颈椎前路减压人工颈椎间盘置换术与融合术治疗单节段颈椎间盘突出症的短期疗效比较

背景：颈前路椎间盘切除植骨融合术（ACDF）能够为有症状的颈椎病患者提供较好的治疗效果,但颈椎融合可导致相邻节段椎间盘内部应力增加,加速邻近节段椎间盘的退变。颈椎人工椎间盘置换术（ACDR）作为最具代表性的颈椎前路非融合技术,为颈椎间盘突出症的治疗提供了另外一种外科手段。目的：比较ACDR和ACDF治疗单节段颈椎间盘突出症的临床效果。方法：2009年1月至2012年2月,61例单节段颈椎间盘突出症患者接受Discover人工颈椎间盘置换手术（置换组,26例）或ACDF手术（融合组,35例）。分别在术前,术后1周,术后3、6、12及24个月对患者进行疼痛视觉模拟评分（VAS）、日本矫形外科协会（JOA）评分及影像学评估,同时记录患者并发症及二次手术情况。结果：最终,52例患者（融合组29例,置换组23例）获得平均15.3个月（12-24个月）随访。两组患者术后各随访时间点的颈痛、上肢痛VAS和JOA评分,较术前均有改善（P〈0.05）,但两组间无显著统计学差异（P〉0.05）。置换组术后手术节段及邻近节段屈伸活动度与术前比较无统计学差异（P〉0.05）。融合组融合成功率为90.5%。置换组中2例患者术后6个月时假体有〈3 mm的前移,l例术后发生脑脊液漏。融合组中1例患者发生邻椎病并接受二次手术治疗。结论：单节段Discover人工颈椎间盘置换术和ACDF均可明显缓解颈椎间盘突出症患者的症状。间盘置换还能减少手术邻近节段代偿活动度的增加,有望预防相邻节段退变的发生。     

Discover颈人工椎间盘置换术联合颈椎前路减压融合术治疗颈椎病的临床疗效

目的探讨分析Discover颈人工椎间盘置换术联合颈椎前路减压融合术的临床疗效。方法选择我院96例患者,将其随机均分为两组,实验组行Discover颈人工椎间盘置换术联和颈椎前路减压融合术治疗;对照组行颈椎前路减压融合术治疗,比较患者术后颈椎活动度、平均住院时间、术后颈椎固定时间、恢复正常活动时间以及患者临床疗效,并进行统计学分析。结果实验组患者术后颈椎平均活动度（44.6±4.7）°,明显高于对照组的（27.4±4.9）°,且P〈0.05,差异具有统计学意义;实验组患者的平均住院时间、术后固定时间、恢复正常活动时间均短于对照组患者,且差异明显（P〈0.05）;实验组总有效率为97.9%,明显高于对照组的87.5%,且P〈0.05,差异有统计学意义。结论 Discover颈人工椎间盘置换术联和颈椎前路减压融合术可以缩短平均住院时间、患者颈椎固定时间及恢复健康的时间,并可保证术后颈椎活动度在正常水平,增加了临床疗效。     

颈椎间盘置换术与颈前路椎间融合术治疗双节段颈椎间盘退变性疾病疗效的Meta分析

目的 :系统评价颈椎间盘置换术(TDR)与颈前路椎间盘切除椎间植骨融合术(ACDF)治疗相邻两个节段颈椎间盘退变性疾病的疗效。方法:检索Pubmed、Medline、Embase等数据库,筛选应用两种手术方式治疗相邻两个节段颈椎间盘退变性疾病的前瞻性临床对照研究;各研究中观察组术式为TDR(TDR组),对照组术式为ACDF(ACDF组);两组病例数均不少于10例;随访时间均不少于2年;术后疗效评价指标至少包括以下指标中的一项:颈痛及上肢痛VAS评分(VAS),颈部功能障碍指数(NDI),健康调查简表SF-36评分(SF-36),术后不良事件(AE)等指标。采用Doowns-Black评分及NOS评分评价纳入研究的质量。结果:共纳入5篇英文文献,2篇为随机对照研究(RCT),3篇为前瞻性队列研究,研究质量Doowns-Black评分均在18分及以上,NOS评价前瞻性队列研究质量均为6星。共纳入593例患者,其中TDR组314例,ACDF组279例。经Meta分析合并效应指标,末次随访时颈痛VAS评分标准化均数差(SMD)及不良事件发生相对危险度(RR)两组比较无显著性差异(P0.05);TDR组上肢痛VAS评分、NDI评分、邻近上节段和下节段屈伸ROM、邻近节段退变低于ACDF组(P0.05),SF36-PCS躯体健康评分及手术节段屈伸ROM SMD高于ACDF组(P0.05)。结论 :相邻两个节段颈椎间盘退变性疾病行TDR的疗效较ACDF具有优势,安全性较高,但需要更多大样本随机对照研究以及更长时间的随访结果来验证。     

