脊柱转移瘤微创手术的研究进展

随着全身治疗水平的提高,恶性肿瘤患者的生存期逐渐延长,脊柱转移瘤的发病率也逐年上升。手术联合放射治疗是脊柱转移瘤的主要治疗方案。传统开放手术创伤较大,术后并发症发病率相对较高,导致术后恢复期延长,后续治疗也被迫推迟。微创手术组织损伤小、术中失血量少、住院时间短、术后并发症少,术后可以在短时间内开展辅助治疗,因此愈发受到临床医师的重视。目前常用的微创治疗手段包括经皮椎体骨水泥增强术、经皮/小切口椎弓根螺钉内固定、微创减压、内镜技术和经皮消融技术。本文就上述微创手术的研究进展进行综述。     

脊柱微创手术

脊柱微创手术 (minimallyinvasivespinesurgicaltechnique)是指经非传统手术途径并借助医学影像、显微内窥镜等特殊手术器械和仪器对脊柱疾患进行诊断和治疗的微创技术和方法, 其目的在于将医源性创伤减小到最低程度, 同时获得最佳疗效。主要包括两大类: 经皮穿刺脊柱微创手术和借助内窥镜进行的脊柱微创手术。1934年Ball经脊柱后外侧入路行椎体穿刺活检术开创了经皮穿刺脊柱微创诊断技术的先河。1964年Smith首先报道了在X线透视下经皮穿刺进入病变的椎间盘, 注入木瓜凝乳蛋白酶, 溶解髓核以治疗椎间盘突出症, 这是经皮穿刺微创技术用…     

减少脊柱手术术中出血措施的研究进展

<正>脊柱外科手术常伴随着大量失血的风险,术中大量失血可以造成患者血流动力学不稳定,增加手术并发症,甚至危及生命,因此常需要补充足够的异体血液来维持血容量、纠正贫血。然而,大量的异体输血会增加免疫性及传染性疾病发生的风险,部分受血者可能发生输血相关性肺损伤、肾功能衰竭、心肌梗死等严重输血反应,甚至危及生命[1、2]。如何控制术中血液的丢失已成为脊柱外科手术中管理策略的焦点之一。有效减少术中出血不但能够保障患者     

微创脊柱外科研究进展

Farooq[Eur Spine J，2004，13(7)：639—644]等比较了两组接受腰椎前路椎间融合手术患者的临床效果，35例患者分为两组，一组(16例)采用传统的侧前方腹膜后入路．另一组(19例)采用气囊辅助的微创侧前方腹膜后入路．比较两组患者手术时间、出血量、并发症、术后疼痛缓解情况、下地活动时间和住院时间。结果发现．对单节段融合患者两组的手术时间、术后疼痛和术后下地活动时间存在显著性差异；而对多节手术患者则没有显著性差异。     

脊柱微创技术的研究进展

脊柱微创技术具有创伤小、痛苦少、恢复快、疗效佳、并发症少、费用低等优点。如今医疗设备不断发展,医者诊疗技术日益成熟以及患者对健康和美容更加重视,推动了脊柱微创技术的迅速发展。它将传统手术方式所造成的医源性创伤减小到了最低程度,体现了真正意义上的微创理念。文章简略阐述脊柱微创技术在国内外的研究进展情况。     

CT定位脊柱微创手术

脊柱微创手术已成为重要的脊柱疾病治疗手段,其基础步骤是在影像引导下的穿刺定位技术,影像引导设备影响着穿刺定位的安全性和准确性,从而影响着治疗效果。CT定位技术是借助CT机架的角度调整和能清晰辨别各种组织的优势,根据手术目的和部位确定断层操作平面,可按照“最安全、最简单”的原则精准设计、量化手术入路;通过适时的CT监测,将定位针精准无误穿刺到设计的位置。CT定位技术已成功应用于经皮内镜椎间盘切除、椎体成形、骨折内固定,以及穿刺活检、靶向治疗等。本科已成功施行CT定位各种脊柱微创手术近万例,举办培训班30余期,共培训国内外学员600余名;曾先后帮助省内外100余家医院开展CT定位技术。     

