椎体成形术和球囊后凸成形术治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折应注意的问题

正骨质疏松是老年人常见的一种疾病,随着人口老龄化趋势,骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折(osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures,OVCFs)发病率增高,对于疼痛症状明显的OVCFs行保守治疗的效果不甚满意,因卧床时间较长,易发生褥疮、肺部感染以及深静脉血栓等并发症,严重影响生活质量。     

椎体压缩骨折经皮椎体成形术后邻近节段再骨折的研究现状

<正>随着社会人口老龄化加重,骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折(osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures,OVCFs)的发病率也逐年增高。目前治疗OVCFs的有效方法是经皮椎体成形术。经皮椎体成形术其经典术式包括经皮椎体成形术(percutaneous vertebroplasty,PVP)和经皮椎体后凸成形术(percutaneous kyphoplasty,PKP)[1]。与传统方法相比,这种术式通过向椎体内注入填充材料来强化椎体,从而缓解局部疼痛、恢复椎体高度、提高生活质量。这种方法能较迅     

经皮椎体成形术后骨水泥肺栓塞1例报道

<正>随着社会老龄化加剧,脊柱骨质疏松性压缩骨折(osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures, OVCFs)发病率逐年增加,经皮椎体成形术(percutaneous vertebroplasty, PVP)成为治疗OVCFs最常用的一种微创手术,尽管该术式安全有效,但其并发症-骨水泥渗漏也相对常见,尤其骨水泥渗漏引起的肺栓塞更是一种严重的、潜在的,具有致命风险的并发症,引     

经皮椎体成形术后新发椎体压缩骨折临床预测模型的建立与验证

目的 探讨经皮椎体成形术(percutaneous vertebroplasty, PVP)术后新发椎体压缩性骨折（vertebral compression fractures ,VCFs)的危险因素并建立与验证预测模型。方法 选取2016年6月至2018年6月,在柳州市人民医院脊柱外科接受PVP治疗并符合本研究纳入标准的骨质疏松性VCFs (osteoporotic VCFs,OVCFs)患者进行回顾性研究。观察指标为年龄、性别、骨密度 (bone mineral density, BMD)、身高、体重、体质量指数 (body mass index, BMI)、住院时间、骨水泥量、骨水泥是否渗漏、手术时间、住院到手术时间、受伤到手术时间、术后是否进行抗骨质疏松症治疗、是否多椎体骨折以及类固醇药物使用对PVP术后新的压缩性骨折的发生情况进行单因素和多因素分析,以确定相关的危险因素,并建立预测模型并进行验证。结果 共有385名患者符合纳入标准,其中女性308例,男性77例。随访时间24~36个月,平均26.4个月。在385例患者中观察到58例新发的OVCFs。统计学分析显示,较高的BMI(P<0.01)、较低BMD（P<0.01）、多椎体骨折(P<0.05)、未进行抗骨质疏松症治疗（P<0.05）与使用类固醇药物（P<0.001）是导致PVP术后新发OVCFs的独立危险因素。最明显的是,使用类固醇药物令新骨折的风险增加了4.07倍(95 % CI为2.005~8.264)。并进一步建立了临床预测模型(Nomogram)及其验证,其内部ROC=0.796;验证组进行外部验证ROC=0.648,提示该模型具有较好预测能力。结论 BMI、BMD、多椎体骨折、未进行抗骨质疏松症治疗与使用类固醇药物是PVP术后新发OVCFs高危因素。     

PVP/PKP术后手术椎体再发骨折的研究进展

经皮椎体成形术（percutaneous vertebroplasty, PVP）和经皮椎体后凸成形术（percutaneous kyphoplasty, PKP）是目前治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折（osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures, OVCFs）较为理想的微创手术方式,通过向椎体内注入填充材料以强化椎体,达到缓解疼痛、恢复椎体高度、矫正后凸畸形,从而提高生活质量的目的。国内外大量的文献报道了PVP和PKP治疗OVCFs的优良疗效[1~3],然而,在椎体强化术后,手术椎体仍有可能出现再发骨折。笔者对PVP或PKP术后手术椎体再发骨折的研究进展作一综述,以提高对手术椎体再发骨折的认识,加强对其的防治措施。     

