椎弓根螺钉内固定加椎体植骨治疗腰椎不稳

目的评价椎弓根螺钉内固定加椎体后外侧植骨融合在治疗腰椎不稳症的临床疗效。方法对65例腰椎不稳症患者通过椎弓根螺钉内固定加椎体后外侧植骨融合治疗，评价临床效果。结果术后随访24个月，65例患者原有的临床症状大部分消失，优良率达90．80%。57例达到骨性融合标准，融合率达87．7％，8例融合欠佳，但原症状明显改善，无1例断钉退钉现象。结论椎弓根螺钉内固定加椎体后外侧植骨融合，可使不稳节段达到即刻稳定，骨性融合率高，手术操作简单，临床疗效好，是治疗腰椎不稳症较好的方法。     

后路减压植骨融合3D脊柱内固定系统治疗腰椎滑脱症

[目的]观察3D脊柱内固定系统对腰椎滑脱症的固定及治疗效果。[方法]2004年1月～2005年7月,对42例腰椎滑脱症患者(其中,男28例,女14例)运用椎板减压、椎管后外侧植骨融合、3D椎弓根螺钉内固定系统治疗,随访13～32个月(平均25.3个月)。[结果]术前JOA评分平均4.48分的42例患者,随访时14.5分(P<0.01),术后15个月内动态X线检查显示3D椎弓根螺钉固定患者植骨融合率100%,融合节段稳定,临床症状改善优良率92.8%。[结论]后路运用3D内固定系统行椎管后外侧植骨融合内固定对腰椎滑脱症患者是一种安全、有效的术式,近期疗效满意。     

GSS系统内固定联合植骨治疗腰椎滑脱症

目的探讨后路应用通用型脊柱内固定系统(general seine system,GSS)复位固定、减压、椎体间及后外侧植骨融合治疗腰椎滑脱症临床效果。方法对42例腰椎滑脱症行后路椎管减压,应用GSS椎弓根系统对滑脱椎体进行复位固定,椎体间和后外侧植骨融合。结果随访6～48个月,临床优良率88．1％,6～12个月复查X线片均显示椎体间骨性融合。结论GSS椎弓根螺钉系统能有效撑开提拉滑脱椎体,复位满意,固定力强,并为彻底减压提供有效空间。采用椎体间联合后外侧植骨能有效提高植骨融合率。     

椎弓根内固定器在腰椎退行性狭窄及不稳治疗中的应用价值

目的　观察腰椎椎板减压、椎管后外侧植骨融合、使用椎弓根内固定器治疗腰椎退行性狭窄及不稳的临床价值。方法　从 1997年 4月～ 2 0 0 2年 4月 ,对 4 4例实施椎板减压同时作小关节突及横突间植骨、椎弓根螺钉系统固定。腰椎间盘突出症17例 ,腰椎管腔狭窄症 12例 ,退行性脊椎滑脱 10例 ,腰椎不稳症 3例 ,下腰椎二次手术 2例。结果　术后平均随访 2 3个月(3～ 6 2个月 ) ,共植入 2 0 0枚螺钉 ,螺钉断裂 1枚松动 2枚 ,无神经损伤及螺钉安置不当需二次手术的病例 ,未发现假关节及骨不愈合 ,临床优良率 97 7%。结论　使用椎弓根内固定器及椎管后外侧植骨手术创伤小、并发症少 ,国产钛合金RF ,DRFS具有价格低廉、疗效满意的优点     

后路减压植骨融合RF内固定治疗腰椎滑脱症

目的探讨后路应用RF椎弓根螺钉复位固定、减压、椎体间及后外侧植骨融合治疗腰椎滑脱症的疗效。方法对31例腰椎滑脱症患者行后路椎管减压,RF椎弓根螺钉系统复位固定,椎体间及后外侧植骨融合。结果随访1～3年,临床优良率为90．3％,腰椎滑脱复位率为93．5％,6～12个月X线片均显示椎体问骨性融合。结论RF椎弓根螺钉复位固定、减压、椎体间及后外侧植骨融合是治疗腰椎滑脱症的有效方法。     

