动态内固定与坚强内固定治疗退变性腰椎疾患的对比研究

目的 探讨动态内固定治疗退变性腰椎疾患的临床疗效.方法 对2002年1月至2006年12月退变性腰椎疾患(腰椎退变性失稳、腰椎滑脱、腰椎管狭窄)患者进行前瞻性对比研究.根据入选标准,选取100例,其中男58例,女42例.根据施行的内固定方法分为坚强内固定组50例和动态内固定组50例.坚强内固定组年龄(56±6)岁,动态内固定组年龄(57±9)岁.所有病例在术前均行站立位X线片、CT或MRI检查.观察指标:邻近节段退变发生率、内植物有无断裂、椎间融合率、腰骶-骨盆解剖学参数、疼痛视觉模拟评分.结果 (1)坚强内固定组:平均每例患者固定椎体(2.6±0.5)个,6例(12.O%)发生邻近节段退变,2例(4.0%)发生螺丝钉断裂,1例假关节形成(2.0%);腰椎前凸角:平均矫正(14.2±2.2)°;骶骨倾斜角:平均矫正(12.6±4.3)°;骨盆倾斜角:平均矫正(8.3±2.7)°;骨盆入射指数:平均矫正(2.0±0.1)°.(2)动态内固定组:平均每例患者固定椎体(2.5±0.6)个,1例(2.O%)发生邻近节段退变,无螺丝钉断裂及假关节形成者;腰椎前凸角:平均矫正(20.2±3.7)°;骶骨倾斜角:平均矫正(15.8±6.5)°;骨盆倾斜角:平均矫正(4.5±2.2)°;骨盆入射指数:平均矫正(0.9±0.1)°.两种内固定方式在术后前2年均可使患者疼痛症状改善至无痛或轻度疼痛.随着固定时间延长,坚强内固定组下腰痛程度逐渐加重,在术后第3年开始显著重于动态内固定组.结论 动态内固定可有效地防止邻近节段退变,预防内植物断裂,重建脊柱的动态稳定.

Comparative study of dynamic fixation with rigid fixation in the management of degenerative lumbar spondylosis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effects of dynamic fixation and rigid fixation in the management of degenerative lumbar spondylosis. METHODS: The hospitalized patients with degenerative lumbar spondylosis, including degenerative lumbar instablility, lumbar spondylolisthesis and lumbar stenosis from January 2002 to December 2006 formed the subjects of our study. According to the inclusion criteria, 100 patients (male 58, female 42) were selected. The cases were divided into rigid fixation group (A) and dynamic fixation group (B), with 50 cases in each. The average age was (56 +/- 6) years old of group A, and (57 +/- 9) years old of group B. Standing plain radiography, computerized tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were taken in all the cases. The observation index included incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), breakage of implant, fusion rate, lumbopelvic parameters and isual analogue scales (VAS) scores. RESULTS: Six cases developed ASD in group A (12.0%), and 1 case in group B (2%). Implant breakage happened in 2 cases in group A (4.0%), while none in group B. There was 1 case of pseudoarticular formation in group A (2.0%), but none in group B. Lumbar lordorsis (LL) was corrected with (14.2 +/- 2.2) degrees in group A, and (20.2 +/- 3.7) degrees in group B (P = 0.031). Sacral slope (SS) was corrected with (12.6 +/- 4.3) degrees in group A and (15.8 +/- 6. 5) degrees in group B (P = 0.052). Pelvic tilt (PT) was corrected with (8.3 +/- 2.7) degrees in group A and (4.5 +/- 2.2) degrees in group B (P = 0.014). Pelvic incidence was corrected with (2.0 +/- 0.1) degrees in group A and (0.9 +/- 0.1) degrees in group B (P = 0.008). The VAS score decreased significantly in both groups within the first 2 years after operation. But as time going, the patients with rigid fixation felt pain gradually, and the pain was more severe than in patients with dynamic fixation. CONCLUSION: Dynamic fixation could prevent ASD and implant failure effectively.