DELTA内镜下单侧入路双侧减压治疗腰椎椎管狭窄症的疗效分析

目的 探讨DELTA内镜下单侧入路双侧减压治疗单节段腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效.方法 选取广东省中医院骨科自2018年1月～2019年6月手术治疗的60例单节段腰椎管狭窄症患者,根据手术方式不同分为DELTA组和MIS-TLIF组,DELTA组采用DELTA内镜下单侧椎板间入路双侧减压术治疗,MIS-TLIF组采用微创管道...     

两种手术方法治疗腰椎管狭窄症182例的临床研究

目的：通过精确责任神经根定位微创开窗减压和全椎板切除椎管减压椎弓根钉内固定术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效,讨论两种方法的优缺点及适应证。方法：2007年3月～2013年3月收治的腰椎管狭窄症患者182例,男97例,女85例;年龄46～82岁,平均58．6岁。所有患者均行腰椎正侧、双斜、过伸、过屈位片及CT、MRI检查。中央管狭窄17例,侧隐窝狭窄95例,混合性狭窄70例,合并腰椎假性滑脱或不稳定者56例。患者分为：微创开窗减压治疗组88例,全椎板切除椎管减压椎弓根钉内固定术治疗组94例。结果：按NAKAI疗效评定标准,优良率：微创开窗减压组90．9％（80／88）,全椎板切除椎弓根钉内固定术治疗组92．6％（87／94）,两组优良率差异无显著性。微创开窗减压治疗组,手术时间、术中失血量、镇痛药使用、术后下床活动时间、住院时间均少于全椎板切除椎管减压椎弓根钉内固定术治疗组（P〈0．01）,两组间脑脊液漏的发生率和术后疗效优良率差异无显著性（P〉0．05）。腰椎失败综合证3例发生于全椎板切除椎弓根钉内固定术治疗组。结论：微创开窗减压与全椎板切除椎管减压椎弓根钉内固定术治疗腰椎管狭窄症疗效无明显差异,微创开窗减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症创伤小,术后恢复快,疗效确切。全椎板切除椎管减压椎弓根钉内固定术应用于合并腰椎假性滑脱或不稳定患者更为合理。     

经皮内镜下椎板减压与开放半椎板两种减压术治疗腰椎管狭窄症疗效对比分析

目的 比较经皮内镜下椎板减压术与开放半椎板减压术治疗腰椎管狭窄症患者的临床疗效.方法 收集2016年9月～2019年12月在该本院住院治疗的腰椎管狭窄症患者137例作为研究对象,分为两组:观察组79例采用经皮内镜下椎板减压术,对照组58例采用开放半椎板减压术治疗.对两组患者的手术时间、切口长度、住院时间等指标和并发症发生情况进行对比分析,同时对两组椎间隙前缘高度、后缘高度、节段活动度、硬膜囊横断面积(dural sac cross-sectional area,DSCA)以及疼痛VAS评分和Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)等指标,和术前及术后相关功能进行评价对比.结果 观察组手术时间显著长于对照组,切口长度显著少于对照组,术后住院时间显著少于对照组,上述差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05).观察组术后1个月、3个月的VAS评分显著低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组术后各随访时间的ODI和DSCA均显著低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组节段活动度和椎间隙前、后缘高度比较,以及术后1年内并发症发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 经皮内镜下椎板减压术与开放半椎板减压术治疗椎管狭窄症均可获得较好的减压效果;经皮内镜减压术具有局部创伤小、术后恢复快等优点.     

