多段小切口椎旁肌间隙入路治疗胸腰段椎体压缩性骨折

目的对比研究多段小切口椎旁肌间隙入路和传统后正中入路治疗胸腰段椎体压缩性骨折的疗效。方法回顾性分析我科于2013年6月至2014年8月手术治疗外伤所致48例胸腰段椎体压缩性骨折病例,其中21例采用传统后正中入路治疗(后正中入路组),另外27例采用多段小切口椎旁肌间隙入路治疗(椎旁肌间隙入路组)。记录两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量;分别于术前及术后1、3和5 d检测两组患者血清肌酸激酶值;术前和术后3 d常规拍摄X线片,比较两组Cobb角矫正率;应用视觉疼痛模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)评估患者术前和术后疼痛情况。结果所有患者经治疗后临床症状明显缓解,功能恢复较好。两组术前指标差异无统计学意义。椎旁肌间隙入路组手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量均少于后正中入路组(P<0.01);VAS评分术后两组均较术前明显改善,椎旁肌间隙入路组优于后正中入路组(P<0.01);血清肌酸激酶值术后两组均有不同程度升高,并逐渐降低,椎旁肌间隙入路组较后正中入路组下降快(P<0.01);Cobb角术后两组均较术前明显好转(P<0.01)。结论对于部分类型胸腰段骨折,多段小切口椎旁肌间隙入路可以作为一种手术入路选择,疗效明显,但需要严格掌握手术适应证。     

椎旁肌间隙入路及后正中入路减压固定融合治疗腰椎间盘突出症临床疗效分析

目的分析经椎旁肌间隙入路(wiltse paraspinal approach,Wiltse入路)及后正中入路椎管减压椎间融合治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效。方法 47例腰椎问盘突出症患者随机分为经椎旁肌间隙入路组和后正中入路组,均行椎管减压椎间融合治疗。通过对两组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量及患者术前术后腰部疼痛视觉模拟量表(visual analog scale,VAS)评分和腰背下肢Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)进行比较,评价不同入路治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效。结果经椎旁肌间隙入路组术后引流量[(67.50±33.21)ml]少于后正中入路组[(90.89±60.79)ml](P0.05);经椎旁肌间隙入路组手术时间[(126.50±17.30)分钟]与后正中入路组手术时间[(132.80±19.57)分钟]比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);经椎旁肌间隙人路组术中出血量[(215.10±87.65)ml]与与后正中入路组中出血量[(326.00±91.82)ml]比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);椎旁肌间隙入路组术后3天腰痛评分[(4.57±0.61)分]优于后正中入路组[(6.19±0.61)分](P0.05);椎旁肌间隙入路组术后14天腰痛评分[(2.51±0.62)分]优于后正中入路组[(4.10±0.57)分](P0.05);47例患者得到6~9个月的随访,术后1个月椎旁肌间隙入路组ODI(37.39±6.59)优于后正中入路组(46.63±6.17)(P0.05),术后6个月椎旁肌间隙人路组ODI(8.55±4.80)与后正中入路组ODI(10.59±5.16)比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论椎旁肌间隙入路手术时间、术中出血量与后正中入路比较,差异无统计学意义,椎旁肌间隙入路术后引流量少,术后腰痛及下肢功能恢复更快。     

经椎旁肌间隙入路治疗胸腰段椎体骨折

目的探讨经椎旁肌间隙入路治疗胸腰段椎体骨折的手术方法、疗效及优势。方法自2009年2月至2011年6月治疗110例胸腰段椎体骨折,其中经椎旁肌间隙入路组与传统后正中入路组各55例,比较两组间围手术期参数、影像学指标、视觉模拟疼痛评分（visual analogue scale,VAS）及Beaujon-lassale功能评分。结果 103例患者获得随访,7例失访,随访时间1～25个月,平均12个月。两组在手术时间上无明显差异,但在术中出血量、术后引流量、术后疼痛（VAS评分）经椎旁肌间隙入路组明显低于传统后正中入路组;功能评分经椎旁肌间隙入路组高于传统后正中入路组;两组术前、术后影像学指标如椎体前缘高度、后凸Cobb角、椎间隙高度对比无显著性差异。结论经椎旁肌间隙入路治疗胸腰段椎体骨折与传统后正中入路相比,在手术时间及术后影像学指标上无明显差异,但该术式具有对椎旁肌损伤小、术中出血少、疗效确切、术后并发症少、疼痛轻、功能恢复好等优点,值得临床推广。     

