Centerpiece钛板在颈椎后路单开门椎管扩大成形术中的应用及疗效分析

目的 评价颈椎后路单开门椎管扩大成形术中Centerpiece钛板的临床应用及疗效。方法 自2010-03-2011-12采用Centerpiece钛板内固定术治疗34例颈椎疾患。结果 手术时间为（140±15）min,术中出血量为（275±25）ml。所有患者获得随访8-18个月,平均8.5个月,1例出现C5神经根麻痹,1例出现螺钉松动,5例出现轴性症状。术前JOA评分为（9.8±2.9）分,末次随访时为（15.3±1.1）分,改善率达（65.4±9.3）%。影像学复查示C5节段椎管矢状径术前（10.4±1.5）mm,末次随访时为（15.6±1.4）mm,椎管扩大率为（68.3±8.9）%。C5节段脊髓后移（3.13±1.82）mm,与术前比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。颈椎Cobb角术前为（13.1±1.6）°,末次随访时为（11.3±1.8）°,术前与末次随访时比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论 Centerpiece钛板应用于颈椎单开门椎管扩大成形术安全有效,术后神经功能恢复良好,早期疗效满意。     

微型钛板改良单开门颈椎管扩大成形术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的临床效果

【摘要】〓目的〓评价微型钛板改良单开门颈椎管扩大椎板成形术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的临床效果。方法〓2008年1月~2012年2月,观察46例多节段脊髓型颈椎病(MCSM)行微型钛板改良单开门颈椎管扩大椎板成形术的脊髓型颈椎病患者,对比术前及术后JOA评分,在CT上测量C5节段椎管术前、术后6个月的矢状径,计算椎管扩大率[(术后椎管矢状径-术前椎管矢状径)/(术前椎管矢状径)×100%],观察单开门门轴侧骨融合情况。结果〓平均随访18个月(6~24个月)。术前平均JOA评分8.2分,术后平均JOA评分14.8分。C5节段椎管矢状径术前为8.6±1.1 mm,术后6个月为16.1±0.9 mm,椎管扩大率为(74.3±14.4)%。术后6个月,可以观察到单开门门轴侧骨融合,无螺钉松动及再“关门”现象。结论〓微型钛板改良单开门椎管成形术治疗脊髓型颈椎病临床效果满意,防止再关门。     

Single-port laparoscopic treatment of small bowel obstruction

Background

The aim of this study was to report our initial experience with single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) for small bowel obstruction (SBO).

Methods

Between October 2009 and April 2013, 36 patients underwent SPLS for SBO. SPLS was performed transumbilically. Patient demographics and operative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

Results

SPLS for SBO was successful in 35 patients. In 1 patient, a conversion to laparotomy was required. The median incision length, operative time, and postoperative length of stay were 2.3 cm (range, 1.5 to 5.0 cm), 115 min (range, 30 to 250 min), and 8 days (range, 3 to 26 days), respectively. The median time to resume oral intake was 3 days (range, 1 to 16 days). The intra- and postoperative complication rates were 6% and 11%, respectively.

Conclusion

SPLS was a safe and feasible therapeutic approach for SBO and may also be an excellent diagnostic tool when performed by an experienced SPLS surgeon in selected patients.     

A New Measure for Monitoring Intraoperative Somatosensory Evoked Potentials

ObjectiveTo propose a new measure for effective monitoring of intraoperative somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP) and to validate the feasibility of this measure for evoked potentials (EP) and single trials with a retrospective data analysis study.MethodsThe proposed new measure (hereafter, a slope-measure) was defined as the relative slope of the amplitude and latency at each EP peak compared to the baseline value, which is sensitive to the change in the amplitude and latency simultaneously. We used the slope-measure for EP and single trials and compared the significant change detection time with that of the conventional peak-to-peak method. When applied to single trials, each single trial signal was processed with optimal filters before using the slope-measure. In this retrospective data analysis, 7 patients who underwent cerebral aneurysm clipping surgery for unruptured aneurysm middle cerebral artery (MCA) bifurcation were included.ResultsWe found that this simple slope-measure has a detection time that is as early or earlier than that of the conventional method; furthermore, using the slope-measure in optimally filtered single trials provides warning signs earlier than that of the conventional method during MCA clipping surgery.ConclusionOur results have confirmed the feasibility of the slope-measure for intraoperative SEP monitoring. This is a novel study that provides a useful measure for either EP or single trials in intraoperative SEP monitoring.     

