退行性腰椎管狭窄症的手术方式选择及疗效分析

[目的]探讨退行性腰椎管狭窄症患者手术方式及疗效.[方法]回顾性分析1999～2008年间,手术治疗并获得随访的87例退变性腰椎管狭窄症患者.术前根据患者症状、体征及影像学检查结果确定手术方式.其中39例患者行椎板间开窗、椎管及侧隐窝潜形扩大术.48例患者行全椎板切除、椎管减压+椎弓根内固定+后外侧植骨融合术.术后临床疗效采用JOA评分、ODI量表进行评估,运用SF-36调查问卷对患者治疗前和末次随访时生活质量变化情况进行评价.[结果]所有87例患者平均随访38个月.术后所有患者临床症状缓解,行走能力提高,生活质量改善.术前10A评分平均15.2分,末次随访时平均25.4分(P<0.05).术前ODI评分平均61.7分,末次随访时平均48.8分(P<0.05).SF-36调查问卷表中的8个维度,各项分值术后较术前相比,均有明显提高(P<0.05),[结论]手术减压是治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症患者的主要目的,术前存在脊柱不稳、预计手术可能破坏脊柱稳定性等情况下,实施融合内固定术可获得满意疗效.     

选择性减压融合治疗伴退行性侧凸的腰椎管狭窄症

目的:观察选择性椎管减压及融合术治疗伴退行性侧凸的腰椎管狭窄症患者的临床疗效。方法:33例退行性腰椎管狭窄伴侧凸患者,术前根据患者症状、体征及影像学检查结果确定减压节段及选择融合节段,对引起临床症状的节段进行减压,针对术前即有不稳或减压术后可能出现不稳的节段进行融合,采用JOA评分、ODI量表评估临床疗效,应用SF-36调查问卷对患者治疗前和末次随访时生活质量变化情况进行评价。结果:33例患者共减压62个节段,平均减压1.9个节段;共融合52个节段,平均融合1.6个节段。术后随访12～84个月,平均38个月,所有患者疼痛明显缓解,生活质量明显提高。术前JOA评分平均15.8分,末次随访时平均26.4分(P0.05)。术前ODI评分平均66.5分,末次随访时平均37.6分(P0.05)。SF-36调查问卷表中的8个维度分值均较术前明显提高(P0.05)。侧凸由术前平均19.3°矫正至术后平均12.7°,改善率平均为34.2%。结论:在仔细分析病情的基础上,选择个体化手术方案治疗伴退行性侧凸的腰椎管狭窄症可取得满意的临床疗效,提高患者的生活质量。     

后路个体化有限化减压内固定融合手术治疗退行性腰椎侧凸性椎管狭窄症

[目的]探讨后路个体化、有限化减压内固定融合手术治疗退行性腰椎侧凸性椎管狭窄症的临床疗效。[方法]2004年6月～2010年10月本科共收治退行性腰椎侧凸性椎管狭窄症患者38例,根据其临床症状、体征及影像学资料,结合其健康状况和治疗愿望制定个体化手术方案,采用后路有限减压内固定融合手术治疗。比较术前术后Cobb角和腰椎前凸角及JOA评分,根据JOA评分改善率评价手术疗效。[结果]手术均顺利完成,无严重手术并发症发生。平均随访24个月,所有患者临床症状消失或明显缓解,JOA评分显著提高,末次随访时JOA评分改善率平均为89%,优良率达94.7%。术后Cobb角平均减少了11.3°,腰椎生理前凸角平均增加了12.1°。未发现螺钉松动断裂及断棒现象,植骨融合率100%。[结论]根据每个患者的具体情况,采取后路个体化、有限化减压内固定融合手术是治疗退行性腰椎侧凸性椎管狭窄症的有效方法之一。     

