CT引导经皮微创技术与开放手术治疗脊柱结核的疗效分析

[目的]回顾性分析CT引导下经皮微创技术与传统开放手术治疗脊柱结核的临床效果。[方法]1998年5月～2009年5月,采用经皮微创技术与传统开放手术治疗脊柱结核68例。分别记录两组手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、单病种总医疗费用。术后采用Oswestry功能障碍指数评分及治疗前后后凸角改变进行疗效评估。[结果]两组手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、单病种总医疗费用比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01)。两组Oswestry功能障碍指数,治疗前后后凸角比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。[结论]CT引导下经皮微创技术与传统开放手术疗效相近,且克服了传统手术存在的缺陷,具有操作简便、安全、手术时间短、出血少、治疗费用低等优点,是理想的微创手术方法。     

CT引导经皮微创手术治疗脊柱结核临床分析

目的探讨CT引导经皮微创手术治疗脊柱结核的疗效。方法根据手术方式不同将58例脊柱结核患者分为2组,各29例。微创组采用CT引导经皮微创手术,传统组采用开放手术。结果微创组术后住院时间、ESR恢复正常时间和椎体骨性融合时间均明显短于对照组,治疗有效率高于对照组,复发率和并发症发生率低于对照组。差异均有统计学意义(P 0. 05)。结论 CT引导经皮微创手术治疗脊柱结核,可有效减少术后并发症,促进患者恢复,疗效明显。围术期均应加强抗结核治疗。     

CT引导下经皮微创治疗脊柱结核的近期疗效

目的总结CT引导下经皮微创治疗脊柱结核的近期临床效果。方法 2005年1月至2012年12月对82例脊柱结核患者采用CT引导下行经皮病灶清除,病灶置管,抗结核药物灌注冲洗引流。记录手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间等指标。术后随访时采用Oswestry功能障碍指数评分并参照张西峰等改良的脊柱结核治愈标准进行疗效评估。结果该组患者均顺利手术。复查均未发现结核复发,术后3个月ESR、CRP恢复至正常。所有患者均达到临床治愈,有神经功能损害者均完全恢复,Oswestry功能障碍指数治疗前后比较差异有统计学意义。治疗前后影像学、症状体征改变终末随访时均有明显改善。结论微创治疗疗效好,具有操作简便、安全、创伤小,治疗费用低等优点,对活动期脊柱结核的临床效果好,是理想的微创手术方法。     

CT引导经皮脊柱内窥镜治疗老年腰椎间盘突出症

[目的]探讨CT引导经皮脊柱内窥镜治疗老年腰椎间盘突出症的方法与疗效,总结临床经验。[方法]自2010年6月²012年9月,对246例老年腰椎间盘突出症患者,按照手术方式分为传统手术组114例、CT引导经皮脊柱内窥镜组132例。记录两组患者围手术期观察指标:手术时间、切口长度、术中出血量、术后应用镇痛药物例数、术后卧床时间和住院时间;术后随访采用Oswestry功能障碍指数(owestry disability index,ODI)对两组患者术前、术后1周和1、3、6、12个月的日常生活能力进行评定。[结果]在手术时间、切口长度、术中出血量、术后应用镇痛药物例数、术后卧床时间和住院时间比较上内窥镜组明显优于传统手术组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01)。术后随访122012年9月,对246例老年腰椎间盘突出症患者,按照手术方式分为传统手术组114例、CT引导经皮脊柱内窥镜组132例。记录两组患者围手术期观察指标:手术时间、切口长度、术中出血量、术后应用镇痛药物例数、术后卧床时间和住院时间;术后随访采用Oswestry功能障碍指数(owestry disability index,ODI)对两组患者术前、术后1周和1、3、6、12个月的日常生活能力进行评定。[结果]在手术时间、切口长度、术中出血量、术后应用镇痛药物例数、术后卧床时间和住院时间比较上内窥镜组明显优于传统手术组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01)。术后随访12²4个月,两组患者术前ODI指数比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),两组术后各期ODI指数均较术前有显著改善,但脊柱内窥镜组术后ODI指数改善明显优于传统手术组(P<0.01)、术后恢复更快。[结论]CT引导下设计和实施穿刺具有精确、安全、个性化操作的优点,CT引导经皮脊柱内窥镜治疗老年腰椎间盘突出与传统开放性手术比较具有微创、精准、恢复快等优点,疗效满意,是治疗老年腰椎间盘突出症的理想方法。     

