开窗减压术治疗中央型腰椎管狭窄症的临床评价

１９８６年以来，使用开窗减压术治疗中央型腰椎管狭窄症１１６例，１０６例（９１．３％）得到随访，随访１～９年，优良率达９７．２％，仅１例（０．９％）发生术后腰椎不稳。该手术损伤小，在较大程度上保留了腰椎后部结构的完整性，从而达到防止术后腰椎不稳和神经疤痕粘连之目的。虽然局部开窗减压范围小，但通过腰椎两侧对称性和多节段开窗，椎管可得到充分减压。临床应用表明该法较传统的椎板切除术疗效好。     

多节段对称性开窗减压术治疗中央型腰椎管狭窄

多节段对称性开窗减压术治疗中央型腰椎管狭窄陈建军，李超，刘正品，陈雪亮，王增亚腰椎管狭窄症的手术治疗方法很多，常采用的全椎板切除的中线减压法疗效并不一分满意，目前尚无十分理想的治疗方法。我们从１９８８年以来，对３２例中央型腰椎管狭窄症施行多节段对称性...     

椎板开窗潜行减压术治疗腰椎管狭窄症

目的探讨椎板开窗潜行减压术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的疗效。方法采用单节段或多节段椎板间隙开窗潜行减压加神经根管减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症患者50例。结果疗效参照JOA分级标准评定,术后对45例获得随访,平均3.1年,优27例,良13例,可4例,差1例,手术优良率88.8%。结论该术式保留了棘突、棘上韧带、棘间韧带及部分椎板,关节突,最大限度地保留了腰椎稳定性,避免了因手术瘢痕粘连和骨化造成的医源性的椎管狭窄,术后疗效确实可靠。     

腰椎板间开窗潜行椎管减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症

1990年 1月～ 1995年 6月我科开展腰椎板间开窗潜行椎管减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症 48例 ,临床观察随访 1年以上疗效满意。1　临床资料本组 48例中男 2 1例 ,女 2 7例 ;年龄 32～ 6 5岁 ,平均45 2岁。病程 3个月～ 42年 ,平均 6 2年。依据临床症状、体征及Ｘ线平片 ,并均做脊髓造影和ＣＴＭ确诊为 :中央椎管狭窄 8例 ,其中Ｌ4 ,5狭窄 4例 ,Ｌ3～ 5狭窄 3例 ,Ｌ5Ｓ1狭窄 1例 ;侧隐窝狭窄 36例 ,其中单侧狭窄 16例 ,两侧狭窄 2 0例 ,4例合并神经根管狭窄。合并椎间盘突出 2 8例 ,其中Ｌ4 ,518例 ,Ｌ5Ｓ16例 ,Ｌ4 ,5及Ｌ5Ｓ14例。均采用手术治疗 ,…     

交叉开窗潜行式减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症

作者设计交叉开窗潜行减压治疗腰椎管狭窄42例,其中L_(4～5)椎管狭窄18例,L_(4～5)、L_5～S_1椎管狭窄12例,L_5～S_1椎管狭窄12例。手术扩大椎管4～5mm。术后随访42例,随访时间2～6年,平均2年8个月,优39例、良2例、可1例。作者详细介绍了手术设计,同时对该手术的适应证、操作要点及其优点作了讨论。     

椎板间开窗潜行减压治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症

行椎板间开窗潜行减压治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症１１５例,年龄５４．２岁,病程平均３年９个月脸部病人都有腰痛和一侧或两侧下肢痛及麻木,无题有间歇性跛行。除Ｘ线平片外,ＣＴ、ＣＴＭ和／或ＭＲＩ检查１０１例,椎管造影２４例。其中伴椎间盘突出７例,狭窄段位于Ｌ４．５４９例,Ｌ５Ｓ１２５例,Ｌ３,４３例,两个节段２６例三个节段（Ｌ３,４,Ｌ４,５,Ｌ５Ｓ１）１２例,术后复查ＣＴ／ＭＲＩ５９。结果８４例获得随访,     