OVCFs患者经椎体成形术治疗后邻近椎体骨折相关因素分析

目的 观察骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折(osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures, OVCFs)患者在行经皮椎体成形术(percutaneous vertebroplasty, PVP)治疗后邻近椎体骨折的发生情况，并分析相关风险因素。方法 回顾性分析2019年2月～2022年1月我院收治的315例因胸腰椎OVCFs行PVP治疗的患者临床资料。男114例，女201例；年龄65～89岁，平均(76.97±4.92)岁；单椎体骨折216例，双椎体骨折85例，三椎体骨折14例。对患者行PVP治疗，术后追踪1年，观察患者术后1年内邻近椎体骨折情况，将发生邻近椎体骨折的患者纳入观察组，未骨折者纳入对照组。对两组患者手术时骨水泥用量、骨水泥渗漏情况、术后Cobb角、是否行抗骨质疏松治疗等指标进行单因素及多因素Logistic回归分析，探讨邻近椎体发生骨折的风险因素。结果 经过1年的追踪随访，315例患者中有39例患者出现邻近椎体骨折，发生率为12.4%。其中术后3个月内骨折者23例，术后4～6个月骨折者11例，术后7～12个月骨折者5例，差异有统计学意义...     

椎体后凸成形术与椎体成形术治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折疗效对比

正骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折(osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures,OVCF)是老年人常见的骨折类型~[1]。近年来,多项研究报道,经皮椎体成形术(percutaneous vertebroplasty,PVP)和经皮椎体后凸成形术(percutaneous kyphoplasty,PKP)用于OVCF患者治疗,可有效缓解患者的疼痛~[2]。本研究通过对     

经皮椎体成形术后非手术椎体骨折的危险因素分析

目的:探讨骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折(osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures,OVCFs)患者经皮椎体成形术(percutaneous vertebroplasty,PVP)后非手术椎体骨折的危险因素.方法:对2009年8月至2011年9月126例行单节段PVP治疗的OVCFs患者进行回顾性分析,术后平均随访13.6个月.根据是否发生非手术椎体骨折分为骨折组和未骨折组,其中骨折组32例,男14例,女18例,年龄54～82岁,平均(67.63±7.28)岁;未骨折组94例,男40例,女54例,年龄55～76岁,平均(66.26±6.79)岁再将骨折组按部位分为邻近椎体骨折组20例和非邻近椎体骨折组12例.记录患者年龄、性别、骨密度值(bone mineral density,BMD)、骨水泥注入量、椎体高度恢复率及矢状位后凸纠正度数,分析引起非手术椎体骨折的相关危险因素.结果:骨折组与未骨折组比较,年龄、性别、BMD值、骨水泥注入量及矢状位后凸纠正角度差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),伤椎高度恢复率差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).邻近椎体骨折组与未骨折组比较,BMD值、矢状位后凸纠正角度差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),骨水泥注入量及伤椎高度恢复率差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).非邻近椎体骨折组与未骨折组比较,BMD值、骨水泥注入量、伤椎高度恢复率及矢状位后凸纠正角度差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论:椎体高度的恢复增加可能预示着OVCFs患者PVP术后非手术椎体再发骨折的风险增大,而邻近椎体骨折可能跟骨水泥注入量及椎体高度恢复均有关.     