手术治疗退变性腰椎不稳症85例分析

目的:探讨退变性腰椎不稳症的手术适应证及疗效。方法:2000年4月~2002年6月手术治疗并获得1年以上随访的退变性腰椎不稳症患者85例,手术方式包括:椎弓根固定 后外侧植骨32例(A组);椎弓根固定 椎管探查减压 椎间植骨31例(B组);椎弓根固定 椎管探查减压 椎间融合器(cage)固定22例(C组)。结果:根据影像学检查,三组植骨融合率分别为78.1%、83.9%、95.5%;按0~9分法评分,优良率分别为81.3%、86.8%、90.9%。结论:椎弓根螺钉固定可使不稳节段达到即刻稳定,提高植骨融合率和手术疗效;应根据腰椎退变及硬膜囊神经根受压的程度选择合适的融合术式;cage的应用为融合术提供了新的方法。     

椎弓根螺钉复位内固定、椎间植骨融合治疗腰椎滑脱症

目的探讨椎弓根螺钉复位内固定、椎间植骨融合治疗腰椎滑脱症的疗效。方法对42例腰椎滑脱症患者采用椎弓根螺钉复位内固定、椎间植骨融合术,通过随访进行疗效评定。结果42例随访6-40个月,参照海涌等临床疗效评估标准：优23例,良14例,可5例。所有患者椎体间植骨均融合良好,复位无丢失。内固定未见松动、断裂。结论椎弓根螺钉复位内固定、椎间植骨融合术治疗腰椎滑脱症,临床效果满意,植骨融合率高,是一种治疗腰椎滑脱症较为理想的术式。     

USS复位固定、椎体间及后外侧植骨融合治疗腰椎滑脱症

目的:探讨应用USS(universalspinesystem)椎弓根螺钉复位固定、椎体间及后外侧植骨融合治疗腰椎滑脱症的疗效。方法:对45例腰椎滑脱患者行椎管减压,用USS椎弓根螺钉系统对滑脱椎体进行复位固定,利用减压时切下的松质骨碎块或取髂骨通过椎间盘后方进行椎体间和后外侧植骨融合。结果:随访6~38个月,所有患者的腰腿痛等临床症状缓解,腰椎滑脱复位率95%。术后4~6个月复查X线片显示45例达到椎体间骨性愈合。其中1例单侧固定螺钉松动,经腰部支具制动3个月后达骨性愈合,3例复位有Ⅰ度丢失。结论:USS椎弓根螺钉系统复位固定力强;能有效撑开提拉滑脱椎体,操作简便。采用椎体间及后外侧植骨可有效提高植骨融合成功率,增强术后融合节段腰椎的稳定性。     

椎弓根钉复位固定植骨治疗腰椎滑脱症疗效观察

目的观察椎弓根钉复位固定同时植骨治疗腰椎滑脱症的疗效。方法采用腰椎后侧入路椎管减压,椎弓根钉复位固定,后外侧融合20例和后路360°融合16例治疗。结果36例患者术后随访12月-48月(平均24月),临床疗效优良率为91.7%,融合成功率为94.4%。结论椎弓根螺钉内固定同时植骨融合是治疗腰椎滑脱的理想手术方法。     

退变性腰椎侧凸合并腰椎管狭窄的手术治疗

目的 探讨应用腰椎管减压,椎弓根螺钉系统固定加后外侧植骨融合,治疗退变性腰椎侧凸伴腰椎管狭窄的疗效.方法 25例退变性腰椎侧凸伴腰椎管狭窄的患者采用椎管减压、椎弓根螺钉系统内固定和后外侧植骨融合的方法治疗.观察手术疗效,同时探讨退变性腰椎侧凸伴退变性狭窄的病因.对减压和固定融合范围,融合方式等进行了探索.结果 术后随访12～30个月(平均16个月),植骨融合率100%,临床疗效采用Otani评定标准,优良率为92%.无神经并发症,无内固定断裂,松动.结论 采用腰椎管彻底减压,相应节段椎弓根螺钉钉棒系统固定加后外侧植骨融合是治疗退变性腰椎侧凸伴椎管狭窄的安全有效的方法.     