Discover颈人工椎间盘置换术治疗颈椎病的临床研究

目的:比较分析Discover颈人工椎间盘置换术和颈椎前路减压融合术治疗颈椎病的临床疗效.方法:回顾分析2009年4月～2010年5月手术治疗的101例颈椎病患者,所有患者按照手术方法的不同分为人工椎间盘置换和椎间融合两组.其中人工椎间盘置换组46例(男27例,女19例,年龄46.2±10.3岁)采用Discover颈人工椎间盘置换术治疗.椎间融合组55例(男32例,女23例,年龄44.8±11.4岁)采用颈椎前路减压融合术治疗,分别对两组患者术前和末次随防时疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)、颈椎功能障碍指数(neck disability index,NDI)、术后症状改善优良率以及C2～C7的Cobb角(C2-C7角)、手术节段脊柱功能单位Cobb角(FSU角)、手术相邻节段活动度等影像学指标进行观察分析,评价患者的颈椎功能改善情况,并进行两组间的对比分析.结果:椎间融合组手术时间为149.3±51.7min,术中出血量为213.5±42.6ml;人工椎间盘组手术时间为132.5±44.1min,术中出血量为173.2±56.4ml,两组间比较无统计学差异(P＞0.05).人工椎间盘组和椎间融合组随访时间分别为24.2±3.2个月和25.6±2.9个月.随访期间两组均未发现假体或植骨松动及移位,无内固定松动及断裂.两组患者术后神经功能均有显著恢复,疼痛症状明显改善,椎间融合组VAS及NDI评分末次随访时分别较术前下降了65.1％和63.7％,人工椎间盘组分别下降了67.1％和63.6％,两组之间比较无统计学差异(P＞0.05).末次随访时椎间融合组C2-C7角和FSU角较术前分别下降了28.1％和68.8％,手术相邻上节段和下节段活动度较术前分别上升了21.3％和28.4％,差异有显著性(P＜0.05);人工椎间盘组C2-C7角、FSU角较术前分别上升了7.7％和11.2％,手术相邻上节段及下节段活动度较术前分别上升了5.5％及9.3％,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05). C2-C7角、FSU角和手术相邻节段活动度术后改变两组间比较有统计学差异(P＜0.05).人工椎间盘组和椎间融合组术后症状改善优良率分别为91.3％和87.3％,两组间比较无统计学差异(P＞0.05).结论:采用Discover颈人工椎间盘置换术治疗颈椎病能够取得和颈椎前路减压融合术相近的临床疗效,同时手术节段运动功能得到了保留,手术相邻节段的活动度并无增加,可作为颈椎病的有效治疗方法.     

Comparison of cervical kinematics between patients with cervical artificial disc replacement and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for cervical disc herniation