腰椎管环形减压术治疗腰椎管狭窄症

目的 探讨腰椎管环形减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症的方法及疗效。方法 自病变间隙切除棘间韧带、咬除部分上、下棘突和椎板（１／４￣１／３）,切除黄韧带,两侧小关节突内缘有限切除（〈１／３）。前方凿除骨性凸起及摘除突出髓核。结果 ２０例经１年￣１年５个月随访,疗效均为优。结论 腰椎管环形减压即可对腰椎管狭窄进行减压,又可减少对腰椎稳定性的影响。     

双侧开窗椎管内侧壁切除减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症

腰椎管狭窄症手术治疗目前尚无统一术式,全椎板切除术后腰椎不稳,单纯开窗半椎板切除仍存在一定的局限性。为避免术后腰椎不稳又达术中减压充分,自1998～2004年8月,在半椎板切除对侧扩大开窗减压基础上演化为双侧开窗椎管内侧壁切除,共收治40例,取得良好疗效。报告如下。     

开窗减压术和椎板切除减压术治疗腰椎管狭窄症临床疗效比较

目的比较选择性开窗减压术和保留棘突韧带复合结构的椎板切除减压术在治疗腰椎管狭窄的临床效果。方法回顾性分析43例腰椎管狭窄患者的临床资料,其中行选择性开窗减压术23例(A组),行保留棘突韧带复合结构的椎板切除减压术20例(B组),比较和评价两种手术方法在改善患者疼痛、跛行等临床症状方面的效果。结果手术情况:A组平均手术时间和平均住院时间较B组长,平均出血量少于B组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。所有患者均获随访,平均时间(23.6±2.4)个月。症状改善情况:A组下肢疼痛和麻木症状完全消失19例(82.6%),有不同程度的缓解3例(13.1%),基本上无改善1例(4.3%);B组完全消失17例(85.0%),缓解3例(15.0%)。A组跛行症状完全消失18例(78.3%),跛行症状基本消失仅偶尔出现者4例(17.4%),完全无缓解者1例(4.3%);B组跛行症状完全消失14例(70.0%),偶尔出现者6例(30.0%)。两组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后疗效评价:A组优14例(60.9%),良7例(30.4%),可2例(8.7%),优良率为91.3%(21/23);B组优13例(65.0%),良5例(25.0%),可1例(5.0%),差1例(5.0%),优良率为90.0%(18/20)。两组临床疗效比较,差异无统计学意义(χ2=6.737,P=0.081)。结论选择性开窗减压术和保留棘突韧带复合结构的椎板切除减压术均为治疗腰椎管狭窄安全有效的手术方法,具体选择何种术式需要综合患者自身情况及病变程度、范围进行选择。     

椎板开窗撑开潜行式减压手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症

目的探讨椎板开窗撑开潜行式减压手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效。方法回顾自2004年3月至2007年4月采用椎板开窗撑开潜行式减压手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症26例。结果本组无硬膜囊撕裂和脑脊液漏等手术并发症。根据北美脊柱外科学会的腰椎功能障碍指数(ODI)进行疗效评分[1]:术后1年以上随访,其中:优19例,良5例,改善2例,疗效优良率为92.31%。X线检查未发现腰椎不稳和滑脱的现象。结论椎板开窗撑开潜行式减压手术是治疗腰椎管狭窄症行之有效的方法之一。     

开窗潜行减压治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症

我院从90年代初以来,采用了开窗潜行减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症,取得了满意的效果.     

选择性开窗潜行减压治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症

目的 探讨退行性腰椎管狭窄治疗的手术方式。讨论本病的病理特点和采用选择性开窗潜行减压这一术式的可行性。方法 对６３例退行性腰椎管狭窄症患者,根据其术前ＣＴ等的定位、定性、定量及术中的具体所见,针对性地选择一侧或双侧,单个或多个开窗,行潜行减压治疗,并观察其后期疗效。结果 经治疗的６３例患者,开窗潜行减压基本上达到了满意的减压效果。疗效达优２７例,占４２．８％。良３３例,占５２．４％;可３例,占４．     

Clinical and psychofunctional measures of conservative decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective cohort study

