L₅S₁ 3例。采用疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS),Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)和改良Macnab评定标准分别对疼痛,下腰痛功能障碍指数及临床疗效进行评价。结果:29例手术均顺利完成,且获得12个月以上的随访。手术时间(73.45±5.89) min,术中出血量(9.93±0.83) ml,住院时间(4.03±0.41) d。术前、术后1 d及术后1、3、12个月时腰痛VAS分别为(2.31±0.88)、(1.45±0.62)、(1.21±0.61)、(1.10±0.55)、(1.03±0.49)分:腿痛VAS分别为(6.48±0.56)、(1.97±0.61)、(1.31±0.59)、(1.17±0.59)、(1.10±0.55)分;ODI评分分别为(38.41±2.74),(18.14±1.17),(5.17±0.53),(5.07±0.45),(4.90±0.48)分;腰腿痛VAS、ODI评分术前与术后各随访时间节点比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后1年按改良Macnab标准评定疗效,结果优22例,良5例,可2例。结论:Delta大通道内镜下经皮单侧椎板间入路270°环形椎管减压治疗老年腰椎管狭窄症临床疗效满意,具有创伤小、出血少、镜下操作空间大、减压充分、术后恢复理想等优点,同时最大程度地减少了对腰椎稳定结构的破坏,是一种治疗老年腰椎管狭窄症的理想术式。     

单侧双通道内镜下融合术治疗单节段腰椎椎管狭窄症的短期临床疗效

目的 探讨采用单侧双通道内镜（UBE）技术行内镜下腰椎管减压、椎间植骨融合,并联合经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定术治疗单节段腰椎椎管狭窄症的短期临床疗效。方法 回顾性分析2020年1月1日至2021年6月1日于我院行手术治疗单节段腰椎椎管狭窄症的47例病人的临床资料,根据手术方案分组。其中运用UBE技术行内镜下腰椎管减压、椎间植骨融合,并联合经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定术的19例纳入UBE镜下融合组,男8例,女11例,年龄为（58.95±10.21）岁;行传统开放经椎间孔入路椎间融合术（TLIF）的28例纳入TLIF组,男13例,女15例,年龄为（58.04±10.83）岁。收集并比较两组病人的手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、背部和下肢疼痛视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分和Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）。结果 UBE镜下融合组的手术时间、术中出血量和术后住院时间均明显低于TLIP组,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。47例病人术后1周和术后6个月的背部和下肢VAS评分及ODI均较术前明显降低,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。UBE镜下融合组术后1周的背部VAS评分显著低于TLIF组[（1.11±0.81）分 vs. （4.50±1.26）分],且其背部VAS评分改善情况显著优于TLIF组[（4.89±1.60）分 vs. （2.14±1.11）分],差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。两组手术节段融合率无明显差异。结论 采用UBE技术行内镜下腰椎管减压、椎间植骨融合,并联合经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定术治疗单节段腰椎椎管狭窄症是一种可行的临床治疗手段,术后早期病人的腰痛缓解程度优于传统开放手术。     

保留半侧肌肉韧带的微型钛板固定颈椎单开门椎管扩大椎板成形术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病

目的 探讨保留半侧肌肉韧带的微型钛板固定颈椎单开门椎管扩大椎板成形术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病（MCSM）的临床疗效。方法 回顾性分析2010年2月—2018年1月在重庆市中医骨科医院接受微型钛板固定颈椎单开门椎管扩大椎板成形术治疗的59例MCSM患者临床资料,其中28例保留颈椎半侧肌肉韧带（保留组）,31例未保留颈椎半侧肌肉韧带（非保留组）。测量2组患者椎板开门角度、脊髓后漂移距离、颈椎活动度（ROM）及颈椎曲度等影像学参数。记录2组患者术中情况、日本骨科学会（JOA）评分、疼痛视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分以及术后并发症发生情况。结果 保留组手术时间、术中出血量较非保留组高,住院天数短于非保留组,差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。2组椎板开门角度和脊髓向后平均漂移距离差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。末次随访时,保留组ROM丢失较非保留组少;保留组颈椎曲度维持良好,非保留组颈椎曲度较术前明显减少;差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。2组JOA评分及其改善率差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）,但保留组颈部VAS评分改善程度较非保留组显著,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。2组患者无感染、再关门及脊髓损伤等严重并发症出现,保留组轴性症状发生率显著低于非保留组,差异有统计学意义（10.7% vs.22.5%,P<0.05）。结论 保留半侧肌肉韧带的微型钛板固定颈椎单开门椎管扩大椎板成形术治疗MCSM可取得与传统手术相似的神经减压效果,虽然手术步骤增加,但有利于减少轴性症状的发生和颈椎曲度的丢失。     