Background contextAlthough anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is an effective treatment option for patients with cervical disc herniation, it limits cervical range of motion, which sometimes causes discomfort and leads to biomechanical stress at neighboring segments. In contrast, cervical artificial disc replacement (ADR) is supposed to preserve normal cervical range of motion than ACDF. A biomechanical measurement is necessary to identify the advantages and clinical implications of ADR. However, literature is scarce about this topic and in those available studies, authors used the static radiological method, which cannot identify three-dimensional motion and coupled movement during motion of one axis.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the clinical parameters and cervical motion by three-dimensional motion analysis between ACDF and ADR and to investigate the ability of ADR to maintain cervical kinematics.Study designThis was a prospective case control study.Patient samplePatients who underwent ADR or ACDF for the treatment of single-level cervical disc herniation.Outcome measuresVisual analog scale (VAS), Korean version of Neck Disability Index (NDI, %), and three-dimensional motion analysis were used.MethodsThe patients were evaluated by VAS and the Korean version of the NDI (%) to assess pain degree and functional status. Cervical motions were assessed by three-dimensional motion analysis in terms of sagittal, coronal, and horizontal planes. Markers of 2.5 cm in diameter were attached at frontal polar (Fpz), center (Cz), and occipital (Oz) of 10–20 system of electroencephalography, C7 spinous process, and both acromions. These evaluations were performed preoperatively and 1 month and 6 months after surgery.ResultsThe ACDF and ADR groups revealed no significant difference in VAS, NDI (%), and cervical range of motion preoperatively. After surgery, both groups showed no significant difference in VAS and NDI (%). In motion analysis, significantly more range of motion was retained in flexion and extension in the ADR group than the ACDF group at 1 month and 6 months. There was no significant difference in lateral tilt and rotation angle. In terms of coupled motion, ADR group exhibited significantly more preserved sagittal plane motion during right and left rotation and also showed significantly more preserved right lateral bending angle during right rotation than ACDF group at 1 month and 6 months. There was no significant difference in other coupled motions.ConclusionThree-dimensional motion analysis could provide useful information in an objective and quantitative way about cervical motion after surgery. In addition, it allowed us to measure not only main motion but also coupled motion in three planes. ADR demonstrated better retained cervical motion mainly in sagittal plane (flexion and extension) and better preserved coupled sagittal and coronal motion during transverse plane motion than ACDF. ADR had the advantage in that it had the ability to preserve more cervical motions after surgery than ACDF.     

单节段Discover人工颈椎间盘置换术与颈前路减压融合术治疗颈椎病的长期疗效对比

【摘要】 目的：比较单节段Discover人工颈椎间盘置换术（artificial cervical disc replacement,ACDR）与颈前路椎间盘切除减压融合术（anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF）治疗颈椎病的长期临床疗效。方法：回顾性分析2009年1月～2011年12月在西京医院行单节段ACDR和ACDF治疗的颈椎病患者的临床资料。ACDR组（n=21例）男性15例,女性6例,年龄33~58岁（44.0±7.5岁）;采用Discover假体,C4/5 2例,C5/6 17例,C6/7 2例。ACDF组（n=25例）男性20例,女性5例,年龄33~63岁（48.2±8.5岁）;C3/4 1例,C4/5 3例, C5/6 18例,C6/7 3例。采用日本矫形外科学会（Japanese Orthopedic Association,JOA）评分法、疼痛视觉模拟评分法（visual analogue scale,VAS）和颈椎功能障碍指数（neck disability index,NDI）对两组患者术前/术后3个月、1年、2年、5年及末次随访时的神经功能和临床疗效进行评估;利用X线、CT及MRI影像学资料测量和评估ACDR组手术节段活动度（range of motion,ROM）、末次随访时的异位骨化（heterotopic ossification,HO）以及末次随访时两组患者手术邻近节段退变（adjacent segment degeneration,ASD）情况,并进行统计学分析。结果：ACDR组随访时间138.9±12.0个月,ACDF组随访时间136.9±10.8个月,两组无统计学差异（P>0.05）。两组患者术后各随访时间点JOA评分、上肢痛VAS评分、颈痛VAS评分和NDI均较术前显著性改善,与同组术前比较均有统计学差异（P<0.05）,末次随访与术后2年比较均无统计学差异（P>0.05）;两组同时间点比较均无统计学差异（P>0.05）。ACDR组术后3个月、1年、2年时手术节段ROM与术前比较显著性增加（P<0.05）,术后5年和末次随访时与术前比较均无统计学差异（P>0.05）。ACDR组末次随访时13例（61.9%）手术节段发生HO,其中McAfee分级Ⅰ级1例,Ⅱ级3例,Ⅲ级6例,Ⅳ级3例。ACDR组17个（40.5%）邻近节段发生退变,ACDF组34个（68.0%）邻近节段发生退变,两组ASD发生率有统计学差异（P<0.05）。末次随访时ACDR组无二次手术患者,ACDF组2例因ASD导致二次手术。两组二次手术率有统计学差异（0 vs 8%,P<0.05）。结论：与ACDF术式相比,单节段ACDR治疗颈椎病能够获得一致的、良好的长期临床疗效,并在减少ASD发生方面具有优势。然而,随时间延长ACDR手术节段HO发生率较高,造成手术节段活动度降低。     