脊柱微创手术技术发展现状

近几十年,随着脊柱外科理念和科学技术的巨大进步,脊柱微创手术的普及程度大为提高。脊柱微创技术旨在最大限度降低手术并发症风险,同时获得与传统开放手术相同的效果。脊柱微创手术提倡尽可能地避免或减少与手术入路相关的组织损伤,尽可能保留手术范围内正常的解剖结构,同时术后可快速康复并获得更好的生活质量。从腰椎椎间盘显微切除技术开始,各种革命性的微创技术不断涌现,并逐步代替开放术式。内窥镜、导航和机器人等现代手术辅助设备的发展进一步扩大了脊柱微创手术的适应证范围,使其适用于许多复杂的脊柱病变。例如,使用显微镜或内窥镜不仅能更安全地进行常规的神经减压/融合操作,也可显著提高脊柱转移性病变、复杂脊柱感染和复杂脊柱创伤相关手术的可行性、安全性。     

退行性脊柱疾病微创手术的进展

退行性脊柱疾病的微创手术是当前脊柱外科的研究热点,最引人注目的领域是以侧方腰椎融合术为代表的复杂退行性脊柱侧凸微创重建手术和以脊柱内镜为代表的微创精准减压技术.本文拟从微创脊柱内镜减压技术、微创脊柱融合、微创脊柱畸形矫形三个方面对退行性脊柱疾病的微创手术发展进行概述.     

机器人手术在脊柱外科手术中发挥的精准安全和微创高效作用

手术的安全、微创、高效、精准一直是医学发展的目标与动力.无论是对于患者还是对于医生而言,手术的安全性都是最重要的.由于脊柱结构的复杂多变且毗邻神经血管,脊柱手术总是面临着很多风险,因而,对手术安全性也有更大的需求. 1椎弓根精准置钉的重要性及问题所在 由于脊柱手术很多需要内固定,需要置入螺钉来重建脊柱的稳定性,这带来了...     

脊柱微创手术的辐射危害及其防护进展

医学影像学是现代医学最重要的诊断工具之一,术中X线透视检查因可实时获得患者的骨骼结构信息和可移动便利性而被广泛使用于脊柱手术中[1]。脊柱微创手术近年来因其创伤小、出血少、创口美观、感染几率小、术后恢复快、疗效相当而得到迅速的发展并在全世界各地得到广泛推广[2～4],现已明确可应用于脊柱退行性疾病[5]、脊柱畸形[6]、外伤[7]和肿瘤[8]等。然而,由于脊柱微创手术经常需要在X射线透视下进行定位和复位检查,所以脊柱外科医生的辐射危害是临床上不容忽视的问题[9]。高剂量辐射可以诱发肿瘤、白内障、心血管疾病等,低剂量辐射暴露与肿瘤、白内障、心血管疾病等联系也是当下研究的热点[10～13]。增强对辐射危害的基本认识,提高辐射的防范意识,掌握减少辐射暴露的原则与方法是每一位脊柱外科医生的职业健康的必修课[3、14]。笔者就脊柱微创手术的辐射危害及其防护进展综述如下。     

Use of navigation-assisted fluoroscopy to decrease radiation exposure during minimally invasive spine surgery

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery decreases postoperative pain and disability. However, limited views of the surgical field require extensive use of intraoperative fluoroscopy that may expose the surgical team to higher levels of ionizing radiation. PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility and safety of navigation-assisted fluoroscopy during minimally invasive spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN: A combined cadaveric and human study comparing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) using navigation-assisted fluoroscopy with standard intraoperative fluoroscopy to determine differences in surgical times and radiation exposures. METHODS: Eighteen fresh cadaveric spines underwent unilateral MIS TLIF by using either navigation-assisted fluoroscopy or standard fluoroscopy. Times for specific surgical steps were compared. In addition, a prospective short-term evaluation of the intraoperative and perioperative results of 10 patients undergoing navigation-assisted MIS TLIF (NAV group) compared with a retrospective review of 8 patients undergoing MIS TLIF performed by using standard fluoroscopy (FLUORO group). RESULTS: In the cadaveric study, the times were similar between the NAV group and the FLUORO group for most key steps. No statistically significant differences were obtained for approach, exposure, screw insertion, facetectomy/decompression, or total surgical times. Statistically significant differences were obtained for the setup time and total fluoroscopy time. The setup time for the NAV group averaged 9.67 (standard deviation [SD], 3.74) minutes compared with 4.78 (SD, 2.11) minutes for the FLUORO group (p=.034). The total fluoroscopy time was higher for the FLUORO group compared with the NAV group (41.9 seconds vs. 28.7 seconds, p=.042). Radiation exposure was undetectable when navigation-assisted fluoroscopy is used (NAV group). In contrast, an average 12.4 milli-REM (mREM) of radiation exposure is delivered to the surgeon during unilateral MIS TLIF procedure without navigation (FLUORO group). In the clinical series, the total fluoro time for the NAV group was 57.1 seconds (SD, 37.3; range, 18-120) compared with 147.2 seconds (SD, 73.3; range, 73-295) for FLUORO group (p=.02). No statistically significant differences are noted for operating time, estimated blood loss, or hospital stay. No inadvertent durotomies, postoperative weakness, or new radiculopathy were noted in the NAV group. One inadvertent durotomy was encountered in the FLUORO group that was repaired intraoperatively without clinical sequelae. CONCLUSION: The use of navigation-assisted fluoroscopy is feasible and safe for minimally invasive spine surgery. Radiation exposure is decreased to the patient as well as the surgical team.     

