不同椎板减压手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症效果观察

目的分析有限椎板减压与全椎板切除减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症的效果。方法将90例腰椎管狭窄症患者随机分为2组,每组45例。对照组行全椎板切除减压治疗,观察组行有限椎板减压治疗,比较2组术中出血量、住院时间、术后疼痛程度及功能障碍评分、多裂肌MRI信号强度分级、并发症发生率等指标。结果观察组术中出血量、引流量、术后住院时间优于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);术后随访6~10个月,其间2组并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。6个月时2组患者的ODI、VAS腿痛、VAS腰痛评分均明显低于手术前,但观察组明显低于对照组,而且多裂肌MRI信号强度分级优于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论与全椎板切除减压比较,有限椎板减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症,患者疼痛轻,腰椎稳定性高,脊椎功能改善明显,且不增加术后并发症发生率,可促进患者早期康复。     

有限椎板切除减压治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症

退行性腰椎管狭窄症(LSS)的治疗一般采用传统的全椎板切除减压，切除范围较大，包括棘突、双侧椎板及部分关节突等，术后易引起脊柱不稳、硬膜外广泛瘢痕粘连继发医源性椎管狭窄等腰椎术后失败综合征。自1995年9月～2001年3月应用有限的椎板切除(保留棘突、棘上韧带、棘间韧带)椎管减压治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症61例，其中9例同时行后路内固定植骨融合术，取得了满意效果。     

Coflex系统植入术及全椎板减压植骨融合内固定术治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症的短期疗效对比观察

[目的]对比Coflex系统植入与全椎板减压植骨融合、椎弓根螺钉内固定术治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症的短期疗效。[方法]抽取连续的30例住院治疗的退行性腰椎管狭窄症患者,随机分为两组,每组15例,分别施行Coflex系统植入和全椎板减压植骨融合椎弓根螺钉内固定术,观察比较两组的手术时间、出血量、术后住院时间、术前和术后6个月JOA评分,术后改善率及并发症情况。[结果]与传统减压融合术相比,Coflex组术后6个月JOA评分及术后改善率无明显差异,而手术时间、出血量及住院时间显著降低。随访期间Coflex组无1例发生术后并发症。[结论]Coflex植入系统是一种安全、有效、微创的治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症的新术式,具有较好的临床应用前景。     

伴有或无人工椎板重建术的椎管减压术治疗腰椎管狭窄症比较

[目的]比较腰椎管狭窄症患者行后路全椎板减压内固定,伴有或无人工椎板植入重建的临床疗效。[方法]2013年3月~2015年2月共收治34例采用后路全椎板减压内固定术式的腰椎管狭窄症患者,其中男18例,女16例,年龄48~76岁,平均(56.6±7.2)岁。按是否使用人工椎板重建分为两组,15例行单纯全椎板减压内固定术(单纯减压组),19例行全椎板减压内固定联合人工椎板重建术(重建组),统计两组手术时间和术中出血量,术前、术后1周、末次随访临床症状JOA评分、CT观察人工椎板融合率及椎管矢状径。[结果]单纯减压组间手术时间和术中出血量均明显小于重建组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),两组术后1周JOA评分较术前显著进步,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),但术后1周两组间JOA评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后1周单纯减压组CT椎管矢状径明显小于重建组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。所有患者术后获24~36个月(平均25.6个月)随访,末次随访时单纯减压组JOA评分显著低于重建组,两组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);末次随访时单纯减压组CT椎管矢状径明显小于重建组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。CT示术后3~6个月人工椎板与受体骨接触界面模糊、间隙消失。所有患者均无感染,内固定松动、断裂等并发症。[结论]后路全椎板减压内固定联合人工椎板植入椎管成形治疗腰椎管狭窄症,可防止术后瘢痕粘连入椎管,有效扩大椎管大小,临床效果显著。     

全椎板切除减压内固定术治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症

目的探讨腰椎后路全椎板切除减压,椎间自体植骨,椎弓根螺钉固定治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症的疗效。方法 2006年3月~2009年7月收治退行性腰椎管狭窄症患者62例,所有患者均行腰椎后路全椎板切除减压,摘除相应节段的椎间盘,椎间植入自体骨,椎弓根螺钉固定减压节段。临床疗效采用JOA评分进行评估。结果 62例患者共减压134节段,固定134节段,所有减压节段均行椎间自体骨植骨。所有患者术后均获随访,平均21.3(15~34)个月。手术疗效根据日本骨科学会(JOA)下腰痛手术疗效标准(15分法)进行评分。62例患者中疗效达到优50例,良9例,可2例,差1例,优良率95.16%。结论腰椎后路全椎板切除减压椎间植骨椎弓根螺钉固定治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症是一种有效的手术方法。     

半椎板切除减压术与全椎板切除减压内固定植骨融合术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的疗效对比