颈椎人工椎间盘置换术与颈椎前路减压融合术治疗双节段颈椎病的Meta分析

目的:系统评价前路颈椎人工椎间盘置换术(anterior cervical artificial disc replacement,ACDR)与前路颈椎减压融合术(anterior cervical decompression and fusion,ACDF)治疗双节段颈椎病的有效性与安全性。方法:计算机检索2016年5月1日以前Pub Med、Embase、Medline、Cochrane图书馆、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)、万方数据库(Wanfang Database)、维普中文科技期刊数据库(VIP)关于应用ACDR与ACDF治疗双节段颈椎病的随机对照试验(randomized control Ied trials,RCT)及队列研究(cohort study)的文献,纳入文献的方法学质量采用改良Jadad量表及MINORS量表评价,提取各研究中术后24个月、48个月、60个月时的颈部功能障碍指数(NDI)评分、颈痛VAS评分、上肢痛VAS评分、SF-36评分、神经功能改善率、邻近节段椎间盘退变、再手术率、不良事件、患者满意度数据,并将这些研究的数据通过Review Manager 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入9篇文献、2570例患者,随访时间24~60个月,ACDR组1601例,ACDF组969例。纳入文献改良Jadad评4分3篇,3分4篇;MINORS评分18分2篇。Meta分析结果显示:术后24个月、48个月、60个月随访时,ACDR组的NDI[SMD=0.52;95%CI:(0.43,0.62),P0.00001]、颈痛VAS[SMD=0.19;95%CI:(0.10,0.29),P0.0001]、上肢痛VAS[SMD=0.15;95%CI:(0.06,0.25),P=0.002]、SF-36生理健康评分(PCS)[SMD=0.35;95%CI:(0.25,0.44),P0.00001]改善均优于ACDF组;神经功能改善率[RR=1.01;95%CI:(0.97,1.05),P=0.54]两组比较无统计学差异;两组上位椎间盘退变[RR=0.43;95%CI:(0.37,0.51),P0.00001]、下位椎间盘退变[RR=0.35;95%CI:(0.19,0.66),P=0.001]、再手术率[RR=0.30;95%CI:(0.23,0.40),P0.00001]、不良事件发生率[RR=0.72;95%CI:(0.58,0.89),P=0.003]、满意度[RR=1.08;95%CI:(1.04,1.11),P0.0001]比较差异均有统计学意义,ACDR组均优于ACDF组。结论:ACDR和ACDF治疗双节段颈椎病在改善神经功能方面一致,但在提高患者术后生活质量、减少手术相关并发症方面,前者优于后者。     

