Quadrant通道下改良微创TLIF术与常规微创TLIF术治疗单间隙腰椎间盘突出症的临床比较

目的比较分析Quadrant通道下改良微创经椎间孔椎体间融合技术(TLIF)与常规微创TLIF治疗单间隙腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法随机数字表格法将80例单间隙腰椎间盘突出症患者分为改良组与常规组,分别行Quadrant通道下改良微创TLIF术、常规微创TLIF术,比较两组围手术期指标、并发症、手术前后疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)及Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)变化,另术后12个月根据改良Macnab标准评价临床疗效。结果改良组手术时间、切口长度均显著小于常规组(P0.05);两组术中出血量、术后引流量、术后下地活动时间、住院时间、并发症发生比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05);两组术后1周、12个月VAS评分比术前24 h均显著下降,ODI评分显著上升,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);改良组术后1周VAS评分显著低于常规组(P0.05);两组术后12个月VAS评分、ODI评分、改良Macnab评价优良率比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论相比常规微创TLIF术,Quadrant通道下改良微创TLIF术能明显缩短手术时间,切口更小,术后短期疼痛更轻。     

Quadrant通道微创TLIF治疗相邻双节段腰椎间盘突出症的疗效分析

目的比较经Quadrant通道微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)与传统后路切开椎体间融合术治疗相邻双节段腰椎间盘突出症的疗效。方法回顾性分析自2013-06—2014-05经Quadrant通道微创TLIF治疗的12例相邻双节段腰椎间盘突出症(微创组),并与采用后路切开椎体间融合术治疗的16例(传统组)比较。结果 2组手术时间、切口总长度差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。微创组术中出血量、术后引流量、住院时间少于传统组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。28例获得随访13~30个月,平均22个月。术后3 d微创组VAS评分较传统组改善明显,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。微创组与传统组术后1个月及末次随访时的VAS评分、ODI指数比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论经Quadrant通道微创TLIF治疗双节段腰椎间盘突出症是一种安全、有效的手术方式,具有出血少、组织破坏少、恢复快等优点。     

显微镜辅助MIS-TLIF单侧Quadrant通道下双侧减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症的疗效观察

目的比较显微镜辅助微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,MIS-TLIF)单侧Quadrant通道下双侧减压术与经椎间孔椎体间融合术(Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF)治疗单节段腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2016-01—2018-12诊治的72例腰椎管狭窄症,33例采用显微镜辅助MIS-TLIF单侧Quadrant通道下双侧减压治疗(微创组),39例采用TLIF治疗(开放组)。比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、术中透视次数、术后引流量,比较2组术后3、6、12个月腰痛VAS评分、腿痛VAS评分、ODI指数。结果 72例均顺利完成手术并获得完整随访,随访时间12～24个月,平均18.6个月。微创组手术时间较开放组长,术中出血量较开放组少,术中透视次数较开放组多,术后引流量较开放组少,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。微创组术后3个月腰痛VAS评分、腿痛VAS评分、ODI指数低于开放组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);术后6个月及术后12个月2组腰痛VAS评分、腿痛VAS评分、ODI指数比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论显微镜辅助MIS-TLIF单侧Quadrant通道下双侧减压与PLIF治疗腰椎管狭窄症均可以改善患者腰背痛,但前者手术创伤小,术中出血量少,术后恢复更快。     

微创与开放经椎间孔椎间融合术治疗腰椎不稳的疗效比较

目的评价Quadrant通道下经椎间孔椎间融合术(微创TLIF)与开放经椎间孔椎间融合术(开放TLIF)两种手术方式治疗退变性腰椎不稳的临床效果。方法将53例腰椎不稳症患者分别采用开放TLIF(34例)和微创TLIF(19例)治疗,比较两组的手术时间、术中失血量、术中透视时间、术后并发症以及ODI、VAS评分等指标。结果 2例失访,51例获得随访,时间3~12个月。术中失血量、并发症发生率:微创TLIF组均少于开放TLIF组(P0.05);手术时间与术中透视时间:微创TLIF组均长于开放TLIF组(P0.05);腰背痛VAS评分:微创TLIF组术后2周、12个月时低于开放TLIF组(P0.05),术后3个月时两组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。ODI评分:术后2周、3个月、12个月两组比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。两组在术后12个月随访时均未发生植骨不融合。结论微创TLIF是治疗腰椎不稳症的有效方法。     