微创手术与传统开放手术治疗脊柱结核的疗效比较

目的:探讨经皮病灶清除局部化疗治疗脊柱结核的临床疗效,并与开放手术病灶清除病例进行比较。方法:1993年1月~2001年12月应用开放手术病灶清除术治疗脊柱结核患者78例(A组),2002年1月~2003年10月应用经皮病灶清除局部化疗治疗脊柱结核患者36例(B组)。两组均无严重脊柱畸形和神经症状患者。对两组的手术时间、出血量、复发率等进行回顾性分析。结果:A组占同期所有脊柱结核住院患者的62.9%;B组占85.7%,高龄患者明显增加,同期没有施行单纯病灶清除术患者。两组患者的手术时间、出血量、局部化疗的时间、全身化疗的时间、手术复发率均有显著性差异(P<0.05)。结论:对未合并严重脊柱畸形和神经症状的脊柱结核患者采用经皮病灶清除局部化疗可取得满意的效果。     

微创经皮椎弓根螺钉技术治疗胸腰椎骨折的临床疗效分析

目的探讨微创经皮椎弓根螺钉技术(Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation,PPSF)治疗胸腰椎骨折的临床疗效。方法选择2014年1月至2015年7月收治的单节段、无神经症状的胸腰椎骨折患者,随机分为经皮椎弓根螺钉固定组(微创经皮组,41例)和传统开放复位椎弓根螺钉固定组(开放组,37例),分别比较手术切口长度、手术出血量、手术时间及治疗后住院时间,治疗前后伤椎前缘高度、后凸Cobb’s角变化,应用疼痛视觉模拟评分(Visual Analogue Scale,VAS评分)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)评价手术前后患者疼痛、功能等变化。结果患者获随访6～24个月,微创经皮组较开放组手术切口长度、手术时间、住院天数明显缩短,术中出血明显减少;两组术后伤椎前缘高度、Cobb’s角较术前均明显恢复,同时术后VAS评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数较术前明显减少。结论经皮椎弓根螺钉技术具有创伤小、出血少、手术及住院时间短、疗效好、术后恢复快等近期临床疗效。     

经皮全脊柱内镜技术治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症临床价值研究

目的 探讨经皮全脊柱内镜技术对退行性腰椎管狭窄症(DLSS)患者的临床应用价值。方法 回顾性分析2020-01—2021-12郑州大学第五附属医院脊柱骨病科和南阳南石医院脊柱关节科行经皮全脊柱内镜技术治疗的68例DLSS患者的临床资料。根据手术方法分为开放手术组和经皮全脊柱内镜技术组(脊柱内镜组),各34例。比较2组患者的基线资料、手术情况,以及术后临床指标。结果 2组患者的基线资料和并发症发生率差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。脊柱内镜组的切口长度、手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间均短(少或小)于开放手术组,术后1个月时的视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评分、Oswestry腰椎功能障碍指数(ODI)评分均低于开放手术组;腰椎功能(JOA)评分高于开放手术组。以上差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 经皮全脊柱内镜技术应用于DLSS患者的手术,具有切口小、手术用时和术中出血量少、住院时间短等优势,有利于减轻患者的疼痛程度、改善腰椎功能障碍,以及提升腰椎功能。     

经皮微创与开放椎弓根钉内固定术治疗脊柱骨折效果比较

目的比较经皮微创与开放椎弓根钉内固定术治疗脊柱骨折的效果。方法根据不同手术方式将208例脊柱骨折患者分为2组。观察组130行经皮微创椎弓根钉内固定术,对照组78采用开放椎弓根钉内固定术。回顾性分析患者的临床资料。结果 2组术前脊柱生理指标及手术时间差别均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。观察组术中出血量及术后引流量明显少于对照组,术后第3天NRS疼痛评分及住院时间均明显优于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后1周2组患者的脊柱生理指标同样显著优于术前,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论经皮微创椎弓根钉内固定术与开放手术的疗效相同,但其创伤小、术中出血量少、术后疼痛轻,有利于患者术后恢复。     

微创椎间孔镜减压和传统开放手术治疗单节段退行性腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效对比研究