经皮内镜下椎板减压与开放半椎板两种减压术治疗腰椎管狭窄症疗效对比分析

目的 比较经皮内镜下椎板减压术与开放半椎板减压术治疗腰椎管狭窄症患者的临床疗效.方法 收集2016年9月～2019年12月在该本院住院治疗的腰椎管狭窄症患者137例作为研究对象,分为两组:观察组79例采用经皮内镜下椎板减压术,对照组58例采用开放半椎板减压术治疗.对两组患者的手术时间、切口长度、住院时间等指标和并发症发生情况进行对比分析,同时对两组椎间隙前缘高度、后缘高度、节段活动度、硬膜囊横断面积(dural sac cross-sectional area,DSCA)以及疼痛VAS评分和Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)等指标,和术前及术后相关功能进行评价对比.结果 观察组手术时间显著长于对照组,切口长度显著少于对照组,术后住院时间显著少于对照组,上述差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05).观察组术后1个月、3个月的VAS评分显著低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组术后各随访时间的ODI和DSCA均显著低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组节段活动度和椎间隙前、后缘高度比较,以及术后1年内并发症发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 经皮内镜下椎板减压术与开放半椎板减压术治疗椎管狭窄症均可获得较好的减压效果;经皮内镜减压术具有局部创伤小、术后恢复快等优点.     

椎弓根螺钉置入联合双侧椎板开窗减压术对腰椎管狭窄症并不稳患者腰椎功能的影响

目的 探析在腰椎管狭窄症并不稳患者中采用椎弓根螺钉置入联合双侧椎板开窗减压术治疗对腰椎功能的影响。方法 选择2019年3月—2022年3月诊治的56例腰椎管狭窄并不稳患者进行回顾性分析,根据手术方式不同将其分为两组,对照组(n=28,行开放椎弓根螺钉内固定术)和观察组(n=28,行椎弓根螺钉置入+双侧椎板开窗减压术)。采用日本骨科协会评估治疗分数(JOA)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评分评估两组术后腰椎功能,统计两组临床效果优良率。结果 观察组术后6个月的JOA评分高于对照组,且ODI评分低于对照组(P<0.05);观察组临床效果优良率为92.86%,高于对照组的67.86%(P<0.05)。结论 采用椎弓根螺钉置入、双侧椎板开窗减压术联合治疗腰椎狭窄症并不稳患者,可获得良好的临床效果,改善其腰椎功能。     

有限椎板切除减压与全椎板切除减压内固定术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的疗效对比(英文)

[目的]探讨采用有限椎板切除减压后路椎弓根螺钉内固定术与传统全椎板切除减压后路椎弓根螺钉内固定术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的疗效并进行对比研究。[方法]在63例腰椎管狭窄症患者中(年龄52⁶8岁,平均61.3岁),30例采用有限椎板切除减压后路椎弓根螺钉内固定术,33例采用传统全椎板切除减压后路椎弓根螺钉内固定术。观察两组手术时间、出血量及并发症的差异。术前、术后随访时分别采用ODI和VAS评分进行相关功能评价。随访时间最少为2年。[结果]两组患者术后下肢痛VAS、ODI评分较术前均明显下降,无明显差异。但有限椎板切除减压组患者的腰背痛VAS评分明显优于全椎板切除减压组(P<0.01),并且其手术时间和出血量明显少于后者。[结论]两种手术方法对腰椎管狭窄症患者均有较好的效果。但有限椎板切除减压术治疗下腰痛效果明显优于全椎板切除减压术,前者术中创伤较少,手术时间短,出血量少,且保留了竖脊肌、棘突、棘间和棘上韧带,并对这些脊柱后部结构元素进行解剖重建,起到了维持术后腰椎稳定的作用。     

椎板开窗撑开潜行式减压手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症

目的探讨椎板开窗撑开潜行式减压手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效。方法回顾自2004年3月至2007年4月采用椎板开窗撑开潜行式减压手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症26例。结果本组无硬膜囊撕裂和脑脊液漏等手术并发症。根据北美脊柱外科学会的腰椎功能障碍指数(ODI)进行疗效评分[1]:术后1年以上随访,其中:优19例,良5例,改善2例,疗效优良率为92.31%。X线检查未发现腰椎不稳和滑脱的现象。结论椎板开窗撑开潜行式减压手术是治疗腰椎管狭窄症行之有效的方法之一。     

椎板开窗潜行减压术治疗腰椎管狭窄症

目的探讨椎板开窗潜行减压术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的疗效。方法采用单节段或多节段椎板间隙开窗潜行减压加神经根管减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症患者50例。结果疗效参照JOA分级标准评定,术后对45例获得随访,平均3.1年,优27例,良13例,可4例,差1例,手术优良率88.8%。结论该术式保留了棘突、棘上韧带、棘间韧带及部分椎板,关节突,最大限度地保留了腰椎稳定性,避免了因手术瘢痕粘连和骨化造成的医源性的椎管狭窄,术后疗效确实可靠。     