经后路手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症伴退行性腰椎侧凸的临床疗效观察

目的观察椎管狭窄症合并退行性腰椎侧凸的手术疗效,探讨手术方式及固定节段的选择。方法椎管狭窄症合并退行性腰椎侧凸症患者27例。采用后路有限减压、固定、融合手术进行治疗并随访。术后及末次随访时测量Cobb角、腰椎前凸角、C7铅垂线(C7PL)与S1椎体后上缘距离(SVA),C7PL与骶骨中线距离(CVA),并与术前进行比较,术后采用JOA评分评估临床疗效,运用SF-36调查问卷对患者治疗前和末次随访时生活质量变化情况进行评价。结果所有患者获得随访,平均20个月。患者术前、术后及末次随访时的Cobb角分别为(22.1±10.5)、(10.2±7.3)°和(10.4±4.8)°,腰椎前凸角分别为(21.2±10.3)°、(25.7±12.2)°和(25.3±12.3)°,SVA分别为(7.5±6.1)cm、(0.6±3.1)cm和(0.5±2.4)cm,CVA分别为(6.9±5.3)cm、(2.8±1.3)cm和(2.9±1.2)cm,与术前比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05),且术后矫正效果持续性良好,术后与末次随访结果比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。JOA评分:术前、术后及末次随访时分别为(10.8±1.4)分、(21.3±2.4)分和(23.5±2.3)分;SF-36调查问卷表中的8个维度分值与术前比较,明显改善(P0.05)。结论根据患者症状、体征及影像学资料制定个体化手术方案,进行选择性减压、融合及固定可以取得满意的临床疗效。     

选择性减压融合治疗伴退行性滑脱的多节段腰椎管狭窄症

[目的]比较选择性减压融合与多节段减压融合治疗伴退行性滑脱的多节段腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效。[方法]将2012年1月~2014年1月收治的36例伴有退行性滑脱的多节段腰椎管狭窄症患者随机分为选择性减压融合组(选择组,19例)和多节段减压融合组(多节段组,17例)。选择组仅对引起临床症状的部位进行减压,对术前存在腰椎滑脱或不稳的节段以及术后可能出现失稳的节段予以固定融合。多节段组对影像学所见的狭窄节段均进行充分减压、固定融合。比较两组的年龄、性别、病程、手术时间、失血量、减压节段和融合节段。用JOA、VAS及ODI评分评估临床疗效。随访拍摄腰椎X线片和MRI,观察腰椎稳定性。[结果]所有患者均获得2年以上随访。多节段组的手术时间、失血量及融合节段均大于选择组(P0.05)。两组病例术后末次随访的JOA、VAS和ODI评分均较术前改善(P0.05),末次随访的JOA、VAS和ODI评分两组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。选择组减压未融合节段无医源性失稳表现。[结论]选择性减压融合与多节段减压融合治疗伴退行性滑脱的多节段腰椎管狭窄症疗效相当,选择性减压融合具有手术时间短、失血量少和创伤小等优点。     

退行性腰椎侧弯合并椎管狭窄的手术治疗

[目的]探讨退行性腰椎侧弯合并椎管狭窄目的手术方案及疗效.[方法]自2003年6月～2007年1月本院手术治疗退行性腰椎侧弯合并椎管狭窄患者32例,术前均行X线、CT、MRI检查,10例另行脊髓造影,图像输入计算机并采用IPP软件计算Cobb's角、椎体旋转度、侧方移位程度;32例患者均行后路减压植骨融合椎弓根内固定手术.记录手术时间、出血量、透视时间;随访观察腰椎融合、畸形矫正、痛缓解情况,同时采用VAS、LBOS评分对患者手术前后进行疗效分析.[结果]32例平均手术时间为(4±0.5)h,出血(400±30)ml,透视时间(30±5)min. 32例患者均获随访,期限8个月～4年(平均20个月),术后8个月、16个月进行X线复查,24例患者获骨性融合(75%),末次随访时平均侧弯Cobb's角从37.2°减少至18.4°,纠正率23.7%;平均前突角度从术前13.1°增加到16.4°,增长率25.1%;平均顶椎旋转度14.2°减少至9.8°,纠正率31.0%;手术前后腰椎侧弯、前突角度均具有显著性差异(t检验,P＜0.05).术前平均VAS和LBOS平均为5.8±2.1、21.8±11.6,末次随访时分别增加为3.1±1.9、44.8±15.1,32例患者手术满意程度:优18例,良8例,可4例,差2例,优良率为81.2%.并发症情况:融合失败8例,内固定断裂1例,症状不缓解2例,神经根损伤2例,脑脊液漏2例,融合节段以外邻近节段退变3例需二次手术延固定.[结论]退行性腰椎侧弯合并椎管狭窄后路减压植骨融合内固定手术创伤大,风险高,只有严格神经组织微创操作、椎体内固定个体化设计才能获得满意效果.     