The development of minimally invasive spine surgery

The modern era of minimally invasive spine surgery has its roots in percutaneous techniques developed in the mid-twentieth century. The widespread application of minimally invasive techniques seen today is predicated on technologic developments of only the past 10 years, however. This article reviews the development of minimally invasive spinal surgery as it has evolved for the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. Each new development has sought to equal or improve on the effectiveness demonstrated by comparable open surgical techniques while reducing iatrogenic tissue trauma and resultant postoperative pain and disability, to produce overall better outcomes for patients.     

Value analysis of minimally invasive spine surgery

The purpose of this article is to acquaint readers with the current methodology and evidence on outcome assessment and economic value for minimally invasive spinal surgical procedures. This article will review the standardized outcome measures, calculations of direct and indirect costs, quality-adjusted life years, and economic comparisons of spinal surgical procedures. The available literature suggests that minimally invasive spine surgery is cost effective; however, further research is needed to better assess the longer-term outcomes and cost–utility benefits of minimally invasive spinal interventions in comparison to open surgical approaches.     

Patient selection for minimally invasive spine surgery

Minimally invasive approaches to treat lumbar spine disease may carry many benefits over traditional open surgery with comparable patient outcomes. However, this advantage is conferred through appropriate patient selection. Not only do patient-specific anatomic factors influence the use of these techniques, but also surgeon familiarity with approaches. Adult spinal deformity surgery represents an area where minimally invasive spine (MIS) techniques have demonstrated significant impact in appropriately selected patients. Conversely, applying MIS techniques in patients inappropriate for minimally invasive surgery can result in complications, reoperations, and adverse outcomes. This chapter will highlight algorithms to guide patient and technique selection for MIS deformity surgery.     

Correction to: Radiation exposure to the surgeon during minimally invasive spine procedures is directly estimated by patient dose

European Spine Journal - Unfortunately, the first author surname was incorrectly published as “Harrison Farber” instead of “Farber” in original publication.     