多节段对称性开窗减压术治疗中央型腰椎管狭窄

多节段对称性开窗减压术治疗中央型腰椎管狭窄陈建军，李超，刘正品，陈雪亮，王增亚腰椎管狭窄症的手术治疗方法很多，常采用的全椎板切除的中线减压法疗效并不一分满意，目前尚无十分理想的治疗方法。我们从１９８８年以来，对３２例中央型腰椎管狭窄症施行多节段对称性...     

有限减压手术方式治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症的疗效分析

目的观察有限减压手术治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症的中远期疗效。方法98例退行性腰椎管狭窄症患者根据病理改变情况,分别采用三种手术方法(腰椎间盘镜下减压术、后路椎板开窗减压术与椎管环形减压术)进行有限减压。其中腰椎间盘镜下减压术29例,后路椎板开窗减压术22例,椎管环形减压术47例。所有患者未做融合及内固定术。采用Nakai分级结合腰椎正侧+动力位X线片所见,制定手术疗效判定标准。结果随访18个月~66个月,平均36.4个月。优86例(87%),良12例(13%),差0例(0%)。随访未发现手术节段失稳者。结论有限减压手术方式治疗不合并腰椎不稳及腰椎滑脱的退行性腰椎管狭窄症可取得良好的中远期疗效。     

Surgical decompression: a life-saving procedure for an extensive spinal epidural abscess

Extensive spinal epidural abscesses (SEAs) carry a high mortality rate. Traditionally they are treated non-operatively with longterm antibiotics and/or surgical decompression, but there is a continuing debate as to whether they should be managed by emergency surgical decompression. However, such decisions are made in the light of the clinical setting. We report the successful management of a female patient who presented with features of upper cervical cord compression and later developed septic shock and multisystem failure. Surgical decompression of the cervical spine and irrigation of the epidural space with a paediatric catheter was performed followed by tricortical strut grafting and plating. At review, 36 weeks after surgery, the patient remained asymptomatic, having made full neurological recovery. The purpose of this report is to highlight the importance of emergency surgical intervention for extensive SEA in the presence of progressive neurological loss associated with multisystem failure.     

Secuplate颈前路钢板系统在脊髓型颈椎病手术中的应用

目的观察Secuplate颈前路钢板在脊髓型颈椎病手术中的作用和疗效。方法对26例脊髓型颈椎病患者行颈前路减压植骨、Secuplate颈前路钢板内固定术。术后随访观察神经功能恢复情况、植骨融合率及有无植入物并发症。结果术后进行6～12个月(平均8个月)随访。术后症状明显缓解、脊髓功能明显改善者23例,占88%。术后6个月植骨融合率达到100%。无钢板和螺钉松动或断裂现象存在。结论应用颈前路减压植骨、Secuplate颈前路钢板系统内固定术治疗脊髓型颈椎病具有以下优点:可获得术后颈椎即刻稳定,防止植骨块移位,术后无需行石膏固定,能显著提高植骨融合率。     

经关节突减压融合治疗腹侧压迫型胸椎管狭窄症

目的 探讨经关节突减压融合治疗腹侧压迫型胸椎管狭窄症的手术疗效和安全性.方法 2005年4月至2009年4月,采用后方人路经关节突行椎管腹侧减压,同时行前路植骨后路内固定融合术治疗腹侧压迫型胸椎管狭窄症患者33例,其中获得12个月以上随访者19例,男10例,女9例;年龄33～77岁,平均55.9岁;胸椎后纵韧带骨化(ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament,OPLL)5例,胸椎间盘突出症(thoracic disc hemiation,TDH)11例,胸椎OPLL合并胸椎黄韧带骨化(ossification of ligamentum flavum,OLF)2例,TDH合并OLF 1例.采用改良日本骨科协会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA)评分法和Nurick分级评价神经减压效果.结果 手术时间180～480 min,平均299.5 min;术中出血量250～2200 ml,平均918.5 ml.7例胸椎OPLL患者(包括合并OLF)术中出现硬膜损伤1例,术后发现神经功能恶化2例.12例TDH患者(包括合并OLF),术后无神经功能恶化,未发现脑脊液漏及其他并发症.术后随访时间12～54个月,平均28.6个月.术前JOA评分2～11分,平均63分;末次随访时JOA评分5～11分,平均8.6分.术前Nurick分级0～5级的例数分别为:2、2、4、5、2、4例,术后Nurick分级0～5级的例数分别为:6、6、3、3、1、0例.结论 采用经关节突人路减压融合治疗腹侧压迫型胸椎管狭窄症可以获得充分的减压及满意的疗效,可以作为一种较为安全的胸椎管腹侧减压入路.     