单纯减压与减压后融合治疗单纯退变性腰椎管狭窄症疗效对比研究

【摘要】 目的 比较单纯椎管减压术和减压后器械内固定融合治疗无腰椎滑脱和失稳的退变性腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效。方法 自2006年3月~2011年5月期间,在我院接受手术治疗的单纯退变性腰椎管狭窄症患者共63例,其中接受单纯选择性椎管减压术治疗的患者28例,接受椎管减压加器械内固定融合手术患者35例。手术前后分别使用腰椎JOA (Japanese Orthopedic Association) 评分、ODI(Oswestry Disability Index)评分和SF?鄄36(Short Form?鄄36)评分,评估两种术式的临床疗效。结果 两组患者术后1年均取得较好疗效。其中椎管减压加融合组患者术后ODI评分改善31.2分(P<0.001),由重度功能障碍改善至轻度功能障碍;单纯选择性椎管减压组术后ODI评分改善14.9分(P=0.004),由重度功能障碍改善至中度功能障碍;减压加融合组预后较单纯减压组显著改善(P<0.01),术后SF?鄄36评分得到相似结果。结论 手术治疗能极大地改善腰椎管狭窄患者的临床症状,椎管减压加融合术较单纯椎管减压术能更大程度改善该类患者的临床症状。     

Prospective analysis of clinical evaluation and self-assessment by patients after decompression surgery for degenerative lumbar canal stenosis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Objective measures including neurological findings, radiographic evaluation, and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score are commonly used for the evaluation of surgical outcomes. Because many surgeries are performed primarily to improve quality of life, a patient's subjective evaluations are also important for accurately assessing surgical outcomes. Currently available instruments for assessing quality of life include the Short-Form 36 (F-36), the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the visual analog scale (VAS) clinical pain scale. PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to measure surgical outcomes by using both objective measures and subjective measures including patient self-assessments and psychological changes; to assess the adequacy of the JOA alone for measuring outcome; and to determine which measures, the SF-36v2, ODI, VAS, or JOA correlate with the VAS pain scale score in lumbar canal stenosis. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a prospective study to measure surgical outcomes for lumbar canal stenosis using traditional objective measures such as neurological findings and subjective measures such as performance of ADLs, patient self-assessments, and psychological changes. PATIENT SAMPLE: Forty-two surgical patients with a mean age of 66.8+/-10.9 years at the time of surgery were included in the study. All cases were followed for more than 2 years. Surgical indications included no response to conservative treatment and neurological deterioration. Neurological symptoms were classified as nerve root type, cauda equine type, or combined type. We performed surgical decompression at the location of the dural or root indentation by myelography. The concomitant diagnosis causing the spinal stenosis was degenerative spondylolisthesis in 20 cases undergoing posterolateral fusion with pedicle screws. OUTCOME MEASURES: Surgical outcomes were assessed by comparing preoperative and 24-month postoperative JOA scores for low back pain, SF-36v2, ODI-v2, and VAS scores. Statistical analysis was performed by using the analysis of variance. A p value<0.05 was considered statistically significant. METHODS: Objective clinical measures, patient self-assessments, and psychological changes were measured before and at 24 months postoperatively. We also examined which measurements correlated with the VAS scale for pain evaluation, thereby relating patient satisfaction to surgery outcome. RESULTS: All JOA, SF-36v2, ODI-v2, and VAS scores significantly improved postoperatively. The physical component summary (PCS) of the SF-36 v2 showed significant improvement, although all scores remained less than the Japanese norm-based scores (NBSs). The mental component summary (MCS) exhibited such a significant improvement that all postoperative subscales were higher than the Japanese NBS. JOA scores significantly correlated only with postoperative lower-extremity VAS score. All PCS and two MCS scores significantly correlated with the VAS score for low back pain. Parts of the PCS and MCS significantly correlated with the lower-extremity VAS. The ODI significantly correlated with both the preoperative and postoperative VAS scores for low back pain as well as with the postoperative lower-extremity VAS score. CONCLUSIONS: The JOA, SF-36, ODI, and VAS questionnaires are all useful instruments for measuring surgical outcomes. The VAS score is a better assessment of physical rather than mental health. The ODI is more reflective of patients' subjective symptoms. Finally, the SF-36 is particularly informative because it includes questions addressing both psychological and physical status. Therefore, when combined, the SF-36v2, VAS, and ODI scores are a valuable complement to the JOA scores in evaluating outcomes of surgery for lumbar canal stenosis.     