目的对比半椎板切除减压术和全椎板切除减压内固定植骨融合术对腰椎管狭窄症(LSS)的治疗效果。方法将106例LSS患者随机分为2组,各53例。A组患者实施半椎板切除减压术,B组实施全椎板切除减压内固定植骨融合术。2组均随访观察2 a,对比2组治疗效果。结果 2组治疗优良率、并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P0.05);A组手术时间、术中出血量及住院时间较B组明显缩短,术后腰痛VAS评分较B组明显降低,JOA评分较B组明显升高,2组比较,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论相较于全椎板切除减压内固定植骨融合术,采用半椎板切除减压术治疗LSS,创伤小、患者术后恢复快。     

扩大开窗神经根管减压术与全椎板切除减压内固定术治疗老年退行性腰椎管狭窄症疗效对比

[目的]比较扩大开窗神经根管减压术和全椎板切除减压内固定术两种术式在老年退行性腰椎管狭窄症治疗中的疗效。[方法]选取本科近两年收治的老年退行性腰椎管狭窄症患者,包括65例行全椎板切除减压内固定术的对照组,65例行扩大开窗神经根管减压术的观察组,统计两组患者手术综合情况、JOA评分及神经功能的恢复情况,并随访比较两组的并发症。[结果]观察组较对照组手术切口短、住院时间短、出血量少;观察组并发症发生率为10.77%,较对照组23.08%低;观察组JOA评分优良率为92.31%,对照组为53.85%;同时,术后神经功能的恢复情况观察组明显优于对照组。上述各项比较差异均具有统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]对于老年退行性腰椎管狭窄症患者,采用扩大开窗神经根管减压术减压效果佳,能改善临床疗效,恢复神经系统功能,规避不良反应。     

开窗减压术和椎板切除减压术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的对比分析

[目的]比较双侧椎板间开窗减压术和保留棘突韧带复合结构目的全椎板切除减压术治疗以中央椎管狭窄为主目的腰椎管狭窄症目的疗效,并介绍保留棘突韧带复合结构目的全椎板切除减压术目的手术方法.[方法]10年间手术治疗有间歇性跛行症状目的以中央椎管狭窄为主目的腰椎管狭窄症患者93例;其中用舣侧椎板间开窗减压术治疗62例(开窗组),用保留棘突韧带复合结构目的全椎板除减压术治疗31例(保棘组).获随访82例(其中开窗组54例,保棘组28例),平均随访4年.以术后间歇性跛行足否消失做为减压是否充分目的标准,以术后遗留活动性腰痛做为术后腰椎不稳目的标准.[结果]开窗组术后间歇跛行消失40例(74.1%),残留活动性腰痛5例(9.3%).保棘组术后间歇性跛行消失23例(82.1%),残留活动性腰痛3例(10.7%).x2检验P值＞0.05.[结论]在对中央型腰椎管狭窄症[目的]减压果和对腰椎稳定性目的影响上开窗组和保棘组无统计学差异.两者目的减压效果均良好,对腰椎稳定性影响小.但保留棘突韧带复合结构目的全椎板切除减压术术野开阔、操作简单、不易损伤神经,是值得推荐目的手术方法.     

次全椎板切除潜行减压融合内固定手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的临床研究

目的研究次全椎板切除潜行减压内固定手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效。方法纳入2014年1月～2017年1月收治的45例合并腰椎失稳的腰椎管狭窄症患者,采取次全椎板切除潜行减压+椎间Cage植骨融合+椎弓根钉棒系统内固定手术,随访22～36个月,平均(30.43±3.29)个月,观察其术后疗效。结果 45例患者均成功完成手术,平均手术时间(82.49±13.88) min,平均失血量(125.22±16.21) ml;患者术后1个月、6个月、末次随访的ODI指数、腰痛、下肢痛VAS评分均显著低于术前,椎管横径显著大于术前,差异有统计学意义(P0.05),手术前后椎间隙高度差异无统计学意义(P0.05);末次随访按MacNab标准评价疗效,优20例,良22例,中2例,差1例,优良率93.3%;术后1例出现浅表切口感染,2例脑脊液漏,无神经损伤、硬膜外血肿等严重并发症。结论次全椎板切除潜行减压融合内固定治疗腰椎管狭窄症椎管减压效果显著,手术安全有效。     

"天窗式"责任节段整块椎板切除减压固定融合治疗复杂性腰椎管狭窄症

[目的]评价"天窗式"责任节段整块椎板切除减压椎弓根钉棒固定融合治疗复杂性腰椎管狭窄症的疗效.[方法]2005年I月～2008年1月对35例复杂性腰椎管狭窄症患者行责任节段"天窗式"整块椎板切除减压椎弓根钉棒固定融合治疗,对手术时间、术中出血、术中并发症及术前术后JOA评分进行评价,根据腰椎影像学观察植骨融合情况.[结果]手术时间1.5～4 h,平均2.5 h,术中出血400～800 ml,平均600 ml,无术中硬膜及神经根损伤并发症.术后平均随访2.5年,JOA评分优良率88.6%,影像学评价融合率为94.3%.[结论]"天窗式"责任节段整块椎板切除减压固定融合治疗复杂性腰椎管狭窄症直接有效、安全快捷,近期疗效满意.     

