脊髓型颈椎后纵韧带骨化症的手术治疗

[目的]比较分析不同手术入路治疗脊髓型颈椎后纵韧带骨化症的疗效及并发症.[方法]回顾性分析本院自2005年1月～2009年3月56例脊髓型颈椎后纵韧带骨化症患者的手术人路、手术方式、手术时间、出血量、手术疗效及其并发症.[结果]56例患者随访20个月～6年,平均3.8年;前路手术25例,手术时间为(220.00±35.82)min,术中出血量为(280.00±127.48)ml,术前JOA评分8.36±1.41,术后JOA评分13.52±2.00,改善率为61.92％±16.46％,并发症发生7例;后路手术21例,手术时间为(118.57±22.20)min,术中出血量为(414.29±200.71)ml,术前JOA评分8.23±1.67,术后JOA评分13.19±1.97,改善率为58.57％±15.36％,并发症发生5例;前后联合手术10例,手术时间为(309.00±51.09)min,术中出血量为(760.00±337.30)ml,术前JOA评分7.40±1.07,术后JOA评分13.70±1.64,改善率为66.60％±13.29％,并发症发生3例;三组病例术中出血量、手术时间行组间比较有显著性差异(P＜0.05),但三组术前JOA评分、术后JOA评分、术后改善率、手术并发症发生例数行组间比较无显著性差异(P＞0.05).[结论]脊髓型颈椎后纵韧带骨化症前、后路或前后联合入路手术疗效均良好,手术并发症发生率均比较高,因此脊髓型颈椎后纵韧带骨化症的手术入路选择,除了要全面考虑患者病情,同时必须兼顾自身技术特点及条件,只要能够安全地对脊髓进行充分减压,维持或重建颈椎的稳定性,三种治疗方案均是可以选择的治疗手段,但前后联合人路手术时间长、出血量大,宜慎重.     

显微镜辅助下颈前路椎间盘切除植骨融合术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病

目的探讨显微镜辅助下颈前路椎间盘切除植骨融合术(anterior cervical discectomy with fusion,ACDF)治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效。方法回顾性分析2011年1月~2012年8月本院行颈前路手术治疗的60例脊髓型颈椎病患者的临床资料,根据手术方式分为常规ACDF组(A组,30例)和显微镜辅助ACDF组(B组,30例)。比较2组的手术时间、术中出血量、住院天数及并发症,以日本骨科学会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA)评分(17分法)及其改善率评价术后神经功能改善情况。结果 A组手术时间为(132.5±8.9)min,B组为(137.0±9.1)min,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。A组术中出血量为(113.6±8.0)m L,B组为(93.7±5.3)m L,差异有统计学意义(P0.01)。A组住院(7.37±1.73)d,B组(6.63±1.13)d,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。A组术前JOA评分为6.60±1.21,术后12个月为13.83±0.91,改善率为(69.72±7.66)%;B组术前JOA评分为6.87±1.46,术后12个月为14.23±1.17,改善率为(72.51±11.26)%。A组和B组改善率差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论显微镜辅助ACDF和常规ACDF是治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病有效的方法,但显微镜辅助ACDF可减少术中出血量,是治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病优先选择的手术方案。     

严重脊髓型颈椎病手术减压的安全术式探讨

目的探讨严重脊髓型颈椎病手术减压的安全术式.方法回顾性分析采用手术治疗的32例前方压迫较严重(致压物的矢状径大于椎管矢状径的50%)的脊髓型颈椎病患者的临床资料,其中21例行颈前路手术(A组),11例行后前路联合手术(B组),24例(A组15例,B组9例)得到1年以上的随访,对两组患者JOA评分改善率、手术时间、手术出血量,出现皮层体感诱发电位(CSEP)预警的情况进行比较.结果术中A组CSEP预警13次,B组预警2次,多发生在骨赘切除、脊髓减压期间;两组JOA评分改善率在术后3d时(B组为71.02%,A组为67.12%)无显著性差异(P＞0.05),术后1年时B组(81.76%)明显优于A组(72.04%)(P＜0.05),而手术出血、手术时间B组(300±123ml;185±24min)明显多于A组(90±43ml;67±19min)(P＜0.05).结论对严重脊髓型颈椎病患者行后前路联合手术减压较单纯前路手术增大了创伤、延长了手术时间、后路固定也加重了患者的经济负担,但手术安全性明显提高,有较好的神经功能改善率,是此类患者的首选术式.     

