Effect of PLIF and TLIF on sagittal spinopelvic balance of patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of PLIF and TLIF on sagittal spinopelvic balance and to compare radiological results of two surgical procedures with regard to spinopelvic parameters.

后路椎间融合术和经椎间孔入路融合术治疗腰椎滑脱症的临床比较

目的比较研究经椎间孔入路和后路椎间融合术治疗腰椎滑脱症的临床疗效、植骨融合率及术后并发症。方法 31例腰椎滑脱症的患者行椎间融合术附加双侧椎弓根螺钉固定术,PLIF组16例,TLIF组15例,比较两组的手术时间、术后并发症、临床疗效满意率和植骨融合率等。结果所有患者伤口均一期愈合。术后神经根痛加剧:PLIF组有3例,TLIF组1例。术中硬膜囊撕裂:PLIF组1例,TLIF组未出现该并发症。PLIF组临床疗效优良率为85.1%,而TLIF组优良率为90.2%,两者无显著性差异(P0.05)。植骨融合率:PLIF组植骨融合率为93.4%,TLIF组植骨融合率94.1%,两者无显著性差异(P0.05)。结论 PLIF和TLIF是治疗腰椎滑脱症的有效方法,两者在临床疗效满意率和植骨融合率方面没有显著性差异,但是在手术时间、创伤、并发症等方面,TLIF组明显优于PLIF。     

两种TLIF术式治疗单节段腰椎退行性疾病临床对比研究

目的探讨开放与微创TLIF术式对单节段腰椎退行性疾病患者围手术期临床指标、ODI评分及术后并发症的影响。方法选取我院2011年8月~2014年5月收治单节段腰椎退行性疾病患者共140例,以随机数字表法分为开放组(70例)和微创组(70例),分别采用开放与微创TLIF术式治疗;比较两组患者围手术期临床指标,术前、术后3,12,24个月VAS评分、JOA评分、ODI评分、椎间植骨融合率及术后并发症发生率等。结果两组患者手术用时比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);微创组患者术中出血量、术后出血量及术后首次下地活动时间均显著优于开放组(P0.05);微创组患者术后3个月VAS评分,JOA评分及ODI评分均显著优于开放组、术前(P0.05);两组患者术后12个月和24个月VAS评分,JOA评分及ODI评分比较,差异无显著性(P0.05);微创组患者术后椎间植骨融合率显著高于开放组(P0.05);两组患者术后并发症发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论微创TLIF术式治疗单节段腰椎退行性疾病患者手术创伤小,术后恢复时间短,可快速缓解腰腿疼痛,改善肢体活动功能,且未增加术后并发症发生几率,价值优于开放TLIF术式。     

TLIF治疗极外侧腰椎间盘突出症23例体会

目的探讨经椎间孔入路的腰椎间盘摘除椎间融合技术(TLIF)治疗极外侧腰椎间盘突出症的疗效及优缺点。方法自2006年以来应用TLIF技术治疗极外侧腰椎间盘突出23例,年龄33～67岁,其中男18例,女5例;L3~46例,L4~514例,L5S13例;单间隙突出4例,双间隙突出10例,多间隙突出9例;均应用单枚肾形Cage进行操作。结果采用中华骨科学会脊柱组腰背痛手术评定标准,优15,良6,可2例。优良率达91.3%。结论 TLIF治疗极外侧型腰椎间盘突出症,术野清晰,直视下操作不易损伤神经根,创伤小,对腰椎稳定性影响较小,是一种有效的治疗方法。     

经椎间孔椎间融合术治疗极外侧腰椎间盘突出症的疗效分析

目的探讨经椎间孔椎间盘切除腰椎间融合术（TLIF）治疗极外侧腰椎间盘突出症的疗效。方法对2007年1月~2010年11月经TLIF治疗的19例极外侧腰椎间盘突出症患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,观察术前、术后及末次随访行Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）评分,并且采用Macnab标准进行临床疗效的评定。结果 19例患者随访12~60个月,平均38个月,融合率为100%,无本节段椎间盘突出症状再发;ODI评分术前为（38.2±4.80）分,术后即刻为（14.3±2.8）分,末次随访为（12.8±2.9）分,术前与术后差别有统计学意义（P〈0.05）,且术后与末次随访无差别（P〉0.05）;采用Macnab标准评估,优14例,良4例,可1例,差0例,优良率为94.7%。结论 TLIF是治疗极外侧腰椎间盘突出症的一种安全、有效的方法,能有效防止术后慢性腰痛、腰椎失稳及椎间盘突出症状再发。     

两种TLIF手术方法治疗腰椎滑脱合并椎管狭窄症的疗效比较

目的比较两种TLIF手术方法治疗腰椎滑脱合并椎管狭窄症的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析及随访53例腰椎滑脱伴椎管狭窄症患者,其中A组（22例）采用Wiltse人路经椎间孔椎体间融合（transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF）＋椎管潜行减压术,B组（31例）采用后正中入路改良经椎间孔椎体间融合＋椎管潜行减压术。记录两组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、JOA腰痛评分、疼痛视觉模拟评分（visnal analogue scale,VAS）、影像学评价,并进行统计分析。结果A组术中出血量、术后引流量均小于B组（P〈0．05）,两组手术时间差异无统计学意义。在VAS评分及JOA评分方面,术后各时期较术前均有显著改善（P〈0．05）,术后1周B组的腰痛VAS评分和JOA评分较A组差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。两组影像学评价差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论Wiltse入路组术中出血量及术后引流量少,患者术后腰腿疼痛缓解迅速,但远期的随访评分与后正中入路组比较无明显差异。改良TLIF在保持腰椎术后生物力学恢复方面优于常规TLIF。     