颈前路椎体次全切减压钛网植骨融合联合钛板固定治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病

目的 :探讨颈前路椎体次全切减压钛网植骨融合联合钛板固定治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法:对2010年10月至2013年1月收治的48例多节段脊髓型颈椎病患者进行回顾性分析,其中男37例,女11例;年龄37~76岁,平均54.6岁;2个节段病变35例,3个节段病变7例,4个节段病变6例。所有患者接受颈前路椎体次全切钛网自体颗粒骨植骨融合颈前路钛板内固定手术。进行临床和影像学随访,记录术前及术后3、6、12个月及末次随访时的ROM、JOA、VAS及SF-36评分,观察融合程度和椎管减压情况。结果:所有患者获得随访,时间14~48个月,平均27.3个月。术后12个月时,影像学资料显示所有患者达到骨性融合,椎管减压彻底,术前病变最严重处椎管矢状径为(5.13±1.32)mm,术后12个月为(9.94±1.22)mm,手术前后椎管矢状径比较差异有统计学意义(t=2.463,P=0.014);椎管减压程度为(92.15±2.35)%。术后各观察时间节点ROM、JOA、VAS及SF-36评分均较术前明显改善(P0.05);术后各观察时间节点ROM、JOA、VAS及SF-36评分比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 :颈前路椎体次全切减压钛网植骨融合联合钛板内固定手术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病融合率高,减压彻底,临床症状体征改善明显,且安全性较好。     

经后路手术减压治疗肥胖病患者腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效观察

目的观察单纯后路减压治疗肥胖病患者腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效。方法对2008年1月～2011年12月收治的腰椎管狭窄症的肥胖(BMI≥30 kg/m2)患者45例,采用单纯后路椎板减压术治疗。记录手术时间、术中出血量以及手术并发症,并采用JOA评定手术疗效以及采用ODI评定术后脊柱功能恢复情况。结果本组45例患者顺利完成手术,术中未出现硬膜囊撕裂、损伤神经根等并发症。手术时间为(134.4±31.2)min,术中出血量为(226.3±67.4)ml。末次随访时下腰痛JOA评分为25.1±3.7,明显优于术前的8.3±1.2,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),末次随访时ODI评分为19.1±2.8,明显优于术前的68.2±7.9,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。末次随访JOA改善情况:优24例,良18例,可3例。结论单纯后路减压术对肥胖患者腰椎管狭窄症具有良好疗效,能明确缓解患者疼痛以及改善脊柱功能。     

Comparison of decompression,decompression plus fusion,and decompression plus stabilization: a long-term follow-up of a prospective,randomized study