目的本研究回顾性分析微创椎间孔镜减压和传统开放手术治疗单节段退行性腰椎管狭窄症(degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, DLSS)的临床疗效。方法选取2014年8月至2018年3月期间收治的退行性腰椎管狭窄症患者138例,将其按治疗方法分为微创组与开放组,其中微创组76例,男37例,女39例;年龄40～81岁,平均(54.7±8.6)岁,采用经皮椎间孔镜减压治疗。开放组62例,男30例,女32例,年龄45～83岁,平均(55.3±11.5)岁,采用传统后路椎板减压内固定术治疗。对比两组患者的疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale, VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(oswestry disability index, ODI)、手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、术后并发症发生率。结果治疗前两组患者的VAS评分、ODI指数相比,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);治疗后两组患者的VAS评分、ODI指数比较,组间差异无统计学意义,组内与术前比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。微创组患者的平均手术时间为(70.34±6.42)min,术中出血量为(15.65±3.37)mL,住院时间为(5.68±1.35)d,术后并发症发生率为7.9%;开放组患者的平均手术时间为(126.75±6.12)min,术中出血量为(414.36±18.27)mL,住院时间为(12.37±1.69)d,术后并发症的发生率为16.1%。微创组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、住院天数、术后并发症均低于开放组(P0.05)。结论经皮椎间孔镜减压治疗单节段退行性腰椎管狭窄症患者,与传统开放手术相比较,能够达到基本相同的临床疗效,且具有手术时间相对较短、术中出血量相对较少、术后并发症相对较低、住院时间较短等优点,但该技术学习曲线较长,对于手术经验不足尤其是初学者来说,仍具有挑战性,术前需要做好充分的技术准备工作。     

经皮微创内固定系统治疗老年骨质疏松性脊柱骨折47例效果分析

目的探讨经皮微创内固定系统治疗老年骨质疏松性骨折的效果及安全性。方法将94例老年骨质疏松性骨折患者按照不同固定术式分为2组,各47例。对照组行传统复位内固定治疗,观察组行经皮微创内固定系统治疗。结果术前2组Oswestry评分差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05)。观察组手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、并发症发生率及术后6个月Oswestry评分均优于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P 0. 05)。结论经皮微创内固定系统治疗老年骨质疏松性脊柱骨折,创伤小、并发症少,术后恢复快,利于术后椎体功能改善。     

两种方法治疗新鲜闭合跟腱断裂

目的 比较跟腱断裂通道微创修复和传统开放切口直视下修复治疗新鲜闭合跟腱断裂的疗效.方法 将43例新鲜闭合跟腱断裂患者根据治疗方法 不同分为微创组(采用跟腱断裂通道微创修复术治疗,25例)和传统组(采用传统开放切口直视下修复术治疗,18例).比较两组切口长度、手术时间、切口愈合时间、术后并发症、疼痛评分及踝关节功能评分....     

良性乳腺肿块采用两种术式的临床效果分析

目的探讨微创旋切术与传统开放手术治疗良性乳腺肿块的临床效果与安全性。方法选取2013年2月至2016年2月收治的294例良性乳腺肿块患者,按照随机数字表法分为微创手术组、开放手术组,各147例,分别实施微创旋切术与传统开放手术治疗。所有数据采用SPSS18.0进行分析,美观度评价、术后并发症发生率以[例(%)]表示,采用χ2检验;手术情况、疼痛程度等计量资料以(x珋±s)表示,采用t检验,以P0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果微创手术组手术时间、术中出血量、切口长度及切口愈合时间均低于开放手术组,但住院费用高于开放手术组;微创手术组术后并发症发生率为4.8%,低于开放手术组的19.7%,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组患者术后6 h VAS评分均较术后即刻升高,而后逐渐下降,微创手术组各时期VAS评分均低于开放手术组;两组患者随访期间均未见良性乳腺肿块复发,微创手术组末次随访时切口美观度优良率为94.4%,高于开放手术组的78.5%,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论较传统开放手术而言,微创旋切术能够在取得相同治疗效果的前提下,进一步减少手术创伤、缩短术后恢复时间、降低术后并发症发生风险,可作为良性乳腺肿块的首选治疗术式。     

微创手术与传统开放手术治疗脊柱转移癌的效果比较

目的 比较微创手术与传统开放手术治疗脊柱转移癌的临床疗效.方法 2017年12月—2019年6月,海军军医大学长征医院收治胸腰椎转移癌患者72例,采用随机数字表法分为2组,其中36例采用微创手术治疗(微创组),36例采用传统开放手术治疗(开放组).采用疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分评估患者疼痛缓解情况,采用Franke...     

