腹针加腕踝针治疗腰椎间盘突出症临床观察

目的观察腹针加腕踝针对腰椎间盘突出症疼痛及腰椎功能障碍的作用。方法将符合纳入标准的78例患者随机分为治疗组和对照组。治疗组45例采用腹针加腕踝针治疗,对照组33例采用常规体针治疗,分别观察治疗前及治疗1次、3次、1个疗程结束后视觉模拟评分（VAS）和中文版Oswestry腰椎功能障碍指数（ODI）的变化。结果治疗组治疗1次后VAS明显下降（P〈0.05）,而ODI下降无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;3次治疗及疗程结束后,两组VAS和ODI均有明显改善,且治疗组优于对照组。结论腹针加腕踝针治疗腰椎间盘突出症,能迅速有效地缓解疼痛,对改善腰椎功能也有很好的作用。     

微创椎间盘切除术治疗老年腰椎间盘突出症34例

目的探讨微创椎间盘切除术治疗老年腰椎间盘突出症的效果。方法选择2010年1月—2014年1月南充市中心医院收治的符合微创椎间盘切除术适应证的老年腰椎间盘突出症34例,行经Quadrant通道微创椎间盘切除术。记录手术时间、术中失血量、手术至开始行走时间、住院时间、住院费用;分别于术后第1、2、3、6个月随访1次,之后每半年随访1次。术前、术后2周及末次随访时行疼痛视觉模拟（VAS）评分评估腰腿痛的程度。末次随访时使用Macnab标准判定疗效。结果本组手术时间平均75 min,术中失血量平均150 ml,住院时间平均13 d,住院费用平均7430元,手术至开始行走时间平均11 d。随访时间5-53个月,平均18个月。术后2周及末次随访时VAS评分均低于术前（t=4.353、7.865,P〈0.05）,末次随访时VAS评分低于术后2周（t=6.597,P〈0.05）。末次随访时疗效：优20例,良8例,可5例,差1例,优良率82.35%。结论微创椎间盘切除术治疗老年腰椎间盘突出症有良好的效果。     

辨证论治与变量颈椎牵引及手法联合西药治疗颈性眩晕随机平行对照研究

[目的]观察辨证论治与变量颈椎牵引及手法联合西药治疗颈性眩晕疗效。[方法]使用随机平行对照方法,将60例门诊患者按抽签法分为两组。对照组30例①5%葡萄糖氯化钠注射250mL加脉络宁20mL静滴,1次/d;尼莫地平40mg,3次/d,口服。②枕颌带坐位变量牵引,牵引质量2～10kg,(按患者体位和自我感觉有所增减)先由轻至重牵引,逐渐增至患者最大耐受限度,10～14d牵引质量再由重减轻,至病程完成。牵引时间每次10～30min,以患者能耐受为限,1次/d,14d为1疗程。③手法点、按、揉风池、百会、天柱、合谷、内关、大椎、肩贞、肩井等穴位。治疗组30例辨证论治。①肝阳上亢型,方以天麻沟藤饮加减。②气血亏虚型,方以归脾汤加减。③痰浊中阻型,方以半夏白术天麻汤加减。④肾精不足型,方以偏阳虚用右归丸加减,偏肾阴虚用左归丸加减。西医、牵引、手法治疗同对照组。连续治疗14d为1疗程。观测临床症状、不良反应。连续治疗疗程,判定疗效。[结果]治疗组临床治愈6例,显效14例,有效7例,无效3例,总有效率90.00%。对照组临床治愈2例,显效13例,有效7例,无效8例,总有效率73.33%。临床疗效治疗组优于对照组(P<0.05)。[结论]辨证论治、变量颈椎牵引及手法联合西药治疗颈性眩晕疗效满意,值得临床应用。     

经方治疗腰椎间盘突出症临床研究

本文阐述了经方治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床特点,针对病因病机,用辛热辛温药物,如肉桂、细辛、地龙、当归、川芎、牛膝、桃仁、红花等,以补助阳气,驱除寒邪,温通经络,养血活血,化瘀止痛,用药规律,疗效独特。     