The injudicious laminectomy

This report is an attempt to point out a hazard of what would be otherwise competent treatment of acquired spinal stenosis, namely laminectomy and facetectomy, in a small group of patients who are osteoporotic and who also have a "minor" compression fracture in the area in which the surgery is contemplated. Three patients who had such laminectomies, with disastrous results, are presented, along with one patient who, instead, had internal fixation and fusion at the time of laminectomy with an excellent result. The latter approach is recommended in such cases.     

Post laminectomy instability

Laminectomy is considered to be the gold standard of decompressive techniques. While the short-term benefits of laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis are widely accepted, concerns surrounding iatrogenic instability persist and the debate on the appropriate indications for concomitant fusion rages on. This review covers the various definitions, biomechanics, and incidence of post laminectomy instability and explores the patient, radiographic, and surgical risk factors that play a role in the development of this condition.     

Posterior laminectomy and fusion

This chapter will summarize the pertinent indications, techniques, and post-operative treatments in posterior laminectomy and fusion in the subaxial cervical spine. An evidence based discussion of current surgical methods and objectives will inform the reader on current practices and guidelines.     

Effectiveness of laminectomy with fusion and laminectomy alone in degenerative cervical myelopathy

Purpose

The effectiveness of laminectomy with fusion and laminectomy alone in degenerative cervical myelopathy was compared.

Methods

Individuals treated with laminectomy with fusion or laminectomy alone at or below the second cervical vertebra were identified in the Swedish spine registry. 66 individuals treated with laminectomy and instrumented fusion were age matched to 132 individuals treated with laminectomy alone. The European Myelopathy Scale (EMS), the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for neck pain and the EQ-5D index were available at baseline, and at 1 and 2 year follow-ups. Statistical analyses were performed with Mann–Whitney U tests and paired T tests. Effect sizes were described with Cohen’s D.

Results

Data at baseline did not differ significantly between the groups with the exception of a longer laminectomy in the fusion group (4.2 vs 3.4 vertebras; p < 0.001). Both groups improved EMS, NDI, NRS and EQ-5D from baseline to 1 year (p ≤ 0.011), with no additional improvement between 1 and 2 years (all p ≥ 0.09). Effect sizes for change from baseline were small to medium in both groups. At 2 years the laminectomy with fusion group and the laminectomy alone group had a median (25th;75th percentile) EMS of 13 (11;13) and 13 (11;15) (p = 0.77), NDI of 39 (24;54) and 27 (10;41) (p = 0.045), NRS of 4 (1;2) and 2 (0;5) (p = 0.048), and EQ-5D index of 0.67 (0.25;0.73) and 0.66 (0.17;0.76) (p = 0.96).

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest similar effectiveness of laminectomy with instrumented fusion and laminectomy alone in degenerative cervical myelopathy.

Level of evidence

III.

     

颈椎椎板切除术后神经根病

目的　报道一组多节段颈椎椎板切除术后神经根病并探讨其机理。　方法　２８７ 例颈椎椎板切除术患者中３７ 例（１２．９％ ） 出现手术后神经根病。其中男２７ 例,女１０ 例,平均年龄５６ 岁。其中颈椎病２５ 例, 后纵韧带骨化１２ 例。发病时间为手术后４ 小时～６ 天,最常见类型为颈５（Ｃ５） 、颈６（Ｃ６） 神经根,以运动障碍为主。　结果　完全缓解时间平均为５ ．４ 个月（２ 周～３ 年）。完全缓解时间与脊髓运动功能恢复率呈负相关（ｒ＝ －０ ．８３２, Ｐ＜ ０．０１）,颈椎病患者预后优于后纵韧带骨化（ｔ＝２ ．９６０, Ｐ＜ ０．０１）。　结论　手术后神经根病可能因颈椎后路减压后神经根栓系引起;前路减压及融合手术既可直接切除致压物,又能稳定脊柱,因而可有效预防手术后神经根病     

Cervical laminectomy for myelopathy

This article briefly describes the clinical entity of cervical spondylotic myelopathy along with the differential diagnosis and preoperative diagnostic evaluation. Surgical indications and operative technique for posterior cervical laminectomy are discussed in detail. Outcomes and complications are discussed and comparisons are made with alternative decompressive techniques. Specific indications in which posterior cervical laminectomy is the treatment of choice are highlighted.