单开门术后前方残留压迫阻碍神经功能恢复的研究

[目的]研究后路单开门成形术后脊髓前方残留压迫对神经功能恢复的影响,并探讨残留压迫与术前椎管侵占率以及致压物最大径之间的关系.[方法] 2008年1月～2010年12月在本院行单开门手术的脊髓型颈椎病患者60例,所有患者均获得随访.平均随访时间34个月(12 ～52个月).将患者分为两组,A组:22例术后存在前方残留压迫;B组:38例术后不存在前方残留压迫.比较和分析两组术后疗效及影像学资料,如JOA总体评分及改善率,JOA各项评分及改善率,术前及术后颈椎曲度,前方压迫物最大径以及椎管侵占率.[结果]两组平均年龄、病程、随访时间、术前JOA评分以及术前术后的颈椎曲度比较均无统计学差异(P＞0.05).A组JOA改善率(52.7±19.2)％,B组改善率(69.8±9.8)％,两组间改善率比较有统计学差异(P＜0.05),A组vs B组上肢运动功能改善率(44.6％ vs76.3％),下肢运动功能改善率(43.2％ vs57.2％),两组间比较有统计学差异(P＜0.05).A组压迫物最大径及椎管侵占率分别为(7.2±1.4) mm和(58.2±10.7)％,B组分别为(5.9±1.3)mm和(49.5±10.6)％,两组间比较有统计学差异(P＜0.05).[结论]单开门术后脊髓受到前方残留压迫时会阻碍神经功能的恢复,特别是在四肢运动功能方面.单开门手术对伴有前方巨大占位的脊髓型颈椎病的治疗具有局限性.     

颈前路减压cage融合术与自体髂骨块植骨钛板内固定术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的中期疗效

目的:观察颈椎前路减压cage植骨融合术与颈椎前路减压自体髂骨块植骨融合钛板内固定术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的中期临床疗效。方法:2001年1月～2006年4月128例脊髓型颈椎病患者按照手术方式分为A、B两组,A组61例患者采用前路减压单纯PEEK cage植骨融合术治疗,其中病变节段与手术节段均为单节段22例,双节段39例;B组67例采用颈椎前路减压自体髂骨块植骨融合钛板内固定术,其中单节段27例,双节段40例。观察手术前后JOA评分、椎间高度和颈椎曲度情况。结果:A组手术时间为58.1±1.4min,术中出血量为42.4±2.0ml,B组分别为72.0±5.3min、82.7±3.9ml,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。A组23例(39.3%)出现一过性咽部不适,1例硬脊膜破裂,2例cage塌陷、移位;B组49例(73.1%)出现一过性咽部不适,1例硬脊膜破裂,5例髂骨供区痛,2例钉板松动。每组患者术后JOA评分、椎间高度和颈椎曲度均较术前明显改善(P<0.05),A、B组术后JOA评分改善率分别为(82.30±6.61)%和(83.80±4.42)%,组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。随访24～60个月,平均36个月,末次随访时A、B组椎间融合率分别为95.2%和96.3%,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);末次随访时每组JOA评分、椎间高度和颈椎曲度与术后比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术前、术后和末次随访时JOA评分、椎间高度和颈椎曲度两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:颈椎前路减压cage植骨融合术与颈椎前路减压自体髂骨块植骨融合钛板内固定术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的中期疗效均较好,但前者手术方法简单、近期并发症少。     