Comparison of open and minimally invasive techniques for posterior lumbar instrumentation and fusion after open anterior lumbar interbody fusion

Background contextMinimally invasive techniques for spinal fusion have theoretical advantages for the reduction of iatrogenic injury. Although this topic has been investigated previously for posterior-only interbody surgery, such as transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, similar studies have not evaluated these techniques after anteroposterior spinal fusion, a study design that can more accurately determine the effect of pedicle screw placement and decompression via a minimally invasive technique without the confounding effect of simultaneous interbody cage placement.PurposeTo compare process measures that provide insight into the morbidity of surgery, such as surgical time and the length of postoperative hospital stay between open and minimally invasive anteroposterior lumbar fusion; and to compare the complications during the intraoperative and early postoperative period between open and minimally invasive anteroposterior lumbar fusion.Study designRetrospective case-control study.Patient sampleOne hundred sixty-two patients.Outcome measuresEstimated blood loss, length of surgery, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, length of postoperative hospital stay, malpositioned instrumentation on postoperative imaging, and postoperative complications, including pulmonary embolus and surgical site infection.MethodsPatients who underwent open anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by either traditional open posterior fusion (Open group) or minimally invasive posterior fusion (minimally invasive surgery [MIS] group) were matched by the number of surgical levels. A chart review was performed to document the intraoperative and postoperative process measures and associated complications in the two groups. Secondary analyses were performed to compare the subgroups of patients, who did and did not undergo a posterior decompression at the time of posterior instrumentation to determine the effect of decompression.ResultsBaseline characteristics were similar between the Open and MIS groups. Estimated blood loss and postoperative transfusion rate were significantly higher in the Open group, differences that the subanalyses suggested were largely because of those patients who underwent concomitant decompression. Length of stay was not significantly different between the groups but was significantly shorter for MIS patients treated without decompression than for Open patients treated without decompression. Intraoperative fluoroscopy time was significantly longer in the MIS group. There was no difference in the infection or complication rates between the groups.ConclusionsOur case-control study comparing patients who underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by open posterior instrumentation with those who underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by minimally invasive posterior instrumentation demonstrated that patients undergoing MIS fusion without decompression had less blood loss, less need for transfusion in the perioperative period, and a shorter hospital stay. In contrast, most outcome measures were similar between MIS and Open groups for patients who underwent decompression.     

Perioperative complications in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior reconstruction for lumbar disc degeneration and instability

OBJECTIVES: Multiple different approaches are used to treat lumbar degenerative disc disease and spinal instability. Both anterior-posterior (AP) reconstructive surgery and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) provide a circumferential fusion and are considered reasonable surgical options. The purpose of this study was to quantitatively assess clinical parameters such as surgical blood loss, duration of the procedure, length of hospitalization, and complications for TLIF and AP reconstructive surgery for lumbar fusion. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was completed on 167 consecutive cases performed between January 2002 and March 2004. TLIF surgical procedure was performed on 124 patients, including 73 minimally invasive and 51 open cases. AP surgery was performed on 43 patients. Patients were treated for painful degenerative disc disease, facet arthropathy, degenerative instability, and spinal stenosis. RESULTS: The mean operative time for AP reconstruction was 455 minutes, for minimally invasive TLIF 255 minutes, and open TLIF 222 minutes. The mean blood loss for AP fusion surgery was 550 mL, for minimally invasive TLIF 231 mL, and open TLIF 424 mL. The mean hospitalization time for AP reconstruction was 7.2 days, for minimally invasive TLIF 3.1 days, and open TLIF 4.1 days. The total rate of complications was 76.7% for AP reconstruction, including 62.8% major and 13.9% minor complications. The minimally invasive TLIF patients group had the total 30.1% rate of complications, 21.9% of which were minor and 8.2% major complications. There were no major complications in the open TLIF patients group, with 35.3% minor complications. CONCLUSIONS: AP lumbar interbody fusion surgery is associated with a more than two times higher complication rate, significantly increased blood loss, and longer operative and hospitalization times than both percutaneous and open TLIF for lumbar disc degeneration and instability.     