椎管减压术及动态稳定系统治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄合并腰椎不稳症

目的探讨退行性腰椎管狭窄采用减压术后,用Dynesys弹性稳定系统治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄合并腰椎不稳症的临床效果。方法采用保留棘突韧带及上下小关节完整性,对退行性腰椎管狭窄合并腰椎不稳26例行椎板切除减压并用Dynesys动态稳定系统固定,术后随访平均1年6个月。结果患者下肢痛显著减低,平均步行距离显著提高超过了1000 m。没有发现椎体不稳症进一步进展的迹象。结论对于脊椎退行性腰椎管狭窄合并腰椎不稳症的老年患者,椎管减压并用动态稳定系统固定能得到与目前标准的减压椎弓根螺钉固定融合术相近的临床效果,保证足够的稳定性,防止滑脱和脊椎不稳进一步发展,无需植骨。     

显微外科技术配合Dynesys系统治疗腰椎椎管狭窄

目的：探讨应用Dynesys腰椎动态固定系统配合显微外科技术单侧入路双侧减压治疗腰椎椎管狭窄症的有效性和临床效果。方法分析2012年1月～2013年6月,21例应用显微外科技术配合Dynesysx系统治疗伴随腰椎不稳的腰椎椎管狭窄症的临床资料。记录术前及术后疼痛视觉模拟量表（visual analogue scale,VAS）评分（10分法）及日本骨科学会（ Japanese Orthopaedic Association ,JOA）评分,评估手术疗效。结果所有患者末次随访VAS及JOA评分较术前均显著改善,所有病例症状无加重或复发。结论显微外科技术配合Dynesys系统治疗伴随腰椎不稳的腰椎椎管狭窄症术中显露充分、减压彻底、安全性高、出血量少,术后腰椎稳定性恢复好、效果佳。     

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。     

后路减压融合内固定术治疗退变性腰椎椎管狭窄合并节段性腰椎不稳的临床疗效

目的：观察后路腰椎椎管减压、椎弓根螺钉内固定并椎体间植骨融合术,治疗退变性腰椎椎管狭窄合并节段性腰椎不稳定患者的临床疗效。方法2006年1月～2011年12月收治的82例退变性腰椎椎管狭窄合并节段性腰椎不稳的患者,行后路减压融合内固定术治疗。采用Oswestry功能障碍指数（Oswestry disability index, ODI）,疼痛视觉模拟量表（visual analogue scale, VAS）和日本骨科学会（Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA）评分评估临床疗效。同时行影像学检查,测量椎间隙高度,用Bridwell方法评价腰椎融合情况。结果平均随访48个月,术后腰痛VAS评分、腿痛VAS评分、JOA评分、ODI、椎间隙高度均较术前明显改善,差异有统计学意义（P＜0．01）。末次随访时,根据Bridwell腰椎融合评价标准,Ⅰ级和Ⅱ级为80例（97．5％）。末次随访时,X线片、MRI检查发现4例螺钉松动断裂但已骨性融合（4％）,2例植骨未融合,椎间隙高度降低（2％）。疗效评定优24例,良46例,可8例,差5例,优良率为85．4％。结论减压融合固定治疗退变性腰椎椎管狭窄症合并节段性腰椎不稳远期疗效肯定,但应把恢复该节段的稳定作为重点。     