经前路椎间融合器治疗腰椎失稳症

目的:探讨经前路应用椎间融合器(cage)治疗腰椎失稳症的适应证、技术要点及效果。方法:选择21例经临床诊断存在严重腰痛的患者实施前路椎间盘摘除和cage置入椎间融合术,并进行术前和术后影像学评价及JOA评分。结果:所有患者术后即时X线片显示手术节段椎间隙增宽、根管扩大、脊柱生理曲度恢复,腰腿痛症状缓解或消失。随访6~24个月(平均18.6个月),动态X线检查显示融合节段稳定,JOA评分从术前平均9.5分提高到术后23.5分(P<0.01)。结论:前路应用cage行椎间融合固定术具有提供生物力学稳定性和恢复脊柱生理平衡的优势,是治疗腰椎失稳症的一种安全、有效的手术方式。     

通用型脊柱椎弓根内固定系统治疗腰椎滑脱的临床研究

目的 观察自行研制的通用型脊柱内固定系统用于退行性腰椎滑脱患者手术治疗的疗效。方法 16例退行性腰椎滑脱合并椎管狭窄的患者,均接受了通用型脊柱内固定系统手术治疗。其中男10例,女6例。平均年龄58．5岁(42～72岁)。术前Ⅰ度滑脱10例,Ⅱ度滑脱6例,术后定期随访记录患者的症状改善、滑脱复位程度及并发症等情况。结果 16例患者术后平均随访21．2个月(18～24个月),术后即刻及末次随访时X线摄片显示滑脱腰椎均完全复位,于末次随访时15例患者术前临床症状均消失,滑脱复位满意且无丢失,后外侧植骨融合术后及随访过程中未发现与植入物或手术相关的并发症。结论 初步结果显示,通用型脊柱内固定系统用于腰椎滑脱的手术治疗可获得满意的滑椎复位效果和良好临床疗效。     

Retroperitoneal approach for lumbar interbody fusion with anterolateral instrumentation for treatment of spondylolisthesis and degenerative foraminal stenosis

BACKGROUND: An alternative approach for the treatment of the degenerative or unstable lumbar spine using retroperitoneal lateral LIF with anterolateral screw-plate or screw-rod fixation is introduced. Special attention is given to application of this procedure in patients who have undergone prior lumbar surgery. METHODS: Between 1998 and 2001, 14 patients underwent lateral LIF with anterolateral instrumentation to treat degenerative foraminal stenosis or spondylolisthesis. Eleven patients (79%) had undergone prior posterior lumbar surgery, 7 of whom were also fused at that time. All patients first presented with mechanical back pain, radicular pain, or both. The mean follow-up was 21 months (range, 8 to 36 months). RESULTS: Radicular pain and mechanical back pain significantly improved in 71% and 54% of patients, respectively. Of the 9 patients with preoperative neurological deficits, 7 were intact or had improved at their follow-up examination. One patient developed postoperative radiculopathy contralateral to his original symptoms. Radiography confirmed good positioning of the hardware and evidence of fusion in all 14 patients. No major complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Retroperitoneal lateral LIF with anterolateral instrumentation is an attractive alternative for the treatment of the degenerative or unstable lumbar spine in the absence of significant spinal stenosis. This approach is particularly useful for treating spondylolisthesis or degenerative foraminal stenosis in the postoperative lumbar spine.     

棘突间 CoflexTM 非融合固定的临床应用及疗效分析简

目的评价棘突间Coflex非融合固定治疗腰椎管狭窄症的临床效果及应用前景。方法对腰椎管狭窄症121例采用后路双侧椎板开窗减压,棘突间Coflex非融合固定手术。其中119例行单节段棘突间Coflex固定,2例行双节段棘突间Coflex固定。结果121例术后症状均得到明显改善,平均手术时间40．24min,平均失血量51．43ml;术前下腰椎JOA评分平均为13．62分,术后为25．06分;术前ODI评分平均为67．36％,术后为14．33％;术前腰痛VAS评分为7．89分,术后为2．01分：术前腿痛VAS疼痛评分平均为8．44分,术后为1．22分。结论应用双侧椎板开窗减压,棘突问Coflex非融合固定治疗腰椎管狭窄症具有良好的近期临床疗效。     

