微创与开放经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合翻修术的临床疗效比较

目的:比较微创(minimally invasive,MIS)与开放(Open)腰椎经椎间孔椎体间融合术(transforaminallumbar interbody fusion,TLIF)进行单节段腰椎翻修术的安全性和有效性..方法:2009年1月～2011年12月行单节段腰椎翻修手术患者45例,其中21例患者采用MIS-TLIF手术,24例患者采用常规开放TLIF手术(Open-TLIF).两组患者术前一般资料无显著性差异(P＞0.05),比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后下地时间和术后平均住院日,并分别于术前1d、术后5d及术后3、6个月和1年随访时采用腰痛和腿痛疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scores,VAS)、Oswestry腰椎功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)评价治疗效果.根据术后1年腰椎X线片和CT平扫+三维重建评价腰椎融合情况.结果:MIS-TLIF组术中出血量、术后下地活动时间和术后平均住院日均明显优于Open-TLIF组(P＜0.05),而手术时间MIS-TLIF组长于Open-TLIF 组(P＜0.05).两组均有2例患者硬膜撕裂.术后3、6个月和1年两组腰、腿痛VAS评分和ODI与术前比较均有显著改善(P＜0.05),除术后5d腰痛VAS评分MIS-TLIF组优于Open-TLIF组(P＜0.05)外,术后3、6个月和1年VAS评分和ODI两组间比较无显著性差异(P＞0.05).术后1年随访,MIS-TLIF组融合率为66.7％,OpenTLIF组为62.5％,两组比较无显著性差异(P＞0.05).结论:进行单节段腰椎翻修手术时,采用MIS-TLIF可以获得与Open-TLIF相似的安全、有效的治疗结果,并且具有创伤小、出血少、恢复快的优点.     

经通道下改良微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)治疗腰椎间盘突出症疗效观察

目的探讨经通道下改良微创TLIF与非通道下传统TLIF治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床效果。方法 50例单节段腰椎间盘突出症伴节段不稳患者中,24例采用经通道下改良微创TLIF(改良微创组),26例采用传统TLIF(对照组),比较2组的术中出血量、术后引流量、手术时间、住院时间、住院费用、术前及术后腰、腿痛VAS评分、JOA评分及改善率。结果 50例均获随访,时间6~12个月,末次随访时2组VAS和JOA评分较术前均明显改善,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。微创组术中出血量、术后引流量、住院时间、末次随访时腰痛VAS评分、JOA评分及改善率等方面均优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论经通道下改良微创TLIF与非通道下传统TLIF治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症均可取得满意的临床疗效,前者具有创伤小、出血少、住院时间短、术后残留腰痛少、恢复快等优点。     

直视下微创与切开进行单节段经椎间孔腰椎融合术的临床效果比较

[目的]观察直视下微创(minimally invasive,MIS)采用普通椎弓根螺钉完成单节段经椎间孔腰椎融合(transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF)的临床结果.[方法]2007～2009年期间26例患者直视下进行单节段腰椎MIS - TLIF手术,45例患者采用Open - TLIF进行单节段腰椎手术,均采用普通椎弓根螺钉内固定,比较两组临床效果.[结果]MIS组术中出血量、术后引流量、下地活动时间和平均住院日均明显低于Open组,术后5 d MIS组腰痛VAS评分优于Open组,而两组腿痛VAS、ODI评分和融合率无显著差异.[结论]直视下MIS与Open两组同样具有长期优良的临床治疗结果,但是MIS组的手术出血量、术后引流量、下地活动时间、术后住院时间和术后短期腰痛均优于Open组.     