椎体成形与椎体后凸成形术后邻近椎体再发骨折危险因素的研究进展CSCD

经皮椎体成形术（ percutaneous vertebroplasty, PVP）和经皮椎体后凸成形术（ percutaneous kyphoplasty,PKP）是治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折（ osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures, OVCF）的有效微创手术方式。随着手术的广泛应用,PVP和PKP术后椎体再次骨折的问题越来越受到临床工作者的关注。本文就PVP或PKP术后邻近椎体再发骨折的危险因素进行综述。     

OVCFs患者经皮后凸成形术后椎体高度恢复的影响因素分析

[目的]分析骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折(osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures,OVCFs)患者行后凸成形术(percutaneous kyphoplasty,PKP)后椎体高度恢复的影响因素,为临床治疗提供参考。[方法]2012年4月~2016年9月在本院因单个椎体OVCFs行PKP的患者共52例,回顾性分析52例患者的临床及影像资料,以椎体高度恢复量为应变量,以性别、年龄、体重指数(body mass index,BMI)、骨折时间、骨密度T值、术前椎体高度、骨折节段、骨水泥注入量、术中球囊最大压力为自变量,进行统计学分析。[结果]52例患者PKP术后椎体高度恢复满意,多重线性回归分析显示:骨折时间(b=-0.28,P=0.002)、骨密度(b=-0.55,P<0.001)、术前椎体高度(b=-0.43,P<0.001)对椎体高度恢复的影响起主要作用。[结论]PKP能有效恢复OVCFs患者的椎体高度,骨密度低、术前椎体压缩程度重、骨折时间短的患者更容易通过PKP恢复椎体高度。     

Nefrolitectomía percutánea tubeless con posibilidad de reexploración: la combinación perfecta

ObjectivesTo evaluate an alternative approach to tubeless surgery that allows a second percutaneous procedure using the same nephrostomy tract.MethodsTwenty patients underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy from September 2012 to May 2013 at our institution. Inclusion criteria were: absence of urinary infection, single puncture and operative time less than 2 h. Following the procedure the initially placed ureteral catheter was exteriorized through the working sheath by tying a non-absorbable suture to its end. On postoperative day 1 all patients were studied with non-enhanced CT or X-ray film. If the patient was rendered stone free, the stent was removed along with the urethro-vesical catheter. If a residual stone was present, we recovered the ureteral catheter and used the same nephrostomy tract for a second endoscopic procedure. Patients were assessed for pain, postoperative complications, length of stay, stone free rate, hematocrit and creatinine variations.ResultsThirteen patients met the inclusion criteria. No major complications related to the stent placement and its exteriorization were seen. Two patients required a second percutaneous procedure successfully achieved recovering the ureteral catheter through the nephrostomy tract.ConclusionWe present a safe and simple modification of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy, with its well-known clinical benefits but maintaining a safe path for an eventual second look procedure if necessary.     

经后中组肾盏径路行微创经皮肾取石治疗复杂性肾结石

目的：评价经后中组肾盏径路行微创经皮肾取石(MPCNL)术处理复杂性肾结石的疗效。方法：从2002年6月-2004年7月采用经后中组肾盏径路行MPCNL处理复杂性肾结石患者152例。结果：术后结石清除率为86．18％(131／152例,包括一期多次取石)。一期结石完全清除率达65．28％。仅15例(9．87％)接受辅助的ESWL治疗,6例(3．95％)需要重建另一通道再行MPCNL治疗。结论：经后中组肾盏径路行MPCNL治疗复杂性肾结石安全高效,有很高的结石清除率;残留结石可联合ESWL来提高疗效。     

经皮椎体成形术与椎体后凸成形术治疗胸腰椎压缩性骨折的临床疗效比较

目的比较经皮椎体成形术与椎体后凸成形术治疗胸腰椎压缩性骨折的临床疗效。方法对98例胸腰椎压缩性骨折，根据手术方法不同分为椎体成形组和椎体后凸成形组。比较两组术前术后椎体前缘、中线、后缘高度变化，疼痛视觉模糊评分（VAS），手术时间，出血量等方面的差异。结果两组对椎体高度的恢复比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01），VAS、手术时间和出血量比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论经皮椎体成形术与椎体后凸成形术具有创伤小、手术时间短、出血量少等微创优点，而椎体后凸成形术具有较好的复位作用。     