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。     

Comparison of decompression,decompression plus fusion,and decompression plus stabilization: a long-term follow-up of a prospective,randomized study

BACKGROUND CONTEXTLumbar canal stenosis due to degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is one of the most common indications for lumbar spinal surgery. However, from a long-term perspective, it is still unclear which of these procedures should be performed: decompression, decompression plus fusion, or decompression plus stabilization.PURPOSEThis study aimed to present the long-term results of a randomized controlled trial of surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGThis is a long-term follow-up of a previously reported randomized controlled trial.PATIENT SAMPLEPatients aged ≤75 years with single L4/5 level lumbar canal stenosis caused by degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were enrolled at two hospitals from May 1, 2003, to April 30, 2012; the final follow-up was on May 20, 2021.OUTCOME MEASURESThe following data were collected: modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score for lower back pain, leg pain, and numbness, and scores from eight Short-Form 36 (SF-36) subscales preoperatively, 1 year postoperatively, 5 years postoperatively, and at the final follow-up.METHODSPatients were randomized to undergo decompression alone, decompression plus fusion, or decompression plus stabilization. The primary outcome measure was the change in VAS for lower back pain with secondary outcomes including the modified JOA score, VAS for leg pain, VAS for leg numbness, eight SF-36 subscale scores, and occurrence of reoperation at the last follow-up.RESULTSAmong 85 patients who were randomized, 66 responded to the current survey. The mean follow-up period was 12.3 years. The VAS score for low back pain improvement was not significantly different between the decompression and fusion groups at the mean follow-up of 12.3 years. Of the 12 secondary outcomes, 8 showed no significant difference between decompression and fusion, 12 showed no significant difference between decompression and stabilization, and 10 showed no significant difference between fusion and stabilization.CONCLUSIONSAlthough additional instrumentation surgery did not significantly improve low back pain at the mean follow-up of 12.3 years compared with decompression alone, fusion surgery provided clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported vitality, social functioning, role limitations due to personal or emotional problems, and mental health compared with decompression alone.TRIAL REGISTRATIONUMIN000028114     

Factors influencing the long-term outcomes of instrumentation surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a post-hoc analysis of a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND CONTEXTLumbar spinal canal stenosis caused by degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is one of the most common indications for spinal surgery. However, the factors that influence its long-term (>10 years) outcomes remain unknown.DESIGNThis is a post-hoc analysis of a prospective randomized study.PURPOSEThis study aimed to determine factors that influence the long-term outcomes of instrumentation surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis due to degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.PATIENT SAMPLEPatients aged ≤75 years with single L4/5 level lumbar canal stenosis caused by degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis prospectively underwent instrumentation surgery at two hospitals between May 1, 2003, and April 30, 2012; the final follow-up examination was on May 20, 2021.OUTCOME MEASURESThe following data were collected: modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, JOA score recovery rate, visual analog scale (VAS) score for lower back and leg pain, and scores from eight short-form 36 (SF-36) subscales preoperatively and at the final follow-up examination.METHODSSpearman's correlation analysis and univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to examine preoperative factors that affect the JOA score recovery rate in patients who underwent instrumentation surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis at the L4/5 level due to degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.RESULTSA total of 42 patients who underwent instrumentation surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and had a long-term follow-up period were included. Of these, 25 and 17 underwent posterolateral fusion and Graf stabilization, respectively. The mean postoperative follow-up duration was 12.5 years. Spearman's correlation analysis revealed that the long-term recovery rate was correlated with the preoperative VAS score for low back pain. In the univariate regression analysis, sex, preoperative VAS score for low back pain, and the SF-36 general health score were significantly associated with the long-term recovery rate. Meanwhile, the multiple stepwise regression analysis identified the preoperative VAS score for low back pain as an independent predictor of the long-term recovery rate.CONCLUSIONSThis study identified the preoperative VAS score for low back pain as an independent predictor of the long-term recovery rate following instrumentation surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Therefore, when performing posterolateral fusion or Graf stabilization for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, attention should be paid to the intensity of preoperative low back pain and considerations should be given to whether these procedures can improve the patient's symptoms in the long term.     