Quadrant通道下MIS-TLIF治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效分析

目的比较Quadrant可扩张通道微创经椎间孔入路腰椎椎体间融合术(MIS-TLIF)与经椎间孔入路腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效。方法纳入自2014-04—2016-04诊治的47例腰椎退行性疾病,采用Quadrant可扩张通道MIS-TLIF治疗26例(观察组),采用传统开放TLIF治疗21例(对照组)。比较2组手术时间、术中失血量、术后引流量,术后1、3、6、12个月VAS评分、JOA评分、ODI指数。结果 47例均顺利完成手术,与对照组相比,观察组手术时间更短,术中出血量及术后引流量更少,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。所有患者均获得12个月以上随访,对照组随访时间平均16.8个月,观察组随访时间平均17.2个月。观察组术后1、3个月VAS评分、JOA评分、ODI指数优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);但2组术后6、12个月VAS评分、JOA评分、ODI指数比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 Quadrant通道下MIS-TLIF治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效肯定,与传统TLIF相比,术后早期疼痛缓解明显,有利于早期功能康复锻炼。     

Quadrant通道下微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床观察

[目的]探讨Quadrant通道下微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,MIS-TLIF)治疗腰椎间盘突出症的方法、临床疗效和安全性,并与常规经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF)进行对比分析。[方法]将52例符合腰椎椎体间融合术指征的腰椎间盘突出症患者,随机分为Quadrant微创组和常规开放组,22例采用Quadrant通道下MIS-TLIF,30例采用常规TLIF。[结果]Quadrant微创组术中出血量、术后引流量、下床时间、住院天数及镇痛药物用量与开放组比较均明显减低(P﹤0.05);微创组术后1周及6个月疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)及Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)均较常规开放组明显降低。微创组手术时间、术中射线暴露时间及剂量均高于开放组。[结论]Quadrant通道下MIS-TLIF治疗腰椎间盘突出症较常规开放TLIF具有创伤小、出血量少、术后疼痛轻、住院天数少、术后恢复快等特点,可获得良好的近期临床疗效,是安全、可靠的微创手术方法。     

微创TLIF联合单侧椎弓根钉内固定与开放TLIF治疗盘源性腰痛的对比研究

目的对比分析微创经椎间孔椎间融合术(Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion,TLIF)单侧椎弓根钉内固定(微创组)与开放TLIF联合双侧椎弓根钉内固定(开放组)治疗椎间盘源性腰痛的临床结果。方法 65例单节段椎间盘源性腰痛患者采用TLIF治疗。记录两组的手术切口长度、手术时间、术中失血量、术后引流量、术后平均住院日和返回工作时间,动态监测血清肌酸激酶(CK)及椎旁肌肌电图变化,随访视觉模拟评分法(VAS)和Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评分,并进行统计分析。结果微创组手术切口长度、手术时间、术中失血量、术后引流量、术后平均住院日和返回工作时间、术后3 d CK显著优于开放组(P0.05)。术后1年随访时,微创组椎旁肌肌电图平均放电幅度和频率明显高于开放组(P0.05)。术后3个月、6个月、1年随访时,微创组VAS、ODI评分显著优于开放组(P0.05),而术后2年VAS、ODI评分无显著差异(P0.05)。结论微创TLIF联合单侧椎弓根钉内固定治疗椎间盘源性腰痛具有与开放手术相似的长期疗效,但微创手术创伤小,椎旁肌损伤轻、术后恢复快,早期效果更为满意。     

开放TLIF与微创TLIF手术的创伤定量对比分析

目的对开放TLIF与微创TLIF手术进行生化指标与影像学指标的创伤定量对比分析。方法自2014-01-2015-10,共纳入61例单节段腰椎退行性疾病患者,其中27例采用开放TLIF手术,另34例行微创TLIF手术,对两组患者的围手术期指标、VAS评分和ODI指数,以及CK、IL-6、多裂肌横断面积(Mcsa)等创伤定量指标进行对比。结果两组患者的手术时间较为相近(P0.05),但与开放TLIF组相比,微创TLIF组的术中出血量显著减少,术后下地时间也明显缩短(P0.05);两组患者术后的VAS评分和ODI指数均有显著下降(P0.05),组间对比,两组的改善程度无统计学差异(P0.05)。血清IL-6和CK水平均在两组术后1 d达到高峰,并于术后3-5 d逐步下降;组间对比,开放TLIF组术后1 d的CK指标及术后1、3 d的IL-6水平,均显著高于微创TLIF组(P0.05)。结论微创与开放TLIF手术治疗单节段腰椎退行性疾病,均可取得较好的疗效;但微创TLIF术式的出血量更少,对椎旁肌肉的损伤程度更低,术后康复更快,值得在临床推广应用。     