Full-Endoscopic versus Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ObjectiveAlthough full-endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF) has been tried as the latest alternative technique to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interobody fusion (MIS-TLIF) since mid-2010, the evidence is still lacking. We compared the clinical outcome and safety of Endo-LIF to MIS-TLIF for lumbar degenerative disease. MethodsWe systematically searched electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library to find literature comparing Endo-LIF to MIS-TLIF. The results retrieved were last updated on December 11, 2020. The perioperative outcome included the operation time, blood loss, complication, and hospital stay. The clinical outcomes included Visual analog scale (VAS) of low back pain and leg pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the radiological outcome included pseudoarthosis rate with 12-month minimum follow-up. ResultsFour retrospective observational studies and one prospective observational study comprising 423 patients (183 Endo-LIF and 241 MIS-TLIF) were included, and the pooled data analysis revealed low heterogeneity between studies in our review. Baseline characteristics including age and sex were not different between the two groups. Operation time was significantly longer in Endo-LIF (mean difference [MD], 23.220 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.669–35.771; p=0.001). However, Endo-LIF resulted in less perioperative blood loss (MD, -144.710 mL; 95% CI, 247.941–41.478; p=0.023). Although VAS back pain at final (MD, -0.120; p=0.586), leg pain within 2 weeks (MD, 0.005; p=0.293), VAS leg pain at final (MD, 0.099; p=0.099), ODI at final (MD, 0.141; p=0.093) were not different, VAS back pain within 2 weeks was more favorable in the Endo-LIF (MD, -1.538; 95% CI, -2.044 to -1.032; p<0.001). On the other hand, no statistically significant group difference in complication rate (relative risk [RR], 0.709; p=0.774), hospital stay (MD, -2.399; p=0.151), and pseudoarthrosis rate (RR, 1.284; p=0.736) were found. ConclusionRelative to MIS-TLIF, immediate outcomes were favorable in Endo-LIF in terms of blood loss and immediate VAS back pain, although complication rate, mid-term clinical outcomes, and fusion rate were not different. However, the challenges for Endo-LIF include longer operation time which means a difficult learning curve and limited surgical indication which means patient selection bias. Larger-scale, well-designed study with long-term follow-up and randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm and update the results of this systematic review.     

经皮椎间盘切吸联合硬膜外神经松解术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床研究

目的:通过联合应用经皮椎间盘切吸和硬膜外神经松解术治疗非包容性腰椎间盘突出症,评价联合治疗的可行性、有效性及安全性。方法:2014年5月-2017年10月,119例非包容性腰椎间盘突出症患者中64例单纯行经皮椎间盘切吸术(切吸组),55例行经皮椎间盘切吸联合硬膜外神经松解术(联合组)。采用疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)及oswestry功能障碍指数(oswestry disability index.,0DI)评价手术疗效。结果:119例患者全部顺利完成手术,无手术相关严重并发症发生。全部患者获随访,随访时间11-18个月,平均(13±2.8)个月。术后1个月、3个月和6个月:联合治疗组相比单纯切吸组在VAS评分(2.73±1.33vs.4.16±1.17;2.51±1.24 vs.3.71±1.19;2.48±1.16 vs.3.96±1.37)及临床疗效评估(37.50%vs74.55%;45.31%vs76.36%;43.75%vs78.18%)均具有统计学差异(P<0.05)。结论:应用经皮椎间盘切吸联合硬膜外神经松解术两种微创介入技术序贯治疗非包容性腰椎间盘突出症疗效确切,手术安全性高,创伤小,有望成为非包容性腰椎间盘突出症的--种微创高效的治疗手段。     

单双侧椎弓根螺钉固定经椎间孔椎体间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的效果比较研究

目的 分析UPS术、BPS术联合TLIF治疗腰椎退行性疾病(LDD)的效果.方法 选取2013年5月至2014年6月于本院骨科治疗的118例LDD患者作为研究对象,分为UPS术组与BPS术组,每组59例,分别采用两种不同的手术方法进行治疗.结果 UPS术组优良率为91.53％,BPS术组为77.97％,两组优良率比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 UPS术联合TLIF治疗LDD的疗效优于BPS术,治疗LDD患者时可应用UPS联合TLIF的手术方法.     

老年腰椎管狭窄症患者心理问题初探及护理对策

目的探讨老年腰椎管狭窄症患者的心理问题。方法采用症状自评量表测量老年腰椎管狭窄症患者的心理健康状况。结果老年椎管狭窄症患者手术后的主要心理问题为躯体化、焦虑、强迫、抑郁和敌对。结论老年椎管狭窄症患者存在较多心理问题,医务人员应根据其心理特点实施护理,以帮助其解除心理障碍,促进康复。     

小切口椎板间开窗髓核切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症临床疗效观察

目的：探讨小切口椎板间开窗髓核切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法92例腰椎间盘突出症患者,随机分成对照组和观察组,每组46例。对照组患者采用椎板切除术治疗,观察组采用小切口椎板间开窗髓核切除术治疗,对比两组患者的治疗效果。结果经治疗后,观察组患者的治疗总有效率(93.48%)明显高于对照组(84.78%),两组差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论采用小切口椎板间开窗髓核切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症,疗效显著,安全可靠,值得临床推广。     

椎弓根螺钉内固定加椎体间植骨融合术治疗下腰椎不稳症

目的评价椎弓根螺钉内固定加椎体间植骨融合术治疗退变性腰椎不稳症的临床疗效。方法对36例退变性腰椎不稳症患者,进行椎弓根螺钉内固定加椎体间植骨融合治疗,并评价临床疗效。结果术后随访6个月～3年,优良率达97%,植骨椎体间骨性融合率100%。结论椎弓根螺钉内固定加椎体间植骨融合可使不稳节段即刻稳定,骨性融合率高,是治疗退变性腰椎不稳症的较好方法。