经椎旁肌间隙入路治疗胸腰椎骨折

目的对比经椎旁肌间隙入路与传统后正中入路在治疗胸腰椎骨折上的疗效。方法 2003年5月～2009年1月,行单节段椎弓根钉棒系统撑开复位内固定手术治疗50例单节段胸腰椎压缩性或爆裂性骨折但无神经症状不需行椎管减压的患者。患者随机平均分为2组（n=25）：传统后正中入路组和椎旁肌间隙入路组。比较2组的手术时间、术中出血量、视觉模拟量表（visual analog scale,VAS）评分等资料。结果所有患者获得随访,随访时间为6个月。手术时间、术后Coob角矫正率及椎弓根钉置入准确率2组间差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;肌间隙入路组在术中出血量、术后引流量上明显少于传统入路组;肌间隙入路组在VAS评分、血肌酸激酶同工酶水平升高程度上明显低于传统入路组。结论椎旁肌间隙入路与传统后正中入路相比,在治疗不需减压的胸腰椎骨折上,具有创伤小、对椎旁肌的损伤少及术后腰背部疼痛缓解明显的优点。     

经Wiltse椎旁肌间隙入路手术治疗胸腰椎爆裂骨折

目的:探讨Wiltse经椎旁肌入路手术治疗胸腰爆裂骨折的临床疗效及优势。方法:自2008年6月至2010年6月,对手术治疗的53例无明显神经损伤的胸腰椎爆裂骨折患者进行回顾性分析,男43例,女10例,平均41岁(19～62岁)。节段分布:T116例,T1211例,L122例,L214例。其中28例采用经椎旁肌间隙入路,25例采用传统后正中入路。比较两种手术入路的手术时间、术中出血量及术后引流量,并对患者手术前后腰背部VAS评分、伤椎Cobb角和椎体前部塌陷程度的变化以及伤椎椎管正中矢状径变化进行分析。结果:经椎旁肌间隙入路手术与传统后正中手术相比,无论在手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量还是在腰背痛的视觉模拟评分改善等方面都具有明显优势,两种入路在伤椎Cobb角改善、椎体前缘高度恢复和椎管正中矢径变化方面无明显差异。结论:经椎旁肌间隙入路内固定治疗胸腰椎爆裂骨折可以达到传统后正中入路手术相同的整复效果,而且具有手术创伤小、出血少、操作简便、术后功能恢复快的优点,值得推广。     

椎旁肌间隙入路选择性治疗腰椎退行性病变

目的 评价椎旁肌间隙入路选择性治疗部分腰椎退行性病变的可行性,并与传统后正中入路相比较.方法 50例患者随机分为两组,一组采用脊柱后正中入路(后正中入路组),另一组采用椎旁肌间隙入路(肌间隙入路组).均行腰椎管减压;对需要行内固定者置入椎弓根钉棒系统,对有腰椎滑脱或侧凸者进行复位,对腰椎不稳定者行椎间植骨融合.对两组病例的术中出血量、手术前后的疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、手术前后的Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)等进行比较.结果 所有病例均获得术后1年以上的随访,腰腿痛症状均获明显改善,有腰椎滑脱或侧凸者获得良好纠正,行腰椎间融合者术后1年均出现融合.与后正中入路组相比较,肌间隙入路组减少术中出血量,降低术后VAS评分和Oswestry功能障碍指数;明显优于后正中入路组.结论 选择性应用椎旁肌间隙入路治疗部分腰椎退行性病变是可行的;能够尽可能地保留脊柱原始解剖结构,在减少创伤的同时,同样可行复位、固定和椎间融合,值得临床应用.     