TLIF入路椎体间单枚融合器植骨结合椎弓根钉系统内固定治疗多节段腰椎管狭窄症并腰椎不稳

目的 评价经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术（TLIF）入路椎体间单枚融合器植骨结合椎弓根钉系统内固定治疗多节段腰椎管狭窄症并腰椎不稳的疗效。方法 自2007-01-2012-12采用TLIF入路椎管减压、GSS或SINO内固定装置复位内固定、椎体间混合植骨、单枚cage应用治疗31例多节段腰椎管狭窄症并腰椎不稳,分析术后症状、体征改善情况。结果31例获得0.5-5年,平均1.5年的随访。按侯树勋等制定的疗效评定标准评定疗效：优26例,良5例。按JOA下腰痛疾患疗效评定标准,改善率达90%-98%。结论 应用TLIF入路椎体间单枚融合器植骨结合椎弓根钉系统内固定治疗多节段腰椎管狭窄症并腰椎不稳具有减压彻底、微创植骨易融合、神经副损伤少等优点,是治疗多节段腰椎管狭窄症及腰椎不稳的理想方法。     

Randomized trial comparing interferential therapy with motorized lumbar traction and massage in the management of low back pain in a primary care setting.

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized trial designed to compare interferential therapy with motorized lumbar traction and massage management for low back pain in a primary care setting. OBJECTIVE: To measure and compare the outcome of interferential therapy and management by motorized lumbar traction and massage. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Management of low back pain by interferential therapy and motorized lumbar traction and massage is common in Germany. No reports of previous randomized trials for the outcome from interferential therapy were found. METHODS: Consenting patients were randomly assigned into one of two groups. A pretreatment interview was performed by the patient using a computer-based questionnaire. It also incorporated the Oswestry Disability Index and a pain visual analog scale. Management consisted of six sessions over a 2- to 3-week period. Oswestry Disability Indexes and pain visual analog scale scores also were obtained immediately after and at 3 months after treatment. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients were recruited. The two treatment groups had similar demographic and clinical baseline characteristics. The mean Oswestry Disability Index before treatment was 30 for both groups (n = 147). After treatment, this had dropped to 25, and, at 3 months, were 21 (interferential therapy) and 22 (motorized lumbar traction and massage). The mean pain visual analog scale score before treatment was 50 (interferential therapy) and 51 (motorized lumbar traction and massage). This had dropped, respectively, to 46 and 44 after treatment and to 42 and 39 at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a progressive fall in Oswestry Disability Index and pain visual analog scale scores in patients with low back pain treated with either-interferential therapy or motorized lumbar traction and massage. There was no difference in the improvement between the two groups at the end of treatment. Although there is evidence from several trials that traction alone is ineffective in the management of low back pain, this study could not exclude some effect from the concomitant massage.     

X线引导下棘突间封闭术诊治腰椎吻合棘的初步临床疗效评价

目的：评价在X线引导下棘突间封闭术治疗腰椎吻合棘（Baastrup病）所引起腰痛的临床疗效。方法：2011年11月至2013年3月收治的Baastrup病患者17例,男7例,女10例;年龄40～71岁,平均为49.6岁;病史2～5年,平均3.7年。17例患者均采用X线引导下棘突间封闭术进行诊治,在术前、术后2 d、3个月及末次随访时进行疼痛视觉模拟量表（visual analogue scale,VAS）评分和测量腰椎节段活动度范围（range of motion,ROM）评价其总体手术效果,并使用改良Macnab标准进行疗效评价。结果：所有患者获得随访,时间6～10个月,平均7.6个月。术前VAS评分为6.41±0.94,术后各时间段VAS评分均较术前明显改善（P<0.01）,术后各时间段VAS评分之间差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）.术前病椎节段ROM为（4.88±0.86）°,邻近节段为（6.82±0.73）°,术后各时间段病椎节段ROM较术前有明显改善（P<0.05）,邻近节段ROM较术前无明显改善（P>0.05）.按照改良Macnab标准,优6例,良7例,可3例,差1例。结论：X线引导下棘突间封闭术是诊治Baastrup病的有效方法,其操作简单,微创、安全,能有效减轻腰背疼痛,近中期疗效明确。     

The significance of high lumbar mobility and low lumbar strength for current and future low back pain in adolescents.