棘间减压治疗退行性椎管狭窄症

目前，退行性腰椎管狭窄症的手术治疗尤待探讨的问题是，减压范围多大和哪种方法才能最有效地维持术后远期腰椎的稳定。全椎板减压虽然减压范围充分，但破坏了腰椎后张力带结构，术后远期腰椎不稳和椎管再狭窄发生率较高，疗效明显下降。半椎板减压椎板开窗需将骶棘肌剥离关节突，有可能损伤骶棘肌的支配神经，同时棘上韧带-棘间韧带复合体可能因缺血而发生变性一引。近来，     

Paralysis of the arm after posterior decompression of the cervical spinal cord

Summary Paralysis of the arm with radicular distribution occurring after posterior decompression of the cervical spinal cord included C5, C6, C7 and C8 roots, in isolation or combined. The most frequent patterns of paralysis were C5 and C6 root involvements of the motor-dominant type. The overall frequency of occurrence in our series was 11% (20 cases of postoperative paralysis in 188 surgical cases), but the frequency varied with the posterior decompression method. The higher frequency of postoperative paralysis was noted in the group in which the surgical procedures selected were considered as enabling the expanded dura to exert its traction power more easily on the extradural portion of the roots. Radiographical analyses showed that C5 roots which satisfied the following two conditions were more prone to sustain postoperative paralysis: first, location at the level of the highly expanded dural tube and, second, lying in the foramina with a higher degree of anterior protrusion of the superior process. In the majority of cases with C5 motor-dominant paralysis, the postoperative cord-root pouch distances of the C5 anterior roots were unchanged or even decreased compared with the preoperative ones, but the extradural portions of the C5 roots were elongated in all cases. These findings support the validity of mechanisms of postoperative paralysis which were deduced from the anatomical investigations.     

A systematic review of MIS and open decompression surgery for spinal metastases in the last two decades

ObjectiveThe primary intention of this review being to produce an updated systematic review of the literature on published outcomes of decompressive surgery for metastatic spinal disease including metastatic spinal cord compression, using techniques of MIS and open decompressive surgery.MethodsThe authors conducted database searches of OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE identifying those studies that reported clinical outcomes, surgical techniques used along with associated complications when decompressive surgery was employed for metastatic spinal tumors. Both retrospective and prospective studies were analysed. Articles were assessed to ensure the required inclusion criteria was met. Articles were then categorised and tabulated based on the following reported outcomes: predictors of survival, predictors of ambulation or motor function, surgical technique, neurological function, and miscellaneous outcomes.Results2654 citations were retrieved from databases, of these 31 met the inclusion criteria. 5 studies were prospective, the remaining 26 were retrospective. Publication years ranged from 2000 to 2020. Study size ranged from 30 to 914 patients. The most common primary tumors identified were lungs, breast, prostate and renal cancers. One study ( Lo and Yang, 2017)¹³ reported that in those patients with motor deficit, survival was significantly improved when surgery was performed within 7 days of the development of motor deficit compared to situations when surgery was carried out 7 days after onset. This was the only study that showed that the timing of surgery plays a significant role w.r.t. survival following the onset of spinal cord compression symptoms. Four articles identified that a pre-operative intact motor function and or ambulatory status conferred a higher likelihood of a better post-operative outcome, not just in relation to survival but also in relation to post-operative ambulation as well as a greater tendency towards suitability for adjuvant treatment. Even for the same scoring system e.g. tokuhashi and its effectiveness in predicting survival, results from different studies varied in their outcome. The Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) being the most commonly used tool to assess functional impairment, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status being used in two studies. 23 studies identified an improvement in neurological function following surgery. The most common functional scale used to assess neurological outcome was the Frankel scale, 3 studies used the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) impairment scale for this purpose. Wound problems including infection and dehiscence appeared to be the most commonly reported surgical complication. (25 studies). The most commonly used surgical technique involved a posterior approach with decompression, with or without stabilisation. Less commonly employed techniques included percutaneous pedicle screw fixation associated with or without mini-decompression as well as anterior approaches involving corpectomy and instrumentation. 9 studies included in their data, the effect of radiation therapy in combination with surgery or as a comparison used as an alternative to surgery in spinal metastases.ConclusionsWe provide a systematic literature review on the outcomes of decompressive surgery for spinal metastases. We analyse survival data, motor function, neurological function, as well as the techniques of surgery used. Where appropriate complications of surgery are also highlighted. It is the authors’ intention to provide the reader with a reference text where this information is ready to hand, allowing for the consideration of means and methods to improve and optimise the standard of care in patients undergoing surgical intervention for metastatic spinal disease.     