微创与开放经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术治疗单节段腰椎退变性疾病疗效比较

目的比较微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术(TLIF)与开放TLIF治疗治疗单节段腰椎退变性疾病的临床疗效。方法根据手术方式将97例单节段腰椎退变性疾病患者分为微创组(MAST Quadrant通道下行微创TLIF,51例)和开放组(行开放TLIF,46例)。比较两组患者手术时间、失血量、输血量、术后腰痛VAS评分、住院时间、卧床时间、并发症;采用ODI评估术后功能;比较术前术后影像学结果。结果 97例均获得随访,微创组随访时间28~78(48.7±21.8)个月,开放组随访时间27~76(48.6±19.7)个月。手术时间:微创组(148.8±24.2)min,开放组(191.7±37.6)min(P0.001);失血量:微创组(482.8±274.8)ml,开放组(787.9±264.3)ml(P0.001);输血量:微创组(379.3±81.6)ml,开放组(619.8±237.6)ml(P0.001);卧床时间:微创组(1.3±0.8)d,开放组(3.1±1.6)d(P0.001);住院时间:微创组(4.8±1.7)d,开放组(11.2±3.1)d(P0.001);末次随访时腰痛VAS评分:微创组(1.9±0.8)分,开放组(2.7±1.2)分(P0.001);末次随访时ODI:微创组(22.8±9.7)%,开放组(22.5±11.6)%(P0.05);螺钉位置不良率:微创组3.4%,开放组2.2%(P0.05);Cage移位率:微创组3.9%,开放组2.2%(P0.05);椎间隙高度丢失值:微创组(1.3±0.6)mm,开放组(1.5±0.7)mm(P0.05);椎间融合率:微创组94.1%,开放组95.7%(P0.05)。结论微创TLIF与开放TLIF治疗单节段腰椎退变性疾病均可获得满意的临床疗效,但前者具有创伤小、卧床及住院时间短、残留腰疼轻等优点。     

微创TLIF单侧置钉与传统TLIF双侧置钉的前瞻性对比研究

目的比较微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF)单侧置钉与传统TLIF双侧置钉治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效。方法 2014年6月至2015年12月,我院收治腰椎退行性疾病患者79例,分为单侧固定组和双侧固定组。单侧固定组接受微创TLIF联合单侧椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗,共36例;双侧固定组接受传统TLIF联合双侧椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗,共43例。记录并比较两组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间,采集并比较两组患者术前、术后腰痛、下肢痛疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)及Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)评分。结果两组患者均顺利接受手术,单侧固定组较双侧固定组手术时间更短,术中出血量更少,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05);两组患者术后住院时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。两组患者随访12~30个月。术前两组患者腰痛、下肢痛VAS评分及ODI评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。末次随访时两组患者腰痛、下肢痛VAS评分及ODI评分均较术前明显降低,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);两组间比较,腰痛、下肢痛VAS评分及ODI评分差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论本试验显示微创TLIF单侧置钉与传统TLIF双侧置钉相比,能够取得与后者类似的临床疗效,但能明显降低手术时间及术中出血量。     

微创与开放经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症的疗效比较

目的比较微创与后路开放经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法将68例复发性腰椎间盘突出症患者按照随机数字表法分为两组,分别采用微创TLIF联合椎弓根螺钉内固定手术治疗(微创组,34例)与后路开放TLIF联合椎弓根螺钉内固定手术治疗(开放组,34例)。比较两组手术情况、JOA评分、疼痛VAS评分、并发症及术后融合情况。结果两组患者均获得随访,时间12～24个月。术中出血量、术后引流量、术后住院时间微创组均少(短)于开放组(P 0. 001)。术后2周及3、6、12个月,两组JOA评分均较术前显著升高、VAS评分均较术前显著降低(P 0. 05);微创组术后2周JOA评分高于开放组、VAS评分低于开放组(P 0. 001),其他时间点两组比较差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05)。两组并发症及术后12个月Bridwell融合分级的融合率比较差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05)。结论微创TLIF治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症较开放TLIF创伤小,术后恢复快,短期疗效好。     