Less invasive decompressive surgery has emerged as a logical surgical treatment alternative to wide decompression of spinal stenosis. The clinical outcomes of such conservative surgical treatment, however, are not well known. The aim of the study was to evaluate short-term psychometric and functional outcomes after conservative decompressive surgery for lumbar canal stenosis. Forty patients had a lumbar laminectomy procedure, which preserved the integrity of the neural arches, facet joints and most muscle attachments. Pre-operative clinical evaluation of the patients included: Waddell's non-organic signs (NOS) performed by an independent surgeon observer; three self-report questionnaires--the Waddell Disability Index (WDI), the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (ODI), and the Low Back Outcome Score (LBOS); and a general questionnaire that included a visual analog pain intensity scale (VAS). Post-operative clinical evaluations and questionnaires were obtained in 36 subjects (mean age 59.8 years) after a 1.7-year follow-up (range 1-2.6 years). Pre-operative versus post-operative statistical comparisons of the data were performed using adjusted error rates within families of predictors. Successful surgical outcome was defined as an improvement in at least three of the following four criteria: self-reported pain on a VAS, self-reported functional status measured by LBOS, reduction of pain during walking and reduction of leg pain. At follow-up, there was a statistically significant improvement in VAS pain intensity, ODI, WDI, and LBOS. Patients classified as having mixed stenosis had a higher incidence of continuous pain symptoms in comparison with acquired stenosis, but there was no differential improvement with treatment depending upon stenosis classification and/or number of operative levels. Overall, 58% (21/36) of patients met the successful surgical outcome criteria, including 14 subjects who met all four success criteria. Based upon a stringent definition of successful surgical outcome, the results of a conservative laminectomy were as good as those of more aggressive decompressive procedures presented in the literature. Our findings indicate that, even in a highly organic disorder such as spinal stenosis, illness behavior plays an important role in predicting surgical outcome.     

Bilateral decompression via unilateral fenestration using mobile microendoscopic discectomy technique for lumbar spinal stenosis

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and clinical efficacy of bilateral decompression via unilateral fenestration (BDUF) with mobile microendoscopic discectomy (MMED) for lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods: From June 2007 to June 2009, 32 patients were treated by the technique of BDUF with MMED for lumbar spinal stenosis in our hospital. All patients complained of bilateral sciatic neuralgia and intermittent claudication that was dominant in one limb. CT scan and MRI revealed disc herniation and bilateral stenosis of the spinal canal. Patients with bilateral severe osseous stenosis and multilevel stenosis were excluded. Results: The procedure was technically successful in all patients, bilateral decompression and spinal canal enlargement being achieved by unilateral fenestration. The mean operative time was 70 min (range, 50–100 min), with a mean blood loss of 150 ml (range, 50–350 ml). No significant complication was noted; dural tears were encountered in only two patients without obvious side effects. The patients were followed up for 3 to 24 months (mean, 12 months) and the clinical results were excellent in 21 cases and good in 11 cases according to the MacNab scale. Conclusion: The procedure of BDUF can be performed in conjunction with the MMED technique for lumbar spinal stenosis with good clinical results; however, severe bilateral osseous stenosis may be not suitable for this technique.     

显微镜下微创减压治疗下腰退变性椎管狭窄症

目的：观察显微镜下微创减压治疗下腰退变性椎管狭窄症的临床疗效。方法：自2007年5月至2008年11月,显微镜下微创减压治疗下腰椎管狭窄症26例,男9例,女17例;年龄47～75岁,平均53.7岁;病程2～8年,平均3.6年;单侧症状20例,双侧6例。手术前后应用JOA法评价疗效并计算改善率。结果：单节段手术时间60～90min,平均75min,出血50～120ml,平均85ml;双节段手术时间80～180min,平均95min,出血60～150ml,平均100ml。26例均获得随访,时间6～24个月,平均8.6个月。按JOA评分法,优18例,良7例,差1例,优良率96%,平均改善率86%。术前评分3.92±0.83,术后12.67±1.92,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。结论：显微镜下微创减压手术治疗下腰退变性椎管狭窄症手术时间短、创伤小、操作精细、恢复快,同时可以获得良好疗效,但不适用于椎体后缘明显骨化或钙化、椎管内粘连较重的患者。     

多节段开窗减压椎管潜行扩大治疗腰椎管狭窄症

目的：探讨腰椎管狭窄症的治疗方法。方法根据腰椎管狭窄症呈节段性特点,对病变节段行手术治疗,应用多节段开窗减压椎管潜行扩大术治疗腰椎管狭窄症１１２例,结果平均随访３８．６个月。疗效７３例,良３３例,可５例,差１例,优良率９４．６％,结论多节段开窗减压椎管潜行扩大既治疗腰椎管狭窄症又保留了脊椎的稳定性。     