2种微创方法治疗包容型颈椎间盘突出症的比较

目的比较经皮穿刺颈椎间盘切吸术(percutaneous cervical discectomy,PCD)和经皮穿刺射频消融髓核成形术(percutaneous coablation nucleoplasty,PCNP)治疗包容型颈椎间盘突出症的疗效、并发症、对椎间稳定性的影响。方法回顾分析2006年1月～2010年6月94例包容型颈椎间盘突出症行PCD(PCD组,n=53)和PCNP(PCNP组,n=41)的临床资料,比较PCD和PCNP治疗颈椎间盘突出症的疗效、手术并发症及对颈椎稳定性的影响。结果 94例均获得随访,PCD组平均随访13个月(5～21个月),PCNP组平均随访11个月(7～15个月)。根据改良MacNab标准,PCD组和PCNP组术后1周优良率分别为83.0%和80.5%(χ2=0.010,P=0.944),术后半年优良率分别为81.1%和78.0%(χ2=0.136,P=0.712),术后1年优良率分别为78.4%和74.4%(χ2=0.205,P=0.651)。PCD组在随访期间内有3例(5.7%)因复发性椎间盘突出改行前路颈椎间盘摘除植骨融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF),PCNP组2例(4.9%)因复发性椎间盘突出改行ACDF,2组病人术后均未出现椎间盘炎等不良事件。PCD组术前、术后1周内、术后半年、术后1年椎间高度(intervertebralheight,IVH)分别为(7.14±0.84)、(7.12±0.93)、(7.09±0.78)、(7.11±0.82)mm,与PCNP组相应时点(7.32±0.95)、(7.23±0.87)、(7.21±0.81)、(7.22±0.91)mm比较无统计学差异(P>0.05),随访未见颈椎不稳征象。结论 PCD和PCNP治疗包容型颈椎间盘突出症均能快速缓解患者临床症状。PCD和PCNP治疗颈椎间盘突出症并发症发生率低,术后IVH无明显丢失,对颈椎间的稳定性也无明显影响。PCD和PCNP是2种安全而有效的经皮椎间减压方法。     

经皮椎体成形术的概念及应用

经皮椎体成形术(percutaneous veitebroplasty，PVP)是1984年由法国人(Deramond和Galibert)发明的一种新的脊柱微创手术，最初用于颈椎侵袭性血管瘤，其后被应用于骨质疏松症椎体压缩性骨折(vertebral compression fracture，VCF)、椎体原发或转移性肿瘤、椎体侵袭性血管瘤。在欧洲，然后是在美国逐步得到广泛应用，现将其基本内容简介如下。     

Gastrostomy insertion in children: percutaneous endoscopic or percutaneous image-guided?

Background/Purpose

Gastrostomy insertion in children can be performed in many ways, but which is the best technique remains uncertain. This study evaluates the outcome of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and image-guided gastrostomy (IG).

Methods

We reviewed children who had either PEG (n = 136) inserted by pediatric surgeons or IG (n = 195) inserted by interventional radiologists in our hospital between May 2004 and July 2008. Gastrostomy-related complications were given scores ranging from 20 for major complications (eg, peritonitis, gastrointestinal bleed, and visceral injury) to 1 for minor (eg, site infection and tube migration), and total score per month of follow-up was calculated per patient.

Results

Conversion to laparoscopic or open gastrostomy was more frequent in PEG versus IG (P = .001). Fewer PEG patients (28%) had complications than did IG (47%) (P = .001). One PEG patient developed a gastrocolic fistula. In the IG group, 2 patients had transverse colon puncture, 1 had intraperitoneal tube detachment, and 1 had upper gastrointestinal bleeding. When scored and adjusted by length of follow-up, PEG had lower scores compared with IG, indicating a better outcome (P = .03). These findings were supported by zero-inflated Poisson regression analysis.

Conclusion

Major complications were rare and observed more frequently after IG. Minor complications were observed in both procedures but were significantly less common in PEG.     