显微镜辅助微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗单节段腰椎滑脱症

目的 探讨显微镜辅助经Quadrant通道结合经皮椎弓根钉固定行微创小切口经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术（MIS-TLIF)治疗单节段腰椎退行性滑脱症的疗效。方法 回顾性分析2018年4月至2021年3月行椎体间融合术治疗单节段腰椎退行性滑脱症患者的临床资料,其中采用开放经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(TLIF)治疗患者41例(开放组),经Wiltse入路Quadrant通道直视下TLIF治疗患者25例(微创组),显微镜下减压并采用经皮椎弓根钉TLIF治疗患者38例(显微组)。记录3组患者手术时间、术中出血量、X线透视次数、引流量、术后2天和7天切口周围疼痛视觉模拟评分（VAS）、并发症情况,术后CT检查评估椎弓根钉置钉准确率,记录术前及术后6个月、24个月日本骨科协会（JOA）评分和Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）,末次随访时采用改良MacNab标准评价临床疗效。结果 所有手术均顺利完成。显微组术中出血量、引流量、术后2天和7天切口周围疼痛VAS评分均小于微创组和开放组（P<0.05）,椎弓根钉置钉准确率高于微创组和开放组（P<0.05）,但术中X线透视次数高于微创组和开放组（P&...     

传统和微创经椎间孔椎体间融合术临床效果对比

[目的]探讨和对比微创下经椎间孔椎体间融合术(MIS-TLIF)与传统TLIF治疗椎间盘突出症伴腰椎不稳的临床疗效。[方法]回顾性分析2013年5月～2016年1月行MIS-TLIF和TLIF手术的单节段椎间盘突出症伴腰椎不稳的65例患者,其中MIS-TLIF 20例、TLIF45例,比较两组患者手术时间、出血量、术中辐射量、住院时间和平均费用。对比术后并发症,临床效果及术后融合率。[结果] MIS-TLIF组手术时间及射线暴露时间明显长于TLIF组(P0.05),出血量明显少于TLIF组(P0.05);住院时间明显短于TLIF组(P0.05);耗材费用明显高于TLIF组(P0.05),但非耗材费用明显低于TLIF组(P0.05)。MIS-TLIF组2例椎弓根螺钉不佳,但无神经症状未做特殊处理。TLIF组3例切口感染,1例脑脊液漏并发颅内感染。术后两组疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)和Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)较术前明显改善,但相同时间点两组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。末次随访时,根据Bridwell腰椎融合评价标准,MIS-TLIF组和TLIF组融合率分别为85.00%和91.11%,差异无统计学意义。(P0.05)[结论] MIS-TLIF治疗单节段椎间盘突出症伴腰椎不稳可以达到传统TLIF治疗相同的临床效果,具有创伤小,出血少,术后并发症少,术后花费少等优点,但术中时间和辐射量大,内置物费用高。     

显微镜辅助下微创与开放经椎间孔腰椎间融合术治疗单节段腰椎退行性疾病的疗效比较

背景:微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(MIS-TLIF)与开放经椎间孔腰椎间融合术(TLIF)是目前临床上治疗单节段腰椎退行性疾病的两种主要方法。如何既有效减压、可靠融合及固定,又能减少损伤及并发症的发生是临床追求的目标。目的:比较显微镜辅助下MIS-TLIF与TLIF治疗单节段腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效。方法:回顾性分析2015年8月至2016年10月收治的单节段腰椎退行性疾病患者60例。其中32例采用显微镜辅助下MIS-TLIF治疗(MIS-TLIF组),28例采用TLIF治疗(TLIF组)。记录并比较两组患者手术时间、术中失血量、术后引流量和住院时间,并观察术后并发症发生情况。术前,术后3 d,术后3、12、36个月记录两组患者疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、日本骨科协会评估治疗评分(JOA)及Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI),并进行比较。末次随访时根据MacNab标准评价疗效。术后3个月及末次随访时采用Suk标准评价腰椎融合情况。结果:两组患者均顺利完成手术,未出现硬膜破裂、神经根损伤、切口感染、融合器移位、下沉、内固定松动等并发症。所有患者均获得随访,随访时间36~42个月,平均随访(38.3±1.4)个月。与TLIF组患者相比,MIS-TLIF组患者手术时间更长,术中出血量、术后引流量均更少,住院时间更短,且差异均有统计学意义(P<0.001)。MIS-TLIF组、TLIF组患者术后各时间点腰痛及腿痛VAS评分、ODI指数均低于,JOA评分均高于术前,且差异均有统计学意义(P<0.001)。术后3 d MIS-TLIF组患者腰痛及腿痛VAS评分、ODI指数均低于,JOA评分高于开放TLIF组患者,且差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);而术后3、12、36个月,两组患者疼痛VAS评分、JOA评分及ODI指数差异均无统计学意义。末次随访时两组患者优良率及椎间融合情况差异均无统计学意义。结论:与TLIF相比,显微镜辅助下MIS-TLIF具有术中出血少、创伤小、术后康复快、临床疗效确切等优势。     