两种不同入路治疗无神经症状胸腰椎骨折的病例对照研究

目的:探讨两种不同手术入路治疗无神经症状胸腰椎骨折的临床疗效。方法:自2008年1月至2009年12月,对采用经后正中入路(A组,20例)和椎旁肌间隙入路(B组,20例)治疗的无神经损伤的胸腰椎骨折40例进行回顾性分析,男13例,女27例,年龄26～61岁,平均46岁。所有患者均接受相同的脊柱后路内固定系统(Basis TM)。40例患者平均随访16个月(10～27个月)。分析内容包括手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、术后卧床时间、术后24 h及72 h疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、术后Cobb角纠正率、椎体塌陷纠正率。结果:术后患者均无明显并发症,两组患者术后Cobb角纠正率,椎体塌陷纠正率比较无统计学差异;经椎旁肌间隙入路组在手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、术后卧床时间、术后24 h及72 h的VAS等方面均优于后正中入路组。结论:经椎旁肌间隙入路治疗无神经症状胸腰椎骨折具有创伤小、出血少、术后恢复快等优点,但有神经症状或椎管内占位超过1/3者慎用此入路。     

经椎旁肌间隙入路取出腰椎椎弓根螺钉内固定系统

目的:探讨经椎旁肌间隙入路取出腰椎椎弓根螺钉内固定系统的可行性及临床意义。方法:2003年1月～2011年5月,65例患者在我院行腰椎椎弓根螺钉内固定系统取出,其中行传统后正中入路取出患者30例,行椎旁肌间隙入路取出患者35例。分别统计两组手术时间、手术出血量、术后并发症发生率等,并行组间比较。结果:经椎旁肌间隙入路组平均手术时间45±10min,手术出血量64±25ml,术后出现皮下血肿3例,无脑脊液漏和神经、硬膜损伤,术后并发症发生率为11.4%。传统入路组平均手术时间73±25min,手术出血量220±100ml;术后发生皮下血肿1例,切口愈合不良2例,脑脊液漏1例,术后并发症发生率13.3%。两组手术时间、手术出血量比较具有显著性差异(P<0.05),经椎旁肌间隙入路组优于传统入路组;术后并发症发生率两组无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论:经椎旁肌间隙入路取出腰椎椎弓根螺钉内固定系统具有时间短、出血少等优点,是一种安全、损伤较小的术式。     

Wiltse经椎旁肌间隙入路治疗胸腰椎骨折患者疗效观察

目的通过与传统后正中入路进行比较,探讨Wiltse经椎旁肌间隙入路治疗胸腰椎骨折的手术效果。方法运用后路椎弓根钉棒系统,对58例无神经损伤的单节段或多节段胸腰椎骨折患者进行治疗,其中30例行Wiltse经椎旁肌间隙入路,28例采用传统后正中入路。观察两组病例的手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、手术前后疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)、功能障碍指数(oswestry disability index,ODI)、术后住院时间、椎体高度矫正率、Cobb角矫正率、患者和家属满意程度是否存在差异。结果 Wiltse经椎旁肌间隙入路组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、患者下床时间、均显著低于传统后正中入路组(P0.05);VAS评分在术前1d时两组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05),术后1周时前者明显低于后者(P0.05)。结论与传统后正中入路相比,采用Wiltse经椎旁肌间隙入路治疗胸腰椎骨折可减少手术时间,降低椎旁肌损伤,减少术后腰背痛的发生,同时具有出血少、创伤小、康复快等优点,适合治疗单节段胸腰椎骨折,值得在临床上进一步推广。     

椎旁肌入路联合后正中入路手术治疗胸腰椎骨折合并脊髓损伤

目的通过对椎旁肌入路联合后正中入路与传统后正中入路手术的比较,评价经椎旁肌入路联合后正中入路在胸腰椎骨折合并脊髓损伤手术中的疗效。方法回顾性分析自2009-02—2012-02诊治的具有完整随访资料的胸腰椎骨折合并脊髓损伤52例,分为2组,后正中入路手术组24例,椎旁肌入路联合后正中入路手术组28例。结果 52例获得18~36(26±4.5)个月的随访,椎旁肌入路联合后正中入路组在手术时间、术中及术后出血量、术后1周VAS评分评定疼痛改善情况方面优于后正中入路组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05),而伤椎前后缘高度恢复、Cobb角矫正率以及神经功能恢复情况方面,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论椎旁肌入路联合后正中入路手术治疗胸腰椎骨折合并脊髓损伤的患者具有与后正中入路手术具有相同的疗效,且具有手术时间短、创伤小、出血量少、术后患者恢复快等优点。     