两种手术方式治疗退变性腰椎滑脱症的疗效比较

[目的]对比椎弓根钉内固定联合单枚Cage斜形放置椎间植骨融合与椎弓根钉内固定后外侧融合治疗退变性腰椎滑脱的临床疗效。[方法]单节段退变性腰椎滑脱患者44例,按手术方式分为:Ⅰ组23例,行椎弓根器械复位固定后单枚Cage斜形放置的椎体间融合;Ⅱ组21例,行椎弓根器械复位固定后外侧融合。对两组术后JOA评分,腰腿痛VAS评分,影像学进行随访。[结果]随访15~36个月,两组间JOA评分、骨融合率无显著性差异(P>0.05);Ⅰ组在下腰痛缓解的VAS评分、Taillard指数、相对椎间隙高度的维持方面优于Ⅱ组(P<0.05)。[结论]单枚融合器附加椎弓根钉的椎间植骨融合是治疗退变性腰椎滑脱更为理想的方法。     

Posterior dynamic stabilization as an alternative for dorso-ventral fusion in spinal stenosis with degenerative instability

AIM: Our retrospective study analyzed the outcome of patients with degenerative lumbar instability with spinal stenosis, who underwent decompression surgery with dorsoventral fusion (Group I) and decompression surgery with posterior dynamic stabilization (Group II). METHOD: For 10 patients in each group intra- and postoperative data were obtained and the functional outcome was evaluated with the "Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire" (OQ) and the "Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire" (SF-36). The average follow up was 14.4 months in Group I, 15.2 months in Group II. RESULTS: In Group I the OQ averaged postoperatively 32 points (preoperatively 46 points), the "Physical Component Summary" (PCS) of SF-36 averaged 34 points (preoperatively 24 points), the "Mental Component Summary" (MCS) averaged 43 points (preoperatively 36). In Group II the values at follow up were as follows: OQ 33 points (preoperatively 54), PCS 34 points (preoperatively 28) and MCS 46 points (preoperatively 36). The average hospitalization was 28.4 days in Group I, 19.3 days in Group II and the average operation time was 218 minutes in Group I, 163 minutes in Group II. CONCLUSION: When compared the functional outcome, the dynamic stabilization seems to be a promising alternative to fusion in patients with degenerative lumbar instability with spinal stenosis.     

腰椎椎管狭窄症融合方式的选择

目的探讨不同融合方式治疗退行性腰椎椎管狭窄症(degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis,DLSS)的疗效差异。方法回顾分析38例DLSS患者资料,所有患者均行腰后路蝶形减压,椎弓根钉内固定。依据有无椎间融合分为A、B组。A组21例行椎间融合及后外侧融合;B组17例未行椎间融合仅行后外侧融合。术后平均随访2年,应用健康状况调查简表(MOS item short form health survey,SF-36),Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI),疼痛视觉模拟量表(visual analogue scale,VAS)量表评估2种不同融合方式的疗效差异。结果 SF-36评分显示38例腰椎手术疗效显著(P0.01),且2种融合方式疗效差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 2种融合方式治疗腰椎椎管狭窄症疗效无明显差异。     

Stabilising effect of dynamic interspinous spacers in degenerative low-grade lumbar instability