微创与开放经椎间孔椎间融合术治疗腰椎不稳的疗效比较

目的评价Quadrant通道下经椎间孔椎间融合术(微创TLIF)与开放经椎间孔椎间融合术(开放TLIF)两种手术方式治疗退变性腰椎不稳的临床效果。方法将53例腰椎不稳症患者分别采用开放TLIF(34例)和微创TLIF(19例)治疗,比较两组的手术时间、术中失血量、术中透视时间、术后并发症以及ODI、VAS评分等指标。结果 2例失访,51例获得随访,时间3~12个月。术中失血量、并发症发生率:微创TLIF组均少于开放TLIF组(P0.05);手术时间与术中透视时间:微创TLIF组均长于开放TLIF组(P0.05);腰背痛VAS评分:微创TLIF组术后2周、12个月时低于开放TLIF组(P0.05),术后3个月时两组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。ODI评分:术后2周、3个月、12个月两组比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。两组在术后12个月随访时均未发生植骨不融合。结论微创TLIF是治疗腰椎不稳症的有效方法。     

Speculum lumbar extraforaminal microdiscectomy

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Public interest, monetary pressures and improving diagnostic techniques have placed an increasing emphasis on minimalism in lumbar disc excision. Current techniques include microlumbar discectomy and minimally invasive spinal surgery. Both are good techniques but may be painful, require a hospital stay and/or are not widely used because of difficulty acquiring the necessary skills. The author therefore developed a less invasive microscopic technique that may be performed on a consistent outpatient basis with easily acquired skills. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe a variant of minimally invasive lumbar disc excision, while assessing the effects on a small group of patients. STUDY DESIGN: The treatment protocol was a prospective community hospital-based case study designed to evaluate a less invasive method of excising herniated lumbar discs residing in the canal, foraminal or far lateral space. PATIENT SAMPLE: This study is comprised of 50 patients with all anatomic forms of lumbar disc herniations, inside or outside the canal, at all levels except the lumbosacral joint. OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical results were measured by return to work time, the criteria of MacNab and by Prolo et al.'s economic and functional criteria. METHODS: Selection criteria included adult patients with intractable low back and leg pain, plus an imaging study revealing a lumbar disc herniation consistent with the patient's clinical presentation. Mean patient age was 48 years. The male:female ratio was approximately 2:1. All patients failed at least 3 weeks of conservative therapy. Herniations occurred from the L2-3 space through L4-5, with 30 herniations being within and 20 outside the spinal canal. Both contained and extruded/sequestered herniations were treated. Excluded from the study were patients with herniations inside the spinal canal at the L5-S1 level. Surgical approach was by microscopic speculum transforaminal route for discs residing both within and outside the lumbar canal. RESULTS: The initial 50 consecutive patients had successful technical operations performed on an outpatient basis by this less invasive technique. By the criteria of MacNab (Table 3), 84% (42 of 50) had an excellent or good result, returning to work at a mean time of 3.5 weeks. Per Prolo et al.'s economic scale, 72% were disabled at levels I and II before surgery. Postoperatively, 92% had improved to levels IV and V. Similarly, on his functional scale, 94% functioned at levels I and II before surgery, whereas 88% achieved levels IV and V after surgery. Eighty percent required no pain medications 1 week after surgery. The only complication was an L3 minor nerve root injury as it exited the L3-4 foramen. CONCLUSION: The author has described a minimally invasive technique for excising herniated discs that is applicable to all types of lumbar herniations, except for those residing in the canal at L5-S1. Clinical outcomes are comparable to those of other forms of discectomy.     