颈椎人工间盘置换与前路减压融合术治疗单节段颈椎间盘突出症的疗效

目的:探讨Mobi-C颈椎人工间盘置换(cervical artificial disc replacement,CADR)与传统颈椎前路减压融合术(anterior cervical decompression and fusion,ACDF)治疗颈椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法:对2009年6月至2012年6月收治的27例单节段颈椎间盘突出症患者进行回顾性分析,男18例,女9例,年龄30~62岁,平均46.7岁。其中12例采用CADR治疗(CADR组),15例采用ACDF治疗(ACDF组)。所有患者有颈肩部及上肢疼痛麻木,病程1~13个月,平均2.4个月。术前、术后1周、末次随访时均进行全面的临床评价和生活质量问卷调查。应用Odom标准评价术后疗效,采用视觉模拟疼痛量表(VAS)记录疼痛级别,用颈椎功能障碍指数(NDI)和健康状况调查问卷SF-36对患者生活质量进行综合评定。结果:27例患者无神经血管并发症发生,均获得随访,平均随访时间16个月(6~30个月)。术后1周CADR组优10例,良2例,ACDF组优5例,良10例,两组疗效差异有统计学意义(χ2=6.75,P=0.019);末次随访时CADR组优10例,良2例,ACDF组优12例,良3例,两组疗效差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.049,P=1.000)。术后1周及末次随访时两组患者的上肢VAS评分均明显缓解(P<0.05)。术后1周:CADR组颈部VAS评分由术前的3.58±0.79下降至0.58±0.51(P<0.05),NDI指数由术前的(23.42±6.36)分下降至(5.42±1.68)分(P<0.05),而ACDF组下降不明显。末次随访时:两组患者的颈部VAS评分、NDI指数及SF-36生活质量与术前比较均有明显改善(P<0.05)。结论:Mobi-C CADR保留了减压节段的运动,允许患者迅速恢复正常的活动,术后早期即可显示明显疗效,且疗效稳定维持,患者的生活质量明显提高。     

Bryan颈椎间盘置换术与颈前路减压椎间融合术术后疗效的系统评价

目的:收集并分析SCI收录的关于Bryan颈椎间盘置换术与颈前路减压椎间融合术(anterior cervicaldiseectomy and fusion,ACDF)术后疗效比较的文献,对Bryan颈椎间盘置换术和ACDF术后疗效进行系统评价.方法:检索Pubmed、Medline、Embase、Ovid、Cochrane Library等数据库.入选文献均为临床研究;各研究的干预组(治疗组)术式为Bryan颈椎间盘置换术,对照组术式为ACDF;治疗组和对照组例数均不小于10;术后疗效评价包括颈部功能残障指数(neck disability index,NDI),相应节段运动范围(range of motion,ROM)等常见指标.结果:共4篇文献符合纳入标准.纳入人数共588人,干预组303例,对照组285例;术后2年内NDI合并权重均差(weiishted meBJl difference,WMD)为-0.39(95%CI,-1.56-0.78),P>0.05.术后2年内相应颈椎节段运动范围(ROM)合并WMD值为8.95(95%CI,7.01～10.89),P<0.05.结论:Bryan间盘置换术在术后2年内保留颈椎节段活动方面优于ACDF,尚没有足够证据表明Bryan间盘置换术术后2年内NDI优于ACDF.     

Differences between arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion in two-level cervical degenerative disc disease

Purpose

Although arthroplasty is an accepted option for two-level disease, there is a paucity of data regarding outcomes of two-level cervical arthroplasty. The current study was designed to determine differences between two-level cervical arthroplasty and anterior fusion.

Methods

Seventy-seven consecutive patients who underwent two-level anterior cervical operations for degenerative disc disease were divided into the arthroplasty (37 patients) and fusion (40 patients) groups. Clinical outcomes were measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of neck and arm pain, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, and Neck Disability Index (NDI). Every patient was evaluated by radiography and computed tomography for fusion or detection of heterotopic ossification.

Results

Thirty-seven patients (with 74 levels of Bryan discs) were compared with 40 patients who had two-level anterior fusion (mean follow-up of 39.6 ± 6.7 months). There was no difference in sex, but the mean age of the arthroplasty group was significantly younger (52.1 ± 9.1 vs. 63.0 ± 10.6 years, p < 0.001). The mean estimated blood loss was similar (p = 0.135), but the mean operation time was longer in the arthroplasty group (315.5 ± 82.0 versus 224.9 ± 61.8 min, p < 0.001). At 24 months post-operation, the arthroplasty group had increased their range of motion than pre-operation (23.5° versus 20.1°, p = 0.018). There were significant improvements in neck or arm VAS, JOA scores, and NDI in both groups. However, there were no differences in clinical outcomes or adverse events between the two groups.

Conclusions

Clinical outcomes of two-level arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion are similar 39.6 months after surgery. Cervical arthroplasty preserves mobility at the index levels without increased adverse effects.     