STUDY DESIGN: This study comprised a cross-sectional part and a prospective part. OBJECTIVE: To study whether low lumbar extension strength, high lumbar mobility, and high mobility-extension strength ratios are related to current and future low back pain in adolescents. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Knowledge is sparse about the significance of lumbar mobility and strength for low back pain in adolescents. METHODS: The study population included all the adolescents in the eighth and ninth grades of a rural municipality (n = 44) and in an urban area (n = 61) during the 1996-1997 school year. At baseline, 88 adolescents (mean age, 14.7 years) participated in the study, giving a response rate of 84%. Low back pain was assessed by questionnaire as pain or discomfort in the low back during the preceding year. Sagittal lumbar mobility was tested by Schober's modified technique, and lumbar strength as static endurance extension strength. The follow-up part was conducted 3 years later, which included 98% of the adolescents. RESULTS: By bivariate and multivariate analyses in the cross-sectional part of the study, low back pain was found to be highly associated with low lumbar extension strength (P = 0.004-0.02), and high lumbar mobility-extension strength ratios (P = 0.005-0.04). Baseline low lumbar extension strength and high lumbar sagittal mobility-extension strength ratios (P = 0.03 and P = 0.02, respectively) predicted low back pain at follow-up assessment in multivariate analyses when control was used for gender, previous low back pain, physical activity, and well-being. No associations were found between plain sagittal mobility and low back pain. CONCLUSION: The study findings support theories suggesting insufficient strength and stability in the low back as important factors for both concurrent and future low back pain in adolescents.     

A clinical prediction rule for classifying patients with low back pain who demonstrate short-term improvement with mechanical lumbar traction

The objective of the study was to develop a clinical prediction rule for identifying patients with low back pain, who improved with mechanical lumbar traction. A prospective, cohort study was conducted in a physiotherapy clinic at a local hospital. Patients with low back pain, referred to physiotherapy were included in the study. The intervention was a standardized mechanical lumbar traction program, which comprised three sessions provided within 9 days. Patient demographic information, standard physical examination, numeric pain scale, fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire and Oswestry low back pain disability index (pre- and post-intervention) were recorded. A total of 129 patients participated in the study and 25 had positive response to the mechanical lumbar traction. A clinical prediction rule with four variables (non-involvement of manual work, low level fear-avoidance beliefs, no neurological deficit and age above 30 years) was identified. The presence of all four variables (positive likelihood ratio = 9.36) increased the probability of response rate with mechanical lumbar traction from 19.4 to 69.2%. It appears that patients with low back pain who were likely to respond to mechanical lumbar traction may be identified.     

Lumbar disc surgery: results of the Prospective Lumbar Discectomy Study of the Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons

The Prospective Lumbar Discectomy Study enrolled 740 patients in a multiphysician, multicenter, consecutive patient protocol to evaluate the indications and efficacy of lumbar discectomy. Five hundred and thirteen patients could be evaluated at 3 months after surgery. Stepwise logistic regression showed that the factors of fraction of pain referred to the back, work-related injury, absence of back pain on straight leg-raise examination, correspondence of leg pain to typical radicular patterns, leg pain on straight leg-raise examination, and reflex asymmetry were independently predictive of good outcome from surgery. Univariate analysis of the case with different numbers of predictive factors present showed that use of the operating microscope, sensory deficit, central disc bulge, and free disc fragment were correlated with outcome only in subgroups. An analysis of unsatisfactory outcomes showed two patterns: one of failure as a result of mechanical back pain and one of failure as a result of radiculopathy. Factors predictive of outcome did not influence the type of failure. In a stepwise logistic regression analysis, facetectomy and preoperative sensory deficit were associated with increased likelihood of mechanical back pain failure, while preoperative motor deficit was associated with an increased likelihood of radicular failure. The results support several intuitively derived and commonly believed principles of lumbar disc surgery.