Vascular complications of lumbar disc surgery

Summary Over a period of seven years nine patients with vascular complications after lumber discectomy received medical care at the Clinic of Vascular Surgery, University of Graz Medical School. We report five acute bleeding complications occurring during the operation and four late manifestations of vascular lesions.Five patients presented with acute life-threatening iatrogenic haemorrhages from pelvic vessels. Three patients made a complete recovery, one patient died from acute haemorrhagic shock, one further patient died from sepsis due to an associated complication — an injury to the ureter.Over a period of two to ten years after primary surgery we corrected late complications such as 1 case of posttraumatic aneurysm of the aortic bifurcation found to have eroded the body of the fifth lumbar vertebra, and three cases of arteriovenous fistula between the common iliac artery and the common iliac vein.The four cases described below are an attempt to document the vascular surgical procedures involved and to provide typical findings.The risk of injuring the pelvic vessels intra-operatively can be explained by the close anatomical relation between the retroperitoneal vessels and the vertebral column and furthermore not only by the fact that pre-existent deficiencies but also injury to the anterior longitudinal ligament give access to the retroperitoneal space.     

经皮椎间孔内窥镜下靶向穿刺椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症

目的:探讨经皮椎间孔内窥镜下靶向穿刺椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的安全性及有效性。方法:选择2009年10月~2012年3月收治的237例单节段腰椎间盘突出症患者,男144例,女93例;平均年龄44.8岁,均存在明显腰腿痛,并经CT及MRI检查证实为单节段腰椎间盘突出。在局麻及影像学监视下行靶向穿刺,逐级扩张软组织,切除部分上关节突腹侧缘,安放工作通道,经皮椎间孔内窥镜下完成髓核摘除术。采用视觉模拟评分法(VAS评分)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)、MacNab评分等评定疗效。结果:平均手术时间53min,平均出血量20ml,无1例手术并发症发生,术后3h即可在硬腰围保护下下床活动。212例随访12～24个月,平均15.5个月,术前VAS评分为7.8±3.6分,术后12个月为1.8±1.1分,手术前后有显著性差异(P0.01);术前ODI为(53.2±13.5)%,术后12个月为(17.3±6.4)%,手术前后有显著性差异(P0.01);术后12个月MacNab评分优167例,良36例,中9例,优良率为95.8%。5例患者术后7~20个月复发,复发率为2.4%,均行后路内窥镜下椎间盘切除翻修术后恢复。结论:经皮椎间孔内窥镜下靶向穿刺椎间盘切除术是治疗腰椎间盘突出症安全、有效的微创手段。     

Micro- or macrodiscotomy for open lumbar disc surgery?

Summary Though many conservative and intradiscal therapies for lumbar dise herniation have been developed, open disc surgery is still necessary. To prevent postoperative epidural scar formation, which is responsible for postdiscotomy syndrome (failed back syndrome), a small approach is recommended. Microdiscotomy requires special instrumentation and training for the surgeon, otherwise problems occur such as exploration at the wrong level and dural tears. Surgeons should always use the procedure they are familiar with.     