BACKGROUND CONTEXTLumbar canal stenosis due to degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is one of the most common indications for lumbar spinal surgery. However, from a long-term perspective, it is still unclear which of these procedures should be performed: decompression, decompression plus fusion, or decompression plus stabilization.PURPOSEThis study aimed to present the long-term results of a randomized controlled trial of surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGThis is a long-term follow-up of a previously reported randomized controlled trial.PATIENT SAMPLEPatients aged ≤75 years with single L4/5 level lumbar canal stenosis caused by degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were enrolled at two hospitals from May 1, 2003, to April 30, 2012; the final follow-up was on May 20, 2021.OUTCOME MEASURESThe following data were collected: modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score for lower back pain, leg pain, and numbness, and scores from eight Short-Form 36 (SF-36) subscales preoperatively, 1 year postoperatively, 5 years postoperatively, and at the final follow-up.METHODSPatients were randomized to undergo decompression alone, decompression plus fusion, or decompression plus stabilization. The primary outcome measure was the change in VAS for lower back pain with secondary outcomes including the modified JOA score, VAS for leg pain, VAS for leg numbness, eight SF-36 subscale scores, and occurrence of reoperation at the last follow-up.RESULTSAmong 85 patients who were randomized, 66 responded to the current survey. The mean follow-up period was 12.3 years. The VAS score for low back pain improvement was not significantly different between the decompression and fusion groups at the mean follow-up of 12.3 years. Of the 12 secondary outcomes, 8 showed no significant difference between decompression and fusion, 12 showed no significant difference between decompression and stabilization, and 10 showed no significant difference between fusion and stabilization.CONCLUSIONSAlthough additional instrumentation surgery did not significantly improve low back pain at the mean follow-up of 12.3 years compared with decompression alone, fusion surgery provided clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported vitality, social functioning, role limitations due to personal or emotional problems, and mental health compared with decompression alone.TRIAL REGISTRATIONUMIN000028114     

Factors influencing the long-term outcomes of instrumentation surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a post-hoc analysis of a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND CONTEXTLumbar spinal canal stenosis caused by degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is one of the most common indications for spinal surgery. However, the factors that influence its long-term (>10 years) outcomes remain unknown.DESIGNThis is a post-hoc analysis of a prospective randomized study.PURPOSEThis study aimed to determine factors that influence the long-term outcomes of instrumentation surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis due to degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.PATIENT SAMPLEPatients aged ≤75 years with single L4/5 level lumbar canal stenosis caused by degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis prospectively underwent instrumentation surgery at two hospitals between May 1, 2003, and April 30, 2012; the final follow-up examination was on May 20, 2021.OUTCOME MEASURESThe following data were collected: modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, JOA score recovery rate, visual analog scale (VAS) score for lower back and leg pain, and scores from eight short-form 36 (SF-36) subscales preoperatively and at the final follow-up examination.METHODSSpearman's correlation analysis and univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to examine preoperative factors that affect the JOA score recovery rate in patients who underwent instrumentation surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis at the L4/5 level due to degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.RESULTSA total of 42 patients who underwent instrumentation surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and had a long-term follow-up period were included. Of these, 25 and 17 underwent posterolateral fusion and Graf stabilization, respectively. The mean postoperative follow-up duration was 12.5 years. Spearman's correlation analysis revealed that the long-term recovery rate was correlated with the preoperative VAS score for low back pain. In the univariate regression analysis, sex, preoperative VAS score for low back pain, and the SF-36 general health score were significantly associated with the long-term recovery rate. Meanwhile, the multiple stepwise regression analysis identified the preoperative VAS score for low back pain as an independent predictor of the long-term recovery rate.CONCLUSIONSThis study identified the preoperative VAS score for low back pain as an independent predictor of the long-term recovery rate following instrumentation surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Therefore, when performing posterolateral fusion or Graf stabilization for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, attention should be paid to the intensity of preoperative low back pain and considerations should be given to whether these procedures can improve the patient's symptoms in the long term.     