颈椎人工椎间盘置换与椎间盘切除融合术后邻近节段退变比较研究的Meta分析

目的 :通过Meta分析系统评价颈椎人工间盘置换术(cervical total disc replacement,TDR)与颈前路椎间盘切除融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)对邻近节段退变(adjacent segment degeneration,ASDeg)、邻近节段病(adjacent segment disease,ASDis)发生的影响。方法 :根据Cochrane系统评价指南,通过Pub Med、Medline、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)和万方数据库(Wanfang Database)检索2002年1月~2016年6月之间关于TDR和ACDF术后出现ASDeg、ASDis的随机对照试验(randomized controlled trials,RCTs),由两名研究人员独立筛选文章。纳入文献的方法学质量和偏倚风险通过Cochrane系统评价指南进行评价,提取数据包括ASDeg、ASDis以及再手术率的相关信息,研究结果以ASDeg和ASDis的发生作为直接结果,以邻近节段再手术率作为间接结果评估邻近节段病变的发生,并根据随访时间和研究地点分层进行亚组分析,最终对整篇Meta分析通过证据质量分级和推荐强度系统(the grades of recommendation,assessment,development and evaluation,GRADE)进行质量评估。结果 :共纳入了11篇RCTs,包括2632名研究对象。对于整体的ASD(包括直接和间接结果),TDR的发生率明显低于ACDF(OR=0.6;95%CI[0.38,0.73];P0.00001),差异有统计学意义。ASDeg和再手术率方面,TDR相对于ACDF具有明显优势(分别为OR=0.58,95%CI[0.46,0.72],P0.00001和OR=0.52,95%CI[0.30,0.87],P=0.01)。以随访时间5年为分界点,不论随访5年还是≥5年,在ASDeg发生率上,TDR的优势都比ACDF显著(分别为OR=0.63,P=0.001;OR=0.49,P=0.0002),并且这种优势可能随时间延长有扩大趋势。以研究地点分层,不论在美国(7篇RCTs)还是中国(4篇RCTs),TDR在邻近节段退变(ASDeg)发生率上均有优势(P0.0001,P=0.03)。根据GRADE评分,该Meta分析的质量级别为中等质量。结论:与ACDF相比,TDR在降低ASDeg和再手术率方面具有优势。     

A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease

Lumbar fusion has been developed for several decades and became the standard surgical treatment for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). Artificial total disc replacement (TDR), as an alternative for spinal arthrodesis, is becoming more commonly employed treating lumbar DDD. It is still uncertain whether TDR is more effective and safer than lumbar fusion. To systematically compare the effectiveness and safety of TDR to that of the fusion for the treatment of lumbar DDD, we performed a meta-analysis. Cochrane review methods were used to analyze all relevant randomized controlled trials published up to July 2009. Five relevant randomized controlled trials involving 837 patients were identified. Patients in TDR group have sightly better functioning and less back or leg pain without clinical significance, and significantly higher satisfaction status in TDR group compared with lumbar fusion group at the 2-year follow-up. But these outcomes are highly influenced by the study with BAK cage interbody fusion, the function/pain and patient satisfaction status are no longer significantly different between two groups after excluding this study. At 5 years, these outcomes are not significantly different between comparing groups. The complication and reoperation rate of two groups are similar both at 2 and at 5 years. In conclusion, TDR does not show significant superiority for the treatment of lumbar DDD compared with fusion. The benefits of motion preservation and the long-term complications are still unable to be concluded. More high-quality RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed.     