单纯减压与减压后融合治疗单纯退变性腰椎管狭窄症疗效对比研究

【摘要】 目的 比较单纯椎管减压术和减压后器械内固定融合治疗无腰椎滑脱和失稳的退变性腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效。方法 自2006年3月~2011年5月期间,在我院接受手术治疗的单纯退变性腰椎管狭窄症患者共63例,其中接受单纯选择性椎管减压术治疗的患者28例,接受椎管减压加器械内固定融合手术患者35例。手术前后分别使用腰椎JOA (Japanese Orthopedic Association) 评分、ODI(Oswestry Disability Index)评分和SF?鄄36(Short Form?鄄36)评分,评估两种术式的临床疗效。结果 两组患者术后1年均取得较好疗效。其中椎管减压加融合组患者术后ODI评分改善31.2分(P<0.001),由重度功能障碍改善至轻度功能障碍;单纯选择性椎管减压组术后ODI评分改善14.9分(P=0.004),由重度功能障碍改善至中度功能障碍;减压加融合组预后较单纯减压组显著改善(P<0.01),术后SF?鄄36评分得到相似结果。结论 手术治疗能极大地改善腰椎管狭窄患者的临床症状,椎管减压加融合术较单纯椎管减压术能更大程度改善该类患者的临床症状。     

Precise and limited decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis

Summary Fifty-eight consecutive patients with lumbosacral nerve root entrapment due to spinal stenosis were treated with modified microsurgical decompression. Only the clinically relevant sides and levels were decompressed while the spinous processes, the interspinous ligaments, the medial portion of ligamentum flavum and the functionally important parts of the facet joints were preserved. The reviewers rated recovery as good or excellent in 71% of patients while patient self-assessment indicated 76% good or excellent outcome. These data suggest that microsurgical decompression of spondyloarthritic changes can effectively relieve the signs and symptoms of nerve root compression and that with careful evaluation of all available data the number of nerve roots requiring decomperession is often fewer than what is suggested by diagnositic images alone.     

Development of a clinical diagnosis support tool to identify patients with lumbar spinal stenosis

No clinical diagnostic support tool can help identify patients with LSS. Simple diagnostic tool may improve the accuracy of the diagnosis of LSS. The aim of this study was to develop a simple clinical diagnostic tool that may help physicians to diagnose LSS in patients with lower leg symptoms. Patients with pain or numbness of the lower legs were prospectively enrolled. The diagnosis of LSS by experienced orthopedic specialists was the outcome measure. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified factors that predicted LSS; a simple clinical prediction rule was developed by assigning a risk score to each item based on the estimated beta-coefficients. From December 2002 to December 2004, 104 orthopedic physicians from 22 clinics and 50 hospitals evaluated 468 patients. Two items of physical examination, three items of patients' symptom, and five items of physical examination were included in the final scoring system as a result of multiple logistic regression analysis. The sum of the risk scores for each patient ranged from −2 to 16. The Hosmer–Lemeshow statistic was 11.30 (P = 0.1851); the area under the ROC curve was 0.918. The clinical diagnostic support tool had a sensitivity of 92.8% and a specificity of 72.0%. The prevalence of LSS was 6.3% in the bottom quartile of the risk score (−2 to 5) and 99.0% in the top quartile (12 to 16). We developed a simple clinical diagnostic support tool to identify patients with LSS. Further studies are needed to validate this tool in primary care settings.     

非广泛减压术治疗纤维环膨隆型腰椎管狭窄症

作者对２０例纤维环膨隆型腰椎管狭窄患者只行狭窄节段彻底减压，即切除部分关节突、黄韧带及少量椎扳下缘，保留棘突、棘上韧带及棘间韧带，不切除膨隆的纤维环。术前行功能让脊髓造影及ＣＴＭ检查，准确定位狭窄节段。最长随访时间４年３个月，最短１年，优良率达９％。本术式不干扰椎管内结构，硬膜外出血少，减压引流彻底，对退变性节段性狭窄患者尤为适应。