Thoracolumbar scoliosis posterior approach

European Spine Journal -     

The posterior sagittal trans-sphincteric approach

The posterior sagittal, transphincteric approach to treat different pelvic problems has been known since last century. Although some surgeons have embraced it and have enthusiastically advocated it s use, it has never become an overly popular technique. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the approach, both from an historical perspective and from the authors experience. The international literature on the subject was reviewed since 1877 up to the present date. A retrospective evaluation of the authors experience was conducted, and the results reviewed. Specific attention was paid to the final result obtained in the treatment of the original condition, surgical complications and the effect of the surgical approach on bowel and urinary control. The experiential review included 114 cases. They were divided into two groups. A included 85 patients who underwent a posterior sagittal transphincteric approach that included 49 cases of Hirschsprung s disease (primary 21, secondary 28), 15 presacral masses; 10 rectaltumors; 7 acquired recto-genito-urinary fistulae; and 4 cases of idiopathic rectal prolapse. Group B included 29 patients who underwent a posterior sagittal trans-anorectal approach, in which the anterior wall of the rectum and the sphincter was divided as well.. This group included 12 cases of urogenital sinuses; 8 acquired urethral stricture or atresia after trauma; and 9 posterior urethral masses. Post-operative bowel control was normal all cases except in those patients whose basic condition had resulted in fecal incontinence, or who had sustained an irreversible injury prior tothe operation. Urinary control was normal except in cases with pre-operative incontinence. Complications included recurrence of recto-genitourinary fistulae in 3 cases, recto-cutaneous fistula in 3 Hirschsprung s patients and 2 partial wound dehisences. The posterior sagittal trans-sphincteric approach represents a useful technical alternative. It seems to be particularly useful to treat complications after surgery for Hirschsprung s disease, pre-sacral masses, acquired recto-genito-urinary fistula and idiopathic rectal prolapse. The transanorectal approach provides excellent exposure to the posterior urethra and vagina. Boweland urinary control are not compromised.     

Fixation of posterior pelvic ring disruptions through a posterior approach

Objective  Stable internal screw fixation of posterior pelvic ring disruptions through a posterior approach. Indications  Complete, unstable sacroiliac dislocations with incompetence of anterior and posterior sacroiliac ligaments. Sacroiliac fracture dislocations. Displaced vertical sacral fractures. Contraindications  Damage to posterior soft tissues. Acceptable closed reduction of sacrum or sacroiliac joint. Ipsilateral acetabular fractures treated through an anterior approach. Inadequate intraoperative fluoroscopic visualization of posterior pelvis. Surgical Technique  Vertical paramedian incision overlying the sacroiliac joint. Release of origin of gluteus maximus. Inspection and reduction of sacroiliac joint. Stabilization with iliosacral screws under image intensification. Secure repair of gluteal fascia. Results  107 patients with unstable pelvic ring fractures were treated with open reduction and internal fixation of which 83 had an open reduction of posterior ring injuries. Accuracy of reduction: more than 95% of patients had residual displacement of less than 10 mm. Two patients had a deep wound infection postoperatively. Two-thirds of the patients were able to resume their previous occupation. Pain was either absent or occurred only with strenuous activities. 63% had a normal gait.     

Open reduction and internal fixation for posterior pilon fracture: Transfibular approach versus posterior approach

BackgroundFor posterior pilon fractures, the posterior approach (PA) is widely used but has its limitations. The transfibular approach (TFA) has been adopted to treat posterior malleolar fractures for the advantage of direct visual confirmation of the reduction status intraoperatively, yet the report of its application on posterior pilon fractures is rare. This study aims to compare TFA with PA in terms of their corresponding reduction quality.MethodsClinical data of 85 posterior pilon fracture patients treated via PA (n = 62) or TFA (n = 23) were retrospectively reviewed. Radiographic and clinical assessments, including articular step-off or gap, syndesmosis reduction quality, signs of ankle arthritis, the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot score, visual analogue scale (VAS), ankle stability, and the active range of motion (ROM) of the ankle, were all evaluated by two readers independently.ResultsThe total incidence of step-off or gap ≥ 1 mm was significantly higher in the PA group (35.5%) than in the TFA group (8.7%, p = 0.015). In all the patients, step-off ≥ 1 mm was identified as an independent risk factor for the development of arthritis and a lower AOFAS score (p < 0.001). No significant difference was found in ROM and complication incidence between the two groups. Ankle instability was found in neither group during the follow-up.ConclusionTFA could offer a way to intraoperatively evaluate the reduction status with direct visual confirmation and, thereby, might improve the results of reduction for posterior pilon fractures.Level of evidenceLevel III     