人工颈椎间盘置换对邻近节段椎间盘的保护作用

[目的]探讨Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换治疗颈椎病和颈椎间盘突出症的临床疗效及对邻近节段椎间盘的保护作用。[方法]回顾分析2004年以来本科收治的254例颈椎病及颈椎间盘突出症患者。117例施行了Bryan人工椎间盘置换术,其中男性55例,女性62例;年龄33~65岁,平均46.6岁,89例行单节段人工椎间盘置换术,6例行双节段人工椎间盘置换术,22例行1节段人工椎间盘置换术和1节段椎间盘切除植骨融合术。137例行颈椎前路减压融合术,其中男性74例,女性63例;年龄29~81岁,平均47.8岁。术后评定患者神经功能恢复情况,测量邻近节段活动度的大小,并进行邻近节段颈椎间盘退变情况的X线评估。[结果]两组患者术后随访时间为6~60个月,平均26.4个月。两组患者术后神经功能均有明显改善,JOA评分平均较术前提高5.6分,平均改善率为62.9%,有效率为100%,两组间无统计学差异(P0.05)。测量邻近节段椎间隙活动度的结果显示融合组较非融合组变化明显,具有统计学意义(P0.05)。椎间盘退变的X线评估结果显示,融合组邻近节段颈椎间盘退变的发生率和严重程度明显高于非融合组,具有统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换治疗颈椎病和颈椎间盘突出症具有良好的疗效,较传统前路减压融合术,可以较好发挥其对邻近节段椎间盘的保护作用。     

颈椎间盘置换与颈前路减压植骨融合治疗单节段颈椎病中期疗效的Meta分析

【摘要】 目的：通过和颈前路减压植骨融合（ACDF）术对比,评价颈椎间盘置换（cervical disc arthroplasty,CDA）治疗单节段颈椎病的中期疗效。方法：计算机检索2013年10月1日以前PubMed、Medline、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、中国生物医学文献数据库（CBM）、中国期刊全文数据库（CNKI）、维普中文科技期刊数据库（VIP）和万方数据库中关于CDA与ACDF比较治疗单节段颈椎病的随机对照试验（randomized controlled trials,RCT）且随访时间≥4年的文献,纳入文献的方法学质量采用改良Jadad量表评价,提取各研究中的术后末次随访时颈部功能障碍指数（neck disability index,NDI）、SF-36评分、颈痛和上肢痛VAS评分、神经功能改善率、手术节段活动度、手术节段和邻近节段再手术率、术后总并发症发生率等指标,并将这些研究的数据通过Review Manager 5.2软件进行Meta分析与综合。结果：共纳入7篇文献、1622例患者,随访时间4~5年,CDA组826例,ACDF组796例。7篇纳入文献的方法学质量评分为4~6分,其中4分2篇,5分3篇,6分2篇。Meta分析结果显示：CDA与ACDF比较,术后中期（术后4~5年）的神经功能改善率[相对危险度（RR）=1.04,95%CI（1.00,1.09）,P=0.07]、颈痛VAS评分[标准化均数差（SMD）=-0.12,95%CI（-0.27,0.04）,P=0.13] 和总并发症发生率[RR=1.06,95%CI（0.57,1.96）,P=0.86]差异无统计学意义。与ACDF比较,CDA术后中期SF-36评分较优[SMD=0.24,95%CI（0.08,0.39）,P=0.003]、手术节段活动度较大[SMD=7.38,95%CI（5.87,8.89）,P<0.00001]、NDI较低[SMD=-0.26,95%CI（-0.40,-0.13）,P=0.0002]、上肢痛VAS评分较低[SMD=-0.17,95%CI（-0.33,0.02）,P=0.03]、手术节段再手术率较低[（RR=0.48,95%CI（0.31,0.75）,P=0.001]、邻近节段再手术率较低[RR=0.60,95%CI（0.37,0.98）,P=0.04]。结论：CDA治疗单节段颈椎病的中期疗效优于ACDF。     