腰椎滑脱术后失败病例后路再手术的疗效

目的:探讨个体化腰椎后入路手术治疗腰椎滑脱术后失败病例的疗效。方法:回顾分析2004年1月至2007年11月再手术治疗的12例腰椎滑脱术后失败病例的临床资料,单纯腰椎不稳2例,单纯腰椎管狭窄1例,腰椎不稳伴腰椎管狭窄4例,腰椎间盘突出1例,明显植骨未融合4例;内置物失败包括椎弓根内固定松动5例,椎弓根螺钉断裂3例(其中2例合并椎间融合器突入椎管),单纯椎间融合器突入椎管1例。再手术时采用双侧椎弓根螺钉系统内固定加双侧cage椎体间植骨融合术5例,双侧椎弓根螺钉系统内固定加单枚cage椎体间植骨融合术3例,单侧椎弓根螺钉系统内固定加单侧cage椎体间植骨融合术2例,单纯椎板间开窗减压术1例,另1例更换cage椎体间融合,而保留原有的椎弓根内固定系统。对所有患者进行定期随访,通过影像学检查与Oswestry功能障碍指数综合评价再手术的疗效。结果:所有患者均顺利完成手术,术中1例硬膜囊撕裂,术后发生脑脊液漏,经抬高床脚,术后5d脑脊液漏愈合,无脊髓神经损伤等严重并发症发生。随访1.5～4年,平均2.7年。椎间植骨均达骨性融合,椎间融合器无移位;未见椎弓根螺钉固定系统松动或断裂;腰椎滑脱无加重或复发。Oswestry功能障碍指数末次随访时为21.9%±3.0%,与术前81.8%±2.5%比较,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:腰椎滑脱术后失败因素复杂,应根据具体病因个体化选择手术方法,后路手术是治疗这类疾病的有效方法之一。     

Retroperitoneoscopic tension-free repair of lumbar hernia

Lumbar hernia is an infrequent pathology that is difficult to treat through open surgery. A 65-year-old man presented with a right-sided lumbar mass responsible for pain. This was a fatty mass of 10×15 cm, located in the lumbar fossa. A CT scan showed the hernia and the defect. Through a small incision in the flank, dissection was initiated with one finger; a 10-mm trocar was inserted into this incision and the retroperitoneal space inflated. Under direct vision, dissection of retroperitoneal fat was undertaken with the scope. A 5-mm trocar was inserted beyond the 11^th rib. Fat in the lumbar hernia was reintegrated into the retroperitoneal space, allowing the lumbar wall defect to be seen. A polypropylene mesh was applied and stapled onto the lumbar wall to widely cover the defect. Under trans-abdominoretroperitoneal laparoscopy, lateral peritoneum, colon, and ureter are detached to explore the lumbar wall and are reinserted at the end of the procedure. Under retroperitoneoscopy, even if the space is small, retroperitoneal fat is easily detached at a distance from the colon and ureter. The defect is covered with a polypropylene mesh. It is covered with an ePTFE mesh if the retroperitoneal space cannot be closed. Surgery and follow-up were uneventful with no recurrence in this case or in the published cases. Retroperitoneoscopy and trans-abdominoretroperitoneal laparoscopy are two easy approaches for a tension-free repair of lumbar hernia.     