膝后内侧入路治疗后交叉韧带胫骨止点撕脱骨折

2003年1月～2007年12月,我科应用膝后内侧入路对21例后交叉韧带胫骨止点撕脱骨折患者行手术治疗,疗效满意。     

后侧入路内固定治疗胫骨平台后侧骨折

目的 探讨后侧入路内固定治疗胫骨平台后侧骨折的近期疗效.方法 对2008年6月至2010年6月采用后侧入路内固定治疗且随访资料完整的11例胫骨平台后侧骨折患者进行回顾性分析.男7例,女4例;年龄33～60岁,平均47.8岁.AO/OTA分型:41-B2.2.4型2例,41-B3.1.2型3例,41-B3.3.2型3例,41-B3.1.2型+41-B3.3.2型2例,41-C3.3型1例.5例后外侧骨折采用膝关节Carlson后外侧入路;3例后内侧骨折采用Carlson后内侧入路;3例累及胫骨平台前、后侧及胫骨髁间嵴骨折者采用Carlson后内和(或)后外入路,辅以前侧入路行钢板螺钉内固定.关节面塌陷者采用自体髂骨植骨.结果 随访3个月至2年,平均1.6年.全部病例均获得影像学上的骨性愈合,愈合时间12～16周.Rasmussen放射学评分15～18分,平均16.7分.骨折愈合后美国特种外科医院(the Hospital for Special Surgery,HSS)膝关节评分75～96分,平均86.2分.后外侧入路5例膝关节活动范围平均0°-135°,后内侧入路3例0°-130°,混合入路3例-10°-125°.结论 胫骨平台骨折表现为以后侧为主时,应选择后外或后内侧手术入路,于直视下进行复位及固定,便于操作,术后近期疗效满意.

Abstract：

Objective To evaluate the clinical results of operative treatments for the complex posterior tibial plateau fractures via posterior approach. Methods Eleven cases with complex posterior tibial plateau fracture from June 2008 through June 2010 were reviewed retrospectively. There were 7 males and 4females, with age from 33 years to 60 years (average, 47.8 years). According to AO classification, there were 41-B2.2.4 type in 2 cases, 41-B3.1.2 type in 3, 41-B3.3.2 type in 3, 41-B3.1.2 type combined 41-B3.3.2 type in 2, 41-C3.3 type in 1. Carlson posterior lateral approach were used in 5 cases, posterior medial approach were used in 3 cases, and posterior medial and/or lateral approach combined with anterior approach were used in 3 cases. All fractures were fixed with plates. Autogenous ilium grafts were used if necessary.Results All cases were followed up. The average follow-up time was 1.6 years (range, 3-24 months). At the final follow-up visit, bone union was obtained in all cases. The mean Rasmussen score was 16.7 (range, 15-18), and the mean HSS was 86.2 (range, 75-96). The postoperative knee range of motion were 0°-135°, 0°-130° and -10°-125° in 5 cases with posterior lateral plateau fractures, 3 cases with posterior medial plateau fractures and 3 cases with anterior and posterior plateau and intercondylar fractures respectively. There was no vascular and nerve injuries. Loosing or breaking of hardware's was not found. Conclusion The Carlson posterior lateral and/or medial approach is preferred for the complex posterior plateau fractures, with the advantages of direct reduction and stabilization.     

Open posterior approach for tibiotalar arthrodesis

Traumatic injury to the ankle and hindfoot often results in tibiotalar or subtalar arthritis. The associated joint pain, stiffness, and deformity may be difficult to treat with conservative measures. For such problems, arthrodesis of the ankle or hindfoot joints is the mainstay of treatment. This article discusses the application of the posterior approach to complete a tibiotalar and tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis as well as its use for converting a failed total ankle arthroplasty to an arthrodesis.