超声骨刀在颈椎前路椎体次全切除术中应用的安全性和有效性评价

目的 :探讨超声骨刀在颈椎前路椎体次全切除手术中应用的安全性和有效性。方法 :回顾性分析我院2015年4月~2017年3月确诊为脊髓型颈椎病行颈椎前路椎体次全切除手术的病例51例。根据术中切除椎体的工具分为两组。超声骨刀组(A组)应用超声骨刀切除椎体26例,男性15例,女性11例,年龄52.7±7.3岁(37~66岁);传统工具组(B组)应用咬骨钳及高速磨钻切除椎体25例,其中男性13例,女性12例,年龄50.5±7.9岁(38~67岁)。记录两组患者椎体切除时间、术中出血量、手术并发症、术前及术后3d的JOA评分及JOA评分改善率、住院时间等。结果:A组切除每节椎体的平均时间为8.3±1.5min,显著低于B组的11.3±1.5min(P0.05)。手术出血量A组为122.6±28.0ml,显著低于B组的163.4±39.0ml(P0.05)。两组患者均未出现术中脊髓损伤或硬膜撕裂,A组出现吞咽困难1例;B组出现喉上神经损伤1例、泌尿系感染1例。两组患者术前JOA评分分别为7.2±1.6分与6.8±1.4分,无统计学差异(P0.05)。A组患者术后3d的JOA评分11.3±1.5分,B组患者术后3d的JOA评分10.9±1.3分,均显著高于术前(P0.05)。患者JOA评分改善率两组分别为(41.7±13.6)%与(40.4±9.3)%,无统计学差异(P0.05)。A、B两组患者住院时间分别为6.80±0.89d与6.84±1.06d,无统计学差异(P0.05)。结论:在颈椎前路椎体次全切手术中应用超声骨刀安全有效,与传统的咬骨钳与高速磨钻相比,应用超声骨刀可以有效地缩短手术时间,减少手术出血量。     

颈前路手术治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病

目的分析颈前路减压融合手术治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法对124例3节段脊髓型颈椎病患者行颈前路手术治疗,78例行颈前路椎间盘切除减压融合术(ACDF),46例行颈前路椎体次全切除减压融合术(ACCF)。评估术后JOA评分及其改善率、植骨融合情况以及颈椎曲度。结果患者均获得随访,时间:ACDF组13~54(36.7±15.1)个月,ACCF组14~53(33.6±18.7)个月。两组患者术后JOA评分及颈椎Cobb角均较术前显著提高及恢复,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。ACDF组在手术时间、术中出血量及颈椎生理曲度恢复程度方面均优于ACCF组,且并发症发生率更低(P0.05)。两组术后JOA评分及其改善率、植骨融合率比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ACDF与ACCF治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病均可达到满意的神经功能恢复;ACDF治疗后颈椎生理曲度恢复较好,且并发症发生率较低。     

多模式神经电生理监测在颈椎前路手术中的预警意义

目的:探讨多模式神经电生理监测在颈椎前路手术中的预警意义。方法:2014年9月~2015年4月对53例行颈椎前路手术的颈椎病患者术中进行多模式神经电生理监测(A组),选取60例年龄、性别、病变节段和手术方式匹配但未进行神经电生理监测的颈椎前路手术患者作为对照(B组)。比较两组患者手术时间、术中出血量、神经根型颈椎病患者手术前后颈痛及上肢疼痛视觉模拟评分法(visual analogue scales,VAS)评分、颈部功能障碍指数(neck disability index,NDI)、脊髓型颈椎病患者术后JOA评分改善率和并发症的发生情况,分析A组病例中术中预警的类型和原因,以及与术前诊断、手术方式和手术节段之间的关系。结果:A组患者的手术时间为1.3±0.5h(0.8~2.1h),术中出血量为390±236ml(120~600ml),B组患者的手术时间为1.2±0.7h(0.6~2.4h),术中出血量为346±293ml(105~610ml),两组比较均无统计学差异(P0.05)。A、B两组神经根型颈椎病患者术前、术后的颈部和上肢VAS评分均无显著性差异(6.5±1.6 vs.6.8±1.4,7.6±2.4 vs.7.4±2.7,3.8±1.2vs.3.6±1.6,3.3±1.4 vs.3.9±1.8,P0.05),A组神经根型颈椎病患者术后NDI和脊髓型颈椎病患者JOA评分改善率明显优于B组[(19.2±7.1 vs 22.1±5.6,(84.1±10.3)%vs(73.3±9.2)%;P0.05]。在A组病例中,颈椎前路椎体次全切椎间融合手术较颈前路椎间盘切除椎间融合术的术中监测"严重预警"发生率更高(P0.05),但两种手术方式的"次要预警"发生率无显著性差异(P0.05);脊髓型颈椎病与神经根型颈椎病之间、单节段手术与双节段手术之间的术中监测"严重预警"和"次要预警"发生率均无统计学差异(P0.05)。结论:多模式神经电生理监测在颈椎前路手术中能及时预警神经损伤,可有效提高手术的安全性和临床疗效。     