经皮显微内窥镜下责任节段减压治疗多节段腰椎椎管狭窄症

目的探讨经皮显微内窥镜下责任节段减压治疗多节段腰椎椎管狭窄症的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2014年9月—2016年10月收治的40例多节段腰椎椎管狭窄症患者的临床资料,所有患者均接受经皮显微内窥镜下责任节段减压治疗,记录手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间,术前及术后疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分和日本骨科学会(JOA)评分,术后并发症发生情况。采用VAS评分评估患者腰腿疼痛程度,采用JOA评分评估临床疗效。结果所有手术顺利完成,随访12～36(21±3)个月。手术时间50～150(70±15)min,术中出血量50～400(60±5)mL,住院时间3～7(4±1)d。末次随访时,腰痛VAS评分由术前(5.7±1.4)分改善至(1.8±1.7)分,腿痛VAS评分由术前(7.2±2.3)分改善至(1.7±0.9)分;JOA评分由术前(11.0±2.8)分改善至(23.0±2.2)分;差异均有统计学意义(P 0.05)。临床疗效优23例(57.5%),良12例(30.0%),可5例(12.5%),优良率为87.5%。结论采用经皮显微内窥镜下责任节段减压治疗多节段腰椎椎管狭窄症可获得椎管的完全减压,缓解症状,疗效确切。     

Coflex棘突间动力内固定装置治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄

目的：评价采用Coflex棘突间动力内固定装置治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄的疗效及其影像学变化。方法：2007年10月至2009年2月对诊断为退行性腰椎管狭窄的30例行Coflex棘突间动力内固定治疗。其中男17例,女13例;年龄39～65岁,平均45岁。手术在L4,5节段20例,L5S1节段9例,1例同时行L4,5、L5S1双节段治疗。所有患者手术前后均行Oswestry功能障碍指数评分（ODI）和日本骨科学会评分（JOA）。影像学观察指标包括X线中立位椎间隙腹、背侧高度,动力位手术节段上下两椎体的边缘与其相邻椎体的边缘连线的夹角变化;CT测量指标包括椎管面积、硬膜囊面积、椎管矢状径、硬膜囊横矢状径。手术采用椎板开窗或部分切除,椎管减压后棘突间植入Coflex装置。结果：随访5～19个月,ODI分值由术前的平均（62.41±10.38）分下降到平均（10.49±5.93）分（P〈0.01）,JOA分值由术前的平均（8.96±2.76）分提高到平均（25.36±1.55）分（P〈0.01）。3例术后疼痛改善不明显而需药物或封闭治疗,3例麻痹及感觉减退症状无改善,其余患者症状均获明显改善,未再出现间歇性跛行及神经根压迫症状。未发现与Colfex装置本身相关的并发症。X线检查椎间隙背侧高度明显增大,手术节段相邻椎体间运动幅度无明显增大。CT检查术后椎管内空间,硬膜囊面积均有所增加。结论：采用Coflex棘突间动力内固定治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄,短期相关并发症少,同时对增加椎管及硬膜囊面积,增加椎间隙后缘高度,防止相邻节段运动幅度增加以及预防邻椎病发生具有积极的作用。     

Mini-invasive bilateral transfacet screw fixation with reconstruction of the neural arch for lumbar stenosis: A two centre case series

Background and purposeLumbar stenosis and instability frequently coexist. Spinal canal decompression is often combined with fixation of the relevant vertebral segment and can be performed using different techniques and devices, including pedicle screws and interspinous devices and facet screws. The present study evaluates the clinical outcome of laminectomy and single-level fusion using a minimally invasive technique for rigid posterior spinal column fixation with two cross-linked lag screws.MethodsThe records of patients operated from 2012 to 2016 were retrieved from the computerised medical record database system. Data on age, sex, surgical level, type of deficit and disease were collected. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires were administered pre-operatively and at 1, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery.Main findingsA total of 46 consecutive patients were operated between January 2012 to October 2016. One intraoperative complication was reported, and 4 patients experienced radiographic pseudarthrosis postoperatively. Five patients underwent additional surgery. The lumbar and lower limb VAS score, ODI and SF-36 scores showed statistically significant improvement for each score at the first and last follow-up (p < 0.01).ConclusionPercutaneous lumbar transfacet screw placement with the Facet-Link ® system is feasible and safe but with a relatively high rate of poor articular fusion. This technique can reduce the morbidity of single-level lumbar spinal stenosis and mild instability and improve patient outcome scores. Comparative studies, including randomised controlled trials, are needed to confirm these findings.