微创经椎间孔减压腰椎融合内固定术与传统后路开放手术治疗腰椎退变性疾病的疗效比较

目的:比较Quadrant通道辅助下微创经椎间孔减压腰椎融合内固定术与传统后路开放手术治疗腰椎退变性疾病的临床效果.方法:2008年3月～2010年6月,选择经保守治疗无效的单一节段腰椎退变性疾病的患者80例,随机分为两组,每组40例,两组患者年龄、性别、体重、临床诊断与手术节段差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),分别进行Quadrant通道辅助下微创经椎间孔减压腰椎融合内固定术与传统后路开放手术.随访24～36个月,平均29个月,比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、住院时间、血清肌酸磷酸激酶、MRI-T2驰豫时间、VAS评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)及融合率等.结果:两组手术时间(141.0±27.3min与139.5±33.7min)无统计学差异(P＞0.05).微创手术组的术中出血量、术后引流量分别为268.0±122.2ml和25.6±32.4ml,明显少于传统开放手术组的370.0±147.1ml和277.8±167.4ml (P＜0.05);术后住院时间为7.3±3.2d,短于传统开放手术组的9.5±2.7d(P＜0.05).每组患者术后1个月、24个月时的VAS评分与ODI与术前比较均有明显改善(P＜0.05),术后1个月时微创手术组腰、腿痛VAS评分优于传统开放手术组(P＜0.05),术后24个月时腰、腿痛VAS评分及术后1个月、24个月时ODI两组比较均无统计学差异(P＞0.05).肌酸磷酸激酶在术后1、3、5d时明显升高(P＜0.05),术后1d达到高峰,7d时基本恢复正常,并在术后1、3d时微创手术组明显低于传统开放手术组(P＜0.05).术后3个月时手术节段多裂肌的T2驰豫时间微创手术组明显低于传统开放手术组(P＜0.05).术后6个月及24个月随访时两组融合率无统计学差异(P＞0.05).结论:Quadrant通道辅助下微创经椎间孔减压腰椎融合内固定术与传统开放手术治疗单节段腰椎退变性疾病均可取得较好的近期疗效,但前者肌肉和软组织损伤小,有助于早期功能恢复.     

开窗法治疗多节段腰椎管狭窄症

目的探讨开窗法治疗多节段腰椎管狭窄症的疗效。方法根据临床定位和影像学检查确定减压节段及部位,先行椎板间开窗,切除同侧黄韧带,啃刮对侧椎板下黄韧带,从而扩大椎管。探查神经根,根据其受压情况,去除致压物,尽量保留骨质结构。结果治疗21例,17例得到随访,时间10～36个月。按Otanietal分级:优9例,良5例,可2例,差1例。结论应用开窗法治疗多节段腰椎管狭窄症可获得良好疗效。     

Complications in lumbar spine surgery: A retrospective analysis

Background:

Surgical treatment of adult lumbar spinal disorders is associated with a substantial risk of intraoperative and perioperative complications. There is no clearly defined medical literature on complication in lumbar spine surgery. Purpose of the study is to retrospectively evaluate intraoperative and perioperative complications who underwent various lumbar surgical procedures and to study the possible predisposing role of advanced age in increasing this rate.

Materials and Methods:

From 2007 to 2011 the number and type of complications were recorded and both univariate, (considering the patients’ age) and a multivariate statistical analysis was conducted in order to establish a possible predisposing role. 133 were lumbar disc hernia treated with microdiscetomy, 88 were lumbar stenosis, treated in 36 cases with only decompression, 52 with decompression and instrumentation with a maximum of 2 levels. 26 patients showed a lumbar fracture treated with percutaneous or open screw fixation. 12 showed a scoliotic or kyphotic deformity treated with decompression, fusion and osteotomies with a maximum of 7.3 levels of fusion (range 5-14). 70 were spondylolisthesis treated with 1 or more level of fusion. In 34 cases a fusion till S1 was performed.

Results:

Of the 338 patients who underwent surgery, 55 showed one or more complications. Type of surgical treatment (P = 0.004), open surgical approach (open P = 0.001) and operative time (P = 0.001) increased the relative risk (RR) of complication occurrence of 2.3, 3.8 and 5.1 respectively. Major complications are more often seen in complex surgical treatment for severe deformities, in revision surgery and in anterior approaches with an occurrence of 58.3%. Age greater than 65 years, despite an increased RR of perioperative complications (1.5), does not represent a predisposing risk factor to complications (P = 0.006).

Conclusion:

Surgical decision-making and exclusion of patients is not justified only by due to age. A systematic preoperative evaluation should always be performed in order to stratify risks and to guide decision-making for obtaining the best possible clinical results at lower risk, even for elderly patients.