前路减压椎间桥形融合器ROI-C置入治疗连续双节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效对比

目的 :比较颈椎前路减压椎间桥形融合器ROI-C置入与传统钛板联合cage融合固定治疗连续双节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法:回顾性分析2011年1月~2012年12月我科行颈椎前路减压应用ROI-C或传统钛板联合cage融合固定治疗的连续双节段脊髓型颈椎病患者57例,25例患者采用ROI-C作为内置物(A组),32例患者采用cage和前路钛板作为内置物(B组),两组患者年龄、性别比、术前JOA评分、术前颈痛VAS评分及手术节段均无统计学差异。比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后JOA评分、术后颈痛VAS评分、颈椎生理曲度(Cobb角)、手术节段前凸角、融合率、吞咽困难发生率及邻近节段退变率。结果:A组手术时间141.3±49.9min,术中出血量123.6±54.1ml,B组分别为168.3±44.4min和126.2±32.6ml,A组手术时间低于B组(P0.05),两组术中出血量相比差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后3个月及末次随访时,两组JOA评分均显著高于术前水平,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);两组颈痛VAS评分较术前明显下降,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);两组间同时间点JOA及VAS均无显著性差异(P0.05)。A组术前、末次随访时颈椎生理曲度分别为12.6°±7.3°、21.9°±6.2°;B组分别为14.3°±9.3°、19.6°±7.3°,两组末次随访时颈椎曲度较术前明显改善,差异有统计学意义(P0.05),两组间同时间点差异无显著性(P0.05)。A组术前、末次随访时手术节段前凸角分别为3.4°±5.6°、9.6°±5.5°;B组分别为4.4°±4.3°、9.1°±4.1°,两组手术节段术后前凸角较术前明显增高,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);两组间同时间点比较差异无显著性(P0.05)。A组术后有2例诉轻度吞咽困难,吞咽困难发生率8%(2/25),B组术后有10例诉轻度吞咽困难,1例诉中度吞咽困难,吞咽困难发生率34.4%(11/32),两组吞咽困难发生率相比差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。A组术后3个月手术节段融合率88%(22/25),B组术后3个月手术节段融合率87.5%(28/32),末次随访两组手术节段均获得骨性愈合。A组50个邻近节段中有6个节段椎间盘信号发生退变或退变级别加重,B组64个邻近节段中有8个节段椎间盘信号发生退变或退变级别加重,两组邻近节段退变率无统计学差异(P0.05)。结论:颈椎前路减压后应用ROI-C固定治疗连续双节段脊髓型颈椎病可以获得与传统cage联合前路钛板固定相似的临床疗效,但使用ROI-C置入具有手术时间短、术后吞咽困难率低等优点。     

保留与切除后纵韧带对颈前路手术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的疗效影响

目的探讨保留与切除后纵韧带对颈前路手术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的疗效影响。方法应用颈前路手术治疗脊髓型颈椎病(CSM)62例,其中后纵韧带保留组(A组)37例,切除组(B组)25例。据JOA评分系统进行临床疗效评价,于术后6个月比较两组JOA评分提高程度、神经功能改善率和硬膜囊前后径的变化。结果术前两者比较无统计性差异,术后6个月A组JOA评分(14.20±0.25),神经功能改善率为(61.2±19.7)%,硬膜囊前后径增加值(2.59±1.33)mm,B组JOA评分(15.35±0.38),神经功能改善率为(76.3±20.5)%,硬膜囊前后径增加值(3.68±1.45)mm,两组比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论颈椎前路减压术中切除后纵韧带使病变节段减压更彻底,其临床疗效优于保留后纵韧带。     

颈椎不稳在交感型颈椎病发病中的作用

目的：研究交感型颈椎病的病理因素及治疗方法。方法：回顾分析了1988-2000年收治的20例手术治疗的交感型颈椎病患者。根据术前及术后颈椎伸屈侧位X光片判断有无颈椎不稳。结果：20例患者术前均有颈椎不稳,颈椎不稳主要发生在C3-C4和C4-C5,颈椎高位硬膜外封闭对大部分患者有短期效果。每例患者均于不稳节段行颈前路融合术,手术有效率为90％。结论：颈椎不稳是导致交感型颈椎病发病的重要因素;颈椎高位硬膜外封闭可有短期疗效因此具有重要的诊断价值;颈椎前路植骨融合术是治疗交感型颈椎病的有效方法。     

Postoperative instability of cervical OPLL and cervical radiculomyelopathy

The presence of cervical spine instability with respect to preoperative and postoperative changes in angular, horizontal, and rotational displacement of the vertebral body were studied. With the anterior approach, the instability in the remaining unfused segments, and their relation to the kyphotic or lordotic fused segment were studied. With the posterior approach, postoperative ROM (range of motion) could be better maintained, and horizontal displacement was improved in more cases by laminoplasty compared with laminectomy. With the anterior approach, the compensatory function for the loss of motion of the segments resulting from fusion was most remarkable at the levels of C2-3 and C6-7. In the alignment of the anterior fused segments, it appears important that the physiologic lordotic position be maintained.     