SILS Sigmoidectomy Versus Multiport Laparoscopic Sigmoidectomy for Diverticulitis

Background and Objectives:

In this single-institution study, we aimed to compare the safety, feasibility, and outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (SILSS) with multiport laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (MLS) for recurrent diverticulitis.

Methods:

Between October 2011 and February 2013, 60 sigmoidectomies were performed by the same surgeon. Forty patients had a MLS and 20 patients had a SILSS. Outcomes were compared.

Results:

Patient characteristics were similar. There was no difference in morbidity, mortality or readmission rates. The mean operative time was longer in the SILSS group (P = .0012). In a larger proportion of patients from the SILSS group, 2 linear staplers were needed for transection at the rectum (P = .006). The total cost of disposable items was higher in the SILSS group (P < .0001). No additional ports were placed in the SILSS group. Return to bowel function or return to oral intake was faster in the SILSS group (P = .0446 and P = .0137, respectively). Maximum pain scores on postoperative days 1 and 2 were significantly less for the SILSS group (P = .0014 and P = .047, respectively). Hospital stay was borderline statistically shorter in the SILSS group (P = .0053). SILSS was also associated with better cosmesis (P < .0011).

Conclusion:

SILSS is feasible and safe and is associated with earlier recovery of bowel function, a significant reduction in postoperative pain, and better cosmesis.     

Single dose spinal analgesia: Is it a good alternative to epidural analgesia in controlling labour pain?

ObjectivesRegional anaesthesia is considered the optimal technique for obstetric patients; nevertheless, the optimal method of regional anaesthesia for delivery remains to be determined. In our study we investigate the safety, efficacy and cost benefits of single-dose spinal analgesia in comparison with epidural analgesia during labour.Study designIn our study women in advanced labour were randomly allocated into two equal groups using a computer-generated randomization table, one group (spinal group = S group) were given 3.75 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine +25 μg fentanyl with 0.75 ml saline, the other group (Epidural group = E group) were given 4 ml bupivacaine with 4 ml saline and 1 ml (50 μg) fentanyl pain intensity was recorded by the parturient on a visual analogue scale. The quality of pain relief was also rated with a verbal score directly after delivery. Side effects, such as hypotension, Pruritus, sedation, nausea and motor block were noted. Obstetric parameters were followed and recorded, Apgar score were noted, and all the results were compared in the two groups.ResultsOnset of sensory block (detected by pin-prick test) was early (4.4 ± 1.5 min vs 12.5 ± 2.3 min, p < 0.001) and duration of sensory block was longer (120.4 ± 15.6 vs 103.2 ± 18.3 min, p < 0.001) in S group compared to E group, time to reach maximum dermatome level of sensory block (T₁₀) was shorter in S than E group (8.3 ± 2.4 min vs 22.4 ± 5.7 min, p < 0.001), two segment regression occur late in S group compared to E group(75.6 ± 12.5 min vs 66.3 ± 9.4 min, p < 0.001). Visual analogue scores after 5, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120 and 150 min were lower in S group compared to E group, all the previous result is statically significant (p < 0.001). 88% of the parturients in S group vs 60% in E group scored the analgesic quality as excellent, the mean duration of analgesia (Mean ± SD) was longer in S group compared to E group. 8% of parturients in S group vs 14% of parturients in E group had hypotension. Motor block, sedation and nausea were 2–6% in both groups. Pruritus was seen in 60% in E group vs 25% in spinal one. No caesarean section was performed. Vacuum extraction was done in 15% vs 25% among S group and E group respectively. Oxytocin augmentation was needed in 48% vs 62% of the parturients among S group and E group respectively. Faetal heart rate disturbances following the spinal block were seen in 2 cases. Apgar score were high and no neonate had Apgar score <7 in both group. The overall cost was lower in S group compared to E group.ConclusionsBased on the results of our study we concluded that single dose spinal analgesia is a good alternative to epidural analgesia in controlling labour pain i.e. spinal compared to epidural is more easy performed, faster, less expensive, and provide effective analgesia.