Practical answers to frequently asked questions in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXTSurgical counseling enables shared decision-making (SDM) by improving patients’ understanding.PURPOSETo provide answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery.STUDY DESIGNRetrospective review of prospectively collected data.PATIENT SAMPLEPatients who underwent primary tubular minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery in form of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF), decompression alone, or microdiscectomy and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up.OUTCOME MEASURES(1) Surgical (radiation exposure and intraoperative complications) (2)Immediate postoperative (length of stay [LOS] and complications) (3) Clinical outcomes (Visual Analog Scale- back and leg, VAS; Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS; Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, PROMIS PF; Global Rating Change, GRC; return to activities; complications/reoperations)METHODSThe outcome measures were analyzed to provide answers to ten FAQs that were compiled based on the authors’ experience and a review of literature. Changes in VAS back, VAS leg, ODI, and SF-12 PCS from preoperative values to the early (<6 months) and late (>6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests. % of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for these patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at the two time points was evaluated. Changes in PROs from preoperative values too early (<6 months) and late (≥6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed within each of the three groups. Percentage of patients achieving MCID was also evaluated.RESULTSThree hundred sixty-six patients (104 TLIF, 147 decompression, 115 microdiscectomy) were included. The following FAQs were answered: (1) Will my back pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. About 60% of TLIF, decompression, and microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (2) Will my leg pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. 56% of TLIF, 67% of decompression, and 70% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (3) Will my activity level improve? Most patients report significant improvement. Sixty-six percent of TLIF, 55% of decompression, and 75% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID for SF-12 PCS. (4) Is there a chance I will get worse? Six percent after TLIF, 14% after decompression, and 5% after microdiscectomy. (5) Will I receive a significant amount of radiation? The radiation exposure is likely to be acceptable and nearly insignificant in terms of radiation-related risks. (6) What is the likelihood that I will have a complication? 17.3% (15.4% minor, 1.9% major) for TLIF, 10% (9.3% minor and 0.7% major) for decompression, and 1.7% (all minor) for microdiscectomy (7) Will I need another surgery? Six percent after TLIF, 16.3% after decompression, 13% after microdiscectomy. (8) How long will I stay in the hospital? Most patients get discharged on postoperative day one after TLIF and on the same day after decompression and microdiscectomy. (9) When will I be able to return to work? >80% of patients return to work (average: 25 days after TLIF, 14 days after decompression, 11 days after microdiscectomy). (10) Will I be able to drive again? >90% of patients return to driving (average: 22 days after TLIF, 11 days after decompression, 14 days after microdiscectomy).CONCLUSIONSThese concise answers to the FAQs in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery can be used by physicians as a reference to enable patient education.     

Cardiopulmonary dysfunction during minimally invasive thoraco-lumboendoscopic spine surgery.

The endoscopic retroperitoneal approach to thoracolumbar anterior spine fusion is associated with CO2 insufflation into the thoracic space. We studied the cardiopulmonary effects of this CO2 thoraco-retroperitoneal insufflation compared with the conventional open surgical procedure using thoraco-phreno-lumbotomy in 12 pigs under balanced anesthesia, paralysis, and mechanical ventilation. During open surgery of the thoracolumbar spine, animals exhibited unchanged systemic and pulmonary hemodynamics, as well as ventilation and oxygenation variables. Animals retroperitoneally insufflated with CO2 (12 mm Hg) exhibited a significant increase of PaCO2 and a moderate decrease of PaO2, SaO2, and pH, with insignificant changes of central venous filling pressures and systemic hemodynamics. Endoscopic phrenotomy with thoracic CO2 insufflation instantaneously and drastically affected hemodynamic status and pulmonary gas exchange with marked hypoxia, hypercapnia, systemic hypotension, tachycardia, and pulmonary hypertension within minutes. An increase of minute ventilation, inspiratory oxygen fraction, and positive end-expiratory pressure promptly reversed these cardiopulmonary effects. CO2 evacuation allowed the animals to completely recover and regain almost baseline cardiopulmonary status, except for a reduced arterial blood pressure. Appropriate monitoring and immediate CO2 desufflation may be beneficial in cases of therapy-resistant hemodynamic, oxygenation, and ventilation difficulties. IMPLICATIONS: For endoscopic thoraco-lumbar spine fusion, CO2 thoraco-retroperitoneum-induced cardiopulmonary dysfunction must be of concern, especially in patients with cardiopulmonary compromise. Appropriate monitoring and immediate CO2 desufflation may be beneficial in cases of therapy-resistant hemodynamic, oxygenation, and ventilation difficulties.     

A versatile tool for exposure in minimally invasive surgery

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic surgery in a major cavity in the body requires space for manipulation and presentation of the target organ or site. For coronary artery grafting on the working heart, additional local cardiac wall immobilization is indispensible. METHODS: A passive hydraulic arm was developed to be mounted on the operating table rail. The development focused on the arm's versatility, durability, flexibility in manipulation, and extreme stiffness when in position. RESULTS: The arm was flexible and easy to manipulate. The tip did not move during tightening, and the arm was stiff once tightened. The arm was successfully used in small and full access beating heart coronary bypass grafting, through the latter(i.e., sternotomy) for multivessel revascularization. Immobilization and presentation were achieved by suction fixation, allowing accurate anastomosis suturing. CONCLUSIONS: The arm enabled effective target site presentation and stabilization on the working heart. According to these observations, it may be useful as a basic tool for endoscopic surgery.