退变性腰椎侧凸选择性短节段固定融合的手术治疗

目的探讨选择性减压、短节段固定融合治疗退变性腰椎侧凸的手术疗效。方法回顾性研究2004年1月～2007年6月收治的42例以下肢症状为主的退变性腰椎侧凸患者,其中男15例,女27例;平均年龄为65.6岁。手术方式采用选择性减压、短节段固定融合。对患者术前、首次随访、终末随访时的Cobb角,腰椎前凸角度,VAS评分和Oswestry功能障碍指数进行对比。结果术前与终末随访VAS评分和Oswestry功能障碍指数对比,差异有统计学意义,手术优良率为76.2%,术后早期并发症的发生率为23.9%。结论以下肢症状为主的退变性腰椎侧凸患者可通过狭窄节段椎管减压、短节段固定融合显著地减小手术创伤,获得良好的手术疗效。     

急诊减压固定治疗外伤性脊髓损伤

目的观察急诊减压固定治疗外伤性脊髓损伤的疗效。方法2006年-2009年12例外伤性脊髓损伤患者行急诊手术治疗,手术时间均为受伤后24h以内。比较同期8例受伤72h后手术治疗患者。神经功能评分采用ASIA评分,卡方检验进行统计。结果患者随访时间均〉3月,结果显示急诊手术组患者神经功能改善优于对照组。结论急诊减压固定治疗外伤性脊髓损伤安全、有效。     

开窗潜行减压治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症

我院从90年代初以来,采用了开窗潜行减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症,取得了满意的效果.     

单纯减压与减压后融合治疗单纯退变性腰椎管狭窄症疗效对比研究

【摘要】 目的 比较单纯椎管减压术和减压后器械内固定融合治疗无腰椎滑脱和失稳的退变性腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效。方法 自2006年3月~2011年5月期间,在我院接受手术治疗的单纯退变性腰椎管狭窄症患者共63例,其中接受单纯选择性椎管减压术治疗的患者28例,接受椎管减压加器械内固定融合手术患者35例。手术前后分别使用腰椎JOA (Japanese Orthopedic Association) 评分、ODI(Oswestry Disability Index)评分和SF?鄄36(Short Form?鄄36)评分,评估两种术式的临床疗效。结果 两组患者术后1年均取得较好疗效。其中椎管减压加融合组患者术后ODI评分改善31.2分(P<0.001),由重度功能障碍改善至轻度功能障碍;单纯选择性椎管减压组术后ODI评分改善14.9分(P=0.004),由重度功能障碍改善至中度功能障碍;减压加融合组预后较单纯减压组显著改善(P<0.01),术后SF?鄄36评分得到相似结果。结论 手术治疗能极大地改善腰椎管狭窄患者的临床症状,椎管减压加融合术较单纯椎管减压术能更大程度改善该类患者的临床症状。