Open versus minimally invasive lumbar microdiscectomy: comparison of operative times, length of hospital stay, narcotic use and complications.

To determine if a minimally invasive approach to lumbar microdiscectomy reduces post-operative pain, length of hospital stay, or frequency of complications we retrospectively compared medical records of single level microdiscectomy patients by a single surgeon performed using a traditional open approach versus a minimally invasive approach. Thirty-five patients were in the open group: 63% male, average age 41.2 years, and 31 patients were in the minimally invasive group: 68% male, average age 42.1 years. There was no difference in surgical time or blood loss between the open and minimally invasive groups: 84.1 versus 76.8 minutes and 51.4 versus 69.7 mL, respectively. There were no significant complications intraoperatively or within the 30 day post-op period for either group. The average dose of intravenous morphine taken was 12.9 mg for the minimally invasive group and 15.7 mg for the open group (P=0.04). The average dose of hydrocodone was 13.4 mg for the minimally invasive group and 20.9 mg for the open group (P=0.03). The open group took an average of 11.7 mg oxycodone, the minimally invasive none. 45.2% of patients in the minimally invasive group were discharged on the same day as surgery compared to 5.75% in the open group (P=0.001). Microdiscectomy was performed safely and effectively through a minimally invasive expanding retractor system and operating microscope. Surgical times, blood loss, complications, and outcome were similar to a traditional open microdiscectomy while pain medication requirements and hospitalization were significantly less.     

微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术的研究进展

腰椎融合是目前治疗腰椎退变性疾病、腰椎不稳及椎间盘源性等疾病的主要手段.经椎间孔腰椎间融合术(transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF)是近年发展起来的新型的腰椎融合术,而随着微创脊柱外科(minimally invasive spinal surgery,MISS)的进步,微创TLIF技术也得到了快速的发展,相对传统开放TLIF又有了更进一步的优势.作者就微创TLIF的适应证与禁忌证,手术方式,发展与优势及微创手术辅助器械等方面的研究现状作一综述.     

经皮微创椎弓根螺钉内固定与开放手术治疗胸腰椎骨折临床疗效比较

目的:比较微创经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定与开放椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗胸腰椎骨折的疗效。方法 :回顾性分析2014年6月至2014年12月收治的61例需手术治疗的胸腰椎单纯骨折患者,其中29例采用经皮微创椎弓根钉棒系统治疗(微创组),32例采用传统切开暴露椎板椎弓根置钉内固定术治疗(开放组)。分别比较两组患者手术切口总长度、术中透视次数、手术时间、术中出血量、术前及术后疼痛视觉模拟评分、术后卧床及住院时间,并通过影像学检查比较治疗前后椎体前缘高度及后凸Cobb角变化。结果:与开放组相比,微创组手术切口总长度小、手术时间短、术中出血少、术后伤口疼痛缓解快、术后卧床及住院时间短。两组患者治疗后椎体前缘高度恢复明显,后凸Cobb角明显减小,但组间比较,差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:经皮微创椎弓根螺钉与开放手术具有相同的内固定效果,但可减小手术切口,避免开放手术广泛剥离腰背肌,缩短术后疼痛、卧床及住院时间,值得临床推广使用。     

���Կ���΢�����ʱ���Ŀ�������——�ӡ���Ӣ����ҽѧ��־����һƪ����̸��

??A rational evaluation of open surgery in the era of minimally invasive surgery GU Jin. Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Peking University Cancer Hospital; Pediatric Surgery, Shougang Hospital, Peking University,Beijing100042,China
Abstract Nowadays, laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer is widely used. Robust evidence to conclude that laparoscopic surgery and open surgery have similar outcomes in colorectal cancer. Undeniably, we have entered an era of minimally invasive surgery, and our traditional open surgery is being replaced by minimally invasive surgery in recent decades owing to favorable short-term outcomes, such as less pain, reduced blood loss, and improved recovery time. Surgeons should be soberly aware that there is a serious tendency for young surgeons in the field of surgery to simply pursue technology. They no longer pay attention to traditional open surgery, but are keen on the latest minimally invasive technology to make and show a beautiful surgery.In this era of minimally invasive surgery, Surgeons must realize that open surgery still plays an important role in tumor treatment.