The aim of the study was to investigate the stabilising effect of dynamic interspinous spacers (IS) in combination with interlaminar decompression in degenerative low-grade lumbar instability with lumbar spinal stenosis and to compare its clinical effect to patients with lumbar spinal stenosis in stable segments treated by interlaminar decompression only. Fifty consecutive patients with a minimum age of 60 years were scheduled for interlaminar decompression for clinically and radiologically confirmed lumbar spinal stenosis. Twenty-two of these patients (group DS) with concomitant degenerative low-grade lumbar instability up to 5 mm translational slip were treated by interlaminar decompression and additional dynamic IS implantation. The control group (D) with lumbar spinal stenosis in stable segments included 28 patients and underwent only interlaminar decompression. The mean follow-up was 46 months in group D and 44 months in group DS. A visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and walking distance were evaluated pre- and postoperatively. The segmental instability was evaluated in flexion-extension X-rays. The implantation of an IS significantly reduced the lumbar instability on flexion-extension X-rays. At the time of follow-up walking distance, VAS and ODI showed a significant improvement in both groups, but no statistical significance between groups D and DS. Four patients each in groups D and DS had revision surgery during the period of evaluation. The stabilising effect of dynamic IS in combination with interlaminar decompression offers an opportunity for an effective treatment for degenerative low-grade lumbar instability with lumbar spinal stenosis.     

退变性腰椎管狭窄症的微创治疗策略顾广飞贺石生张海龙顾昕张立国丁悦

 目的 探讨退变性腰椎管狭窄症的微创治疗策略。方法 回顾性分析 2008年 3月至 2010年 8月采用微创手术治疗的 73例腰椎管狭窄症患者, 根据患者的临床、影像学表现及是否合并其它脊柱疾病进行分类, 对不同类型病变采取不同的微创手术方式, 分别统计手术时间、出血量、手术并发症及术前、术后 6个月和末次随访时日本矫形外科学会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association, JOA)评分及 Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index, ODI), 根据 JOA评价标准对手术疗效进行评价。结果 73例微创手术均顺利完成。 25例患者采用双侧减压方法, 48例患者采用单侧入路潜行双侧减压; 23例患者在减压的同时进行椎间融合加经皮内固定手术。手术时间、术中出血量与减压方式及是否行椎间融合内固定相关。术中硬膜囊撕裂 1例;1例骨质疏松患者行椎间融合时融合器打入上位椎体中, 取出融合器, 予椎体间植骨融合;术后出现切口愈合不良 3例, 考虑与术中微创可扩张通道撑开过紧有关, 予抗炎及换药后切口愈合。术后随访 10~35个月, 平均 13个月。患者术前及术后 6个月的 JOA评分和 ODI明显改善, 差异有统计学意义(P< 0.01)。 23例行椎间融合及内固定患者, 22例患者获得满意融合, 无螺钉断裂及松动发生。结论 微创手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症疗效肯定, 但应根据腰椎管狭窄症患者的临床、影像学表现、合并疾患及术者的临床经验和医院的具体条件来选择合适的手术方式。     

后路腰椎间融合治疗腰椎管狭窄症患者腰痛的疗效分析

[目的]分析腰椎管狭窄症患者腰痛的原因,探讨后路腰椎间融合术对腰椎管狭窄症腰痛的治疗效果.[方法]比较腰痛明显的腰椎管狭窄症患者和典型间歇性跛行症状的腰椎管狭窄症患者的年龄、术前腰椎失稳、生理前凸消失和退变性侧弯的发生率;分析后路腰椎间融合 (posterior lumbar interbody fusion, PLIF) 治疗腰椎管狭窄症患者下腰痛的随访结果.[结果]腰痛明显组的腰椎管狭窄症患者的平均年龄、腰椎节段性失稳率、腰椎前凸消失和退变性侧弯的比率高于间歇性跛行组的腰椎管狭窄症患者.PLIF术后腰痛症状明显减轻,JOA评分改善,退变性侧弯程度减轻,腰椎前凸恢复,椎间均达到骨性融合.[结论]PLIF可消除腰椎管狭窄症的多种腰痛病因,是治疗腰椎管狭窄症下腰痛的较好术式选择.