微创TLIF单侧置钉与传统TLIF双侧置钉的前瞻性对比研究

目的比较微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF)单侧置钉与传统TLIF双侧置钉治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效。方法 2014年6月至2015年12月,我院收治腰椎退行性疾病患者79例,分为单侧固定组和双侧固定组。单侧固定组接受微创TLIF联合单侧椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗,共36例;双侧固定组接受传统TLIF联合双侧椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗,共43例。记录并比较两组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间,采集并比较两组患者术前、术后腰痛、下肢痛疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)及Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)评分。结果两组患者均顺利接受手术,单侧固定组较双侧固定组手术时间更短,术中出血量更少,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05);两组患者术后住院时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。两组患者随访12~30个月。术前两组患者腰痛、下肢痛VAS评分及ODI评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。末次随访时两组患者腰痛、下肢痛VAS评分及ODI评分均较术前明显降低,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);两组间比较,腰痛、下肢痛VAS评分及ODI评分差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论本试验显示微创TLIF单侧置钉与传统TLIF双侧置钉相比,能够取得与后者类似的临床疗效,但能明显降低手术时间及术中出血量。     

Mast Quadrant微创通道与开放式经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术的临床比较

目的 比较Mast Quadrant微创通道与开放式经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术（transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF）治疗腰椎椎间盘突出症伴节段性不稳的临床疗效.方法 回顾分析行TLIF手术治疗的65例腰椎椎间盘突出伴节段不稳的临床资料,根据手术方式分为行传统TLIF的开放组（44例）及使用Mast Quadrant通道行TLIF手术的微创组（21例）.比较微创组与开放组出血量、手术时间、住院时间以及手术前后的视觉模拟量表（visual analog scale,VAS）评分和日本骨科学会（Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA）评分.结果 微创组围手术期出血量、手术时间以及住院天数均较开放手术组少（短）,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.2组末次随访时疼痛VAS和JOA评分均较术前有改善,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.2组之间疼痛VAS评分比较,差异亦有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.结论与传统开放手术相比较,应用Mast Quadrant通道不但同样能够完成椎管减压、椎间植骨融合、椎弓根螺钉内固定等操作,还具有切口小、出血少、住院时间短、术后恢复快、发生下腰痛概率低等优点,是手术治疗腰椎椎间盘突出症伴节段不稳更好的选择.     

Biomechanical comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

STUDY DESIGN: An in vitro biomechanical comparison of 2 fusion techniques, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), on cadaveric human spines. OBJECTIVE: To compare the immediate construct stability, in terms of range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone, of ALIF, including 2 separate approaches, and TLIF procedures with posterior titanium rod fixation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Both ALIF and TLIF have been used to treat chronic low back pain and instability. In many cases, the choice between these 2 techniques is based only on personal preference. No biomechanical performance comparison between these 2 fusion techniques is available to assist surgical decision. METHODS: Twelve cadaveric lumbar motion segments were loaded sinusoidally at 0.05 Hz and 5 Nm in unconstrained axial rotation, lateral bending and flexion extension. Specimens were randomly divided into 2 groups with 6 in each group. One group was assigned for TLIF whereas the other group for ALIF. In the ALIF group, there were 3 steps. First, the lateral ALIF procedure with the anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL) intact was performed. Afterwards, the ALL was cut without removing the ALIF cage. Finally, another appropriately sized ALIF cage was inserted anteriorly. Biomechanical tests were conducted after each step. RESULTS: In the ALIF group, the lateral ALIF and subsequent anterior ALIF reduced segmental motion significantly (P=0.03) under all loading conditions. Removing the ALL increased ROM by 59% and 142% in axial rotation and flexion extension, respectively (P=0.03). The anterior ALIF approach was able to achieve similar biomechanical stability of the lateral approach in lateral bending and flexion extension (P>0.05) under all loading conditions. The TLIF procedure significantly reduced the range of motion compared with the intact state (P=0.03). However, no statistical difference was detected between the TLIF group and the ALIF group (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both ALIF and TLIF procedures combined with posterior instrumentation significantly improved construct stability of intact spinal motion segments. However, there was no statistical difference between these 2 fusion techniques. The 2 ALIF approaches (lateral and anterior) also had similar construct stability even though anterior longitudinal ligament severing significantly reduced stability.     

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

For over 70 years, interbody lumbar fusions have evolved from modifications to discectomy procedures to more advanced techniques such as the posterolateral interbody fusion (PLIF) and ultimately the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). The advent of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques provided advantages of decreased soft tissue dissection, lower blood loss, and decreased post-operative pain.⁹ Recently, further developments have lead to the introduction of endoscopic techniques with an awake anesthesia protocol that has shown improved results over the standard MIS TLIF.12., 13., 14.^,20,31 While the standard MIS TLIF has now become commonplace, endoscopic MIS TLIF will also see widespread adoption over time.     