经皮椎体成形术和后凸成形术治疗老年骨质疏松性椎体爆裂骨折的对比研究

目的探讨经皮椎体成形术（percutaneous vertebroplasty, PVP）和经皮椎体后凸成形术（percutaneous kyphoplasty, PKP）治疗老年骨质疏松性椎体爆裂骨折（osteoporotic vertebral burst fracture, OVBF）的临床疗效及安全性。方法回顾性分析2008年2月至2015年2月我院收治的63例单节段老年OVBF患者的临床资料,按照治疗方法分为PVP组（37例）和PKP组（26例）,对比两组患者的手术时间、住院时间、骨水泥注入量、骨水泥渗漏率、住院费用及手术前后的疼痛视觉模拟量表（visual analogue scale, VAS）评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数（Oswestry disability index, ODI）、后凸Cobb角、椎体前缘及中央高度、椎管占位程度以及SF?36量表评分。结果 PVP组在手术时间、骨水泥注入量及住院费用方面明显低于PKP组,差异均具有统计学意义（均P<0.05）。PVP组和PKP组的骨水泥渗漏率分别为10.8%、3.8%,差异具有统计学意义（χ2=4.212,P=0.034）。两组患者术后及末次随访时的各项指标均较术前有明显改善;PKP组患者术后及末次随访时的椎体前缘和中间高度、后凸Cobb角及椎管占位程度的改善显著优于PVP组,差异均具有统计学意义（均P<0.05）。结论采用PVP和PKP治疗椎管占位程度小于20%且无神经症状的老年OVBF安全可行,各有优势,应根据具体情况选择。     

经皮椎体成形术临床治疗的优势以及有待研究的问题

正经皮椎体成形术(percu taneous vertebroplasty,PVP)是法国医生Galibert等[1]首次报道,其将聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯(polymethyl methacrylate,PMMA)注射于一名C_2椎体血管瘤的患者,获得了良好的疗效。后来为了减少PMMA的渗漏,     

Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of Percutaneous Curved Vertebroplasty in Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis is aimed to provide higher quality evidence regarding the efficacy and safety between PCVP and PVP/KP in OVCFs. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (cohort or case–control studies) that compare PCVP to PVP/KP for OVCFs. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used to evaluate the quality of the RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. A total of seven articles consisting of 562 patients with 593 diseased vertebral bodies were included. Statistically significant differences were found in the postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) at 1 day (MD = −0.11; 95% CI: [−0.21 to −0.01], p = 0.03), but not at 3 months (MD = −0.21; 95% CI: [−0.41–0.00], p = 0.05) or 6 months (MD = 0.03; 95% CI: [−0.13–0.20], p = 0.70). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 1 day (MD = −0.28; 95% CI: [−0.62–0.05], p = 0.10), 3 months (MD = −1.52; 95% CI: [−3.11–0.07], p = 0.06), or 6 months (MD = 0.18; 95% CI: [−0.13–0.48], p = 0.25). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in Cobb angle (MD = 0.30; 95% CI: [−1.69–2.30], p = 0.77) or anterior vertebral body height (SMD = −0.01; 95% CI: [−0.26–0.23], p = 0.92) after surgery. Statistically significant differences were found in surgical time (MD = −8.60; 95% CI: [−13.75 to −3.45], p = 0.001), cement infusion volume (MD = −0.82; 95% CI: [−1.50 to −0.14], P = 0.02), and dose of fluoroscopy (SMD = −1.22; 95% CI: [−1.84 to −0.60], p = 0.0001) between curved and noncurved techniques, especially compared to bilateral PVP. Moreover, cement leakage showed statistically significant difference (OR = 0.40; 95% CI: [0.27–0.60], p < 0.0001). Compared with PVP/KP, PCVP is superior for pain relief at short-term follow-up. Additionally, PCVP has the advantages of significantly lower surgical time, radiation exposure, bone cement infusion volume, and cement leakage incidence compared to bilateral PVP, while no statistically significant difference is found when compared with unilateral PVP or PKP. In terms of quality of life and radiologic outcomes, the effects of PCVP and PVP/KP are not significantly different. Overall, this meta-analysis reveals that PCVP was an effective and safe therapy for patients with OVCFs.