经多裂肌间隙入路TLIF与传统PLIF治疗30例腰椎间盘突出症疗效比较

目的:比较经多裂肌间隙入路椎间孔椎体间融合术(TLIF)和传统腰椎后路腰椎间融合术(PLIF)在腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法:选择腰椎间盘突出症的患者60例,根据手术方式不同随机分为两组(PLIF组和TLIF组),每组各30例。比较两组患者手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、术后住院天数、椎体间融合率、椎体融合时间以及术后并发症;手术前后VAS评分和ODI功能障碍指数评分。结果:①TLIF组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量均比PLIF组明显降低(P0.05);两组术后住院时间、椎体间融合率和椎体融合时间比较无显著差异(P0.05)。②TLIF组术后VAS评分和ODI评分均比PLIF组明显降低;③TLIF组的术后神经损伤、固定物松动移位和硬脊膜撕裂脑脊液漏发生率均比PLIF组明显降低(P0.05)。结论:采用经多裂肌间隙入路TLIF技术治疗腰椎间盘突出症较传统PLIF技术疗效好、创伤小、出血少、术后并发症少,值得临床推广应用。     

经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合入路扩大减压结合椎弓根螺钉固定治疗老年腰椎管狭窄症

目的 观察经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合(TLIF)入路减压结合椎弓根螺钉固定治疗老年退变性腰椎管狭窄症的疗效.方法 2007年1月至2010年8月我院收治老年腰椎管狭窄症患者75例,男28例,女47例.手术采用TLIF入路,凿除部分关节突关节,切除增厚的黄韧带,暴露椎间孔,切除椎体后缘骨赘及突出的椎间盘,使中央椎管及神经根管管径扩大.减压后结合椎弓根螺钉固定,同时行后外侧或椎间融合.术前、术后1d、3个月随访采用JOA进行评分,根据X线片评价椎间隙高度的变化及椎间融合情况.结果 75例均获随访,随访时间为6～36个月,平均12个月.临床疗效:术后3个月JOA评分(21.08±3.60)分,与术前(10.91±2.23)分相比,差异有统计学意义(t=20.79,P＜0.05);术后1dJOA评分(22.72±3.26)分,与术前(10.91±2.23)分相比,差异有统计学意义(t=25.89,P＜0.05).随访3个月JOA评分改善率(88.6±10.8)％,优良率98％.影像学评价:术后随访X线片示所有病例均无腰椎不稳征象,无内固定断裂,植骨融合良好,融合器移位2例,无明显神经症状.结论 经TLIF人路扩大减压结合椎弓根螺钉固定融合可有效保留腰椎后方韧带复合体,使腰椎稳定性的破坏减至最小,椎管减压充分,术后组织愈合好,并发症少,出血少,术后患者下床早,是治疗老年人腰椎管狭窄症的一个安全选择.     

经单侧椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术的临床应用

腰椎融合术是治疗下腰椎疾患的一种有效方法。由于既要考虑减少后柱结构的破坏和硬膜外疤痕形成,又要保证植骨床良好的准备和前柱支撑。骨科医生在手术过程中常常顾此失彼。近年来,LoweandTaharnia[1] 报道经单侧椎间孔径路显露椎间隙,使用多种椎间隙撑开方法显露术野,植入钛网融合器来完成椎体间融合(unilateraltransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusion ,简称TLIF技术)。我院自2 0 0 2年底开展此技术,治疗3例下腰椎疾患。报告如下。1　临床资料本组男1例,女2例。年龄39～5 5岁,平均4 6 .4岁。病变间隙均为L4 ,5节段,2例为腰椎间盘突出并侧…     

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results

The unilateral transforaminal approach for lumbar interbody fusion as an alternative to the anterior (ALIF) and traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) combined with pedicle screw instrumentation is gaining in popularity. At present, a prospective study using a standardized tool for outcome measurement after the transforaminal lumber interbody fusion (TLIF) with a follow-up of at least 3 years is not available in the current literature, although there have been reports on specific complications and cost efficiency. Therefore, a study of TLIF was undertaken. Fifty-two consecutive patients with a minimum follow-up of 3 years were included, with the mean follow-up being 46 months (36–64). The indications were 22 isthmic spondylolistheses and 30 degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine. Thirty-nine cases were one-level, 11 cases were two-level, and two cases were three-level fusions. The pain and disability status was prospectively evaluated by the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and a visual analog scale (VAS). The status of bony fusion was evaluated by an independent radiologist using anterior–posterior and lateral radiographs. The operation time averaged 173 min for one-level and 238 min for multiple-level fusions. Average blood loss was 485 ml for one-level and 560 ml for multiple-level fusions. There were four serious complications registered: a deep infection, a persistent radiculopathy, a symptomatic contralateral disc herniation and a pseudarthrosis with loosening of the implants. Overall, the pain relief in the VAS and the reduction of the ODI was significant (P<0.05) at follow-up. The fusion rate was 89%. At the latest follow-up, significant differences of the ODI were neither found between isthmic spondylolistheses and degenerative diseases, nor between one- and multiple-level fusions. In conclusion, the TLIF technique has comparable results to other interbody fusions, such as the PLIF and ALIF techniques. The potential advantages of the TLIF technique include avoidance of the anterior approach and reduction of the approach related posterior trauma to the spinal canal.