经椎间孔入路与经后方入路椎间融合术治疗退变性腰椎失稳症的疗效比较

目的回顾性研究经后方入路椎体间融合术（posterior lumbar interbody fusion,PLIF）和切除上、下关节突的经椎间孔入路椎体间融合术（transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF）治疗腰椎失稳症的疗效及并发症情况。方法采用PLIF和TLIF治疗2004年1月至2008年1月本院收治的退变性腰椎失稳症患者78例,其中PLIF31例,TLIF47例。比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、平均卧床时间、Nakai评分优良率、融合时间（按Suk标准）及术后并发症发生率。对两组术前及末次随访时的椎间隙高度及椎间孔高度进行对比研究。结果 78例患者均获随访,随访时间1.5～4.5年,平均3.5年。所有患者均获椎间骨性融合。对两组卧床时间、Nakai评分优良率、融合时间、同时间点椎间隙高度和椎间孔高度进行比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;而在手术时间、出血量以及术后并发症发生率方面,两组之间的差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。两组末次随访时的椎间隙高度和椎间孔高度均较术前有明显改善（P〈0.05）。结论 TLIF和PLIF治疗退变性腰椎失稳症效果良好;与PLIF相比,TLIF操作简单,出血量小,并发症少。     

经椎间孔入路腰椎椎体间融合术的研究进展

经椎间孔入路腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)是目前为止最为经典的腰椎融合术之一.随着科技和医疗水平的进步,传统的开放TLIF已逐步改良为更加适宜的衍生术式.同时,各种辅助技术的应用使各类TLIF变得更加复杂多样.为理清TLIF发展脉络,了解其前沿进展,该文对近年来TLIF的衍生术式和辅助技术等研究进展进行综述,并对其未来发...     

Contralateral radiculopathy after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is an effective treatment for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease. Opposite side radiculopathy after the TLIF procedure has been recognized in this institution but has not been addressed in the literature. We present a case of opposite side radiculopathy after the TLIF procedure. We believe that this complication is related to asymptomatic stenosis on the contralateral side that is unmasked by the increased lordosis of the TLIF. The authors recommend increasing both disc height and foraminal height when choosing an interbody graft, and possibly decompressing the opposite foramen when preoperative MRI demonstrates foraminal stenosis.

     

工作区域内移的改良经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术

 目的 总结 Mast Quadrant辅助下工作区域内移改良经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, TLIF)的手术操作技巧及其短期随访结果。方法 2006年 9月至 2008年 10月, Mast Quadrant拉钩辅助下改良 TLIF治疗 54例腰椎单节段退变性疾病患者。术中经”C冶型臂 X线机透视定位病变节段, ±次置入 Mast Quadrant拉钩并适度纵向扩张, 充分显露关节突关节和椎板, 直视下咬除患侧上位椎体的下关节突及椎板下 1/2~2/3、黄韧带及下位椎体上关节突增生内聚部分, 减压神经根管及中央管, 处理椎间隙行椎体间植骨融合, 进一步行椎弓根螺钉固定。统计该组患者的手术操作时间、术中失血量、术后引流量、术后住: 时间、手术相关并发症;术后 3、6、12、24个月随访, 记录患者疼痛视觉模拟评分法(visual analogue scale, VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index, ODI), 以及末次随访影像学融合率。结果 54例患者均顺利完成手术, 51例患者获得随访。平均手术时间(178.7±63.2) min, 平均术中失血量为(224.2±136.5) ml, 术后引流量平均(117.2±91.4) ml, 平均术后住: 时间(5.8±3.6) d。患者术后各随访时间点 ODI、VAS与术前相比差异均有统计学意义。末次随访时 51例患者均达到影像学融合标准, 未发现断钉、断棒等内固定相关并发症。结论 Mast Quadrant辅助下改良 TLIF为直视下操作, 较为安全, 易于掌握;对单节段腰椎退变性疾病患者具有良好的临床治疗效果。     

Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

A prospective analysis of consecutive patients who had lumbar fusion using the unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation is presented to assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion procedure and describe the technique and indication in the treatment of degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Forty patients treated with transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine (with anterior column deficiency) were followed up for a minimum of 3 years (mean, 3.4 years; range, 3-3.9 years). Radiographic assessment included plain and flexion and extension radiographs. Clinical outcome was based on pain relief, ability to do activities of daily living, and return to work. Thirty-six patients (90%) had solid fusions and at latest followup, segmental lordosis has increased in all patients. Eighty-five percent of patients had excellent or good clinical outcome(s). The unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion provides bilateral anterior column support through a unilateral approach. The patients had high fusion rates and patient satisfaction as reported with similar complications found in other methods commonly used for spinal decompression and stabilization.