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with a new prosthesis

Background contextAnterior cervical discectomy and interbody fusion was a classical treatment for cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). However, the rigid fusion also leads to a reduction in normal cervical spine motion and to increased biomechanical stress at adjacent levels, which in turn accelerates degenerative changes of the discs at these levels. Cervical disc replacement (CDR) is a new technology with the aim of addressing the limitations of fusion procession and preserving motion at the treated level. Discover prosthesis (DePuy Spine, Raynham, MA, USA) is a new type artificial disc and there are few reports about it.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to analyze the primary clinical and radiographic outcomes of CDR with Discover prosthesis to treat mono- or bi-segment CDDD in a Chinese population.Study designThe study design was prospective and single-center clinical trial of the Discover prosthesis in the treatment of patients with mono- or bi-segment CDDD.Patients sampleSeventy-nine patients with 102 Discover prosthesis arthroplasty performed (56 mono-segment and 23 bi-segment) were evaluated.Outcome measuresClinical outcomes based on Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and Odom's scale and radiographic outcomes including the anterior disc heights (ADH), posterior disc heights (PDH), range of motion, and performance of heterotopic ossification (HO) of the operative segment were assessed.MethodsClinical and radiographic follow-up was performed. Preoperative and postoperative ADH, PDH, and range of motion were measured from lateral and flexion-extension radiographs. The paired t test was used to assess the difference of clinical and radiographic outcomes before and after operation. The performance of HO was observed by two independent MD.ResultsThe mean follow-up time for all the patients was 31.6 months, ranging from 24 to 43 months. Mean preoperative JOA score was 9.5, and VAS overall pain score was 7.2. At 2-, 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up, the mean JOA score was 14.1, 14.7, 15.3, and 14.9, whereas the mean VAS overall pain score was 1.9, 1.7, 1.8, and 1.4, respectively. Mean JOA and VAS scores showed statistical improvements in the postoperative period. Seven patients had mild dysphagia within the first month after operation. According to Odom's scale, 52 patients had excellent outcomes, 25 patients had good outcomes, and 2 patients had fair outcomes at 2-year follow-up. The Mean preoperative ADH and PDH of the operative segment were 4.9 mm and 3.1 mm. Compared with preoperative, there were significantly increased and maintenance well at 2- (7.5 mm, 5.1 mm), 6- (7.5 mm, 5.0 mm), 12- (7.4 mm, 4.9 mm) and 24-month (7.2 mm, 5.0 mm) follow-up. Range of motion of the operative segment in the postoperative follow-up was slightly increased than the preoperative follow-up but not statistically significant. Heterotopic ossification was presented in six replaced levels at 1-year follow-up including 4 Grade I and 2 Grade II and 18 replaced levels at the follow-up more than 2 years including 8 grade I and 10 grade II. No prosthesis subsidence or excursion was identified.ConclusionsThe use of Discover prostheses in our study resulted in satisfactory clinical and radiographic outcomes. The prostheses can restore and maintain interbody height, while preserve the motion of the treated segment. Although the results of this study demonstrate initial safety and effectiveness in a Chinese population, we need further studies to know more about the impact of CDR with Discover prosthesis, especially on HO and adjacent segment degeneration.     

双插片自稳式融合器治疗颈椎间盘突出症的疗效观察

目的评价颈前路减压双插片自稳式融合器(ROI-C)植骨融合治疗颈椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2011-10—2014-09采用颈前路减压ROI-C植骨融合治疗的34例颈椎间盘突出症,统计手术时间、术中出血量、并发症,测量术前术后颈椎曲度、病变节段椎间隙高度,并以植骨融合率、NDI指数、JOA评分、Odom标准评价临床疗效。结果本组随访时间14~31个月,平均21.6个月。单节段手术时间75~100 min,平均88 min。双节段手术时间105~125 min,平均113 min。术中出血量70~310 ml,平均195 ml。术后1例出现声音嘶哑,2例出现轻度吞咽困难,无切口感染。术后6个月,所有患者均获得骨性融合。末次随访时NDI指数(t=14.530,P0.001)、JOA评分(t=7.100,P=0.000 1)、椎间隙高度(t=3.620,P=0.000 4)及颈椎曲度(t=7.690,P0.001)均较术前明显改善,差异有统计学意义(P0.01)。末次随访时采用Odom标准评定疗效:优24例,良7例,可3例,优良率91.2%。结论颈前路减压ROC-I植骨融合治疗颈椎间盘突出症是一种创伤小和有效的手术方法,具有并发症少、疗效好的优点。     

The 5-year cost-effectiveness of two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion or cervical disc replacement: a Markov analysis

Background Context

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc replacement (CDR) are both acceptable surgical options for the treatment of cervical myelopathy and radiculopathy. To date, there are limited economic analyses assessing the relative cost-effectiveness of two-level ACDF versus CDR.