Anterior cervical foramenotomy for cervical radiculopathy

Anterior cervical discectomy (ACD) is standard practice for cervical radiculopathy. Irrespective of the precise method used, it involves more or less complete disc removal with resultant anatomical and biomechanical derangements, and frequently the insertion of a bone or prosthetic graft. Anterior cervical foramenotomy is an alternative procedure that allows effective anterior decompression of the nerve root and lateral spinal cord, whilst conserving the native disc, preserving normal anatomy and movement, and protecting against later degeneration at adjacent spaces as far as possible. The aim of the study was to determine the safety and efficacy of anterior cervical foramenotomy in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy and took the form of a prospective study of 21 cases under the care of a single surgeon. All patients had a single level or two level anterior cervical foramenotomy. All had pre- and postoperative visual analogue scores for arm and neck pain, arm strength, sensation and overall use. A comparison between patients' perceptions and surgeon's observations was also made. Patients were followed up for between 10 and 36 months. Sixty-eight per cent completed full pre- and postoperative assessments. Twenty-eight per cent of the responders had complete arm pain resolution. There were statistically significant reductions in arm and neck pain, and overall disability. The surgeon's impression of improvement paralleled that of the patients. There was one complication with discitis. Anterior cervical foramenotomy is a safe and effective treatment for cervical radiculopathy caused by posterolateral cervical disc prolapse or uncovertebral osteophyte, and might also reduce adjacent segment degeneration.     

Percutaneous cervical nucleoplasty and percutaneous cervical discectomy treatments of the contained cervical disc herniation

Background  

There were no studies in literature to compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous nucleoplasty (PCN) and percutaneous cervical discectomy (PCD) in contained cervical disc herniation.     

颈横动脉颈段皮支皮瓣修复颈部瘢痕挛缩

目的 观察颈横动脉颈段皮支皮瓣修复颈部瘢痕挛缩的临床效果.方法 笔者单位1988-2011年收治颈前区烧伤后瘢痕挛缩患者66例.采用颈横动脉颈段皮支皮瓣修复患者颈部瘢痕,包括岛状皮瓣55例(其中9例行预扩张)、非岛状皮瓣11例(其中1例行预扩张).术中先切除、松解患者颈部瘢痕,在锁骨上、下及前胸区设计颈横动脉颈段皮支皮瓣,其轴心血管为颈横动脉在胸锁乳突肌、肩胛舌骨肌交界处穿出的皮动脉.皮瓣后界达斜方肌前缘,外侧界达三角肌中段,内侧界达胸骨中线,下界达乳头下3.0 ～4.0 cm处.术中先切开皮瓣外、下、内缘,锐性分离达锁骨平面后改为钝性剥离,分离到蒂部后,分离深度以皮瓣旋转后可无张力覆盖创面为度.其中预扩张的皮瓣供区直接拉拢缝合,非预扩张皮瓣供区植皮封闭.结果 本组患者中64例术后皮瓣成活良好;2例术后皮瓣下血肿致尖端部分坏死,经补充植皮后治愈;供区均愈合.所有皮瓣色泽、质地与周围组织匹配良好;皮瓣感觉功能术后初期恢复为胸部感觉,6个月后完全恢复为颈部感觉.结论 颈横动脉颈段皮支皮瓣血供恒定,解剖操作相对简便,皮瓣色泽、质地与颈部相近,是修复颈部严重瘢痕挛缩的良好选择.     

经皮髓核成形术与椎间盘切除术治疗退变性颈椎间盘突出症

目的比较经皮髓核成形术与经皮椎间盘切除术治疗退变性颈椎间盘突出症的临床疗效及对颈椎稳定性的影响。方法2002年7月至2004年12月共收治退变性颈椎间盘突出症患者80例,行经皮髓核成形术42例(PCN组),经皮椎间盘切除术38例(PCD组)。回顾性分析两组的临床资料,比较两组在手术时间、临床效果及颈椎稳定性等的差异。结果所有病例随访6~26个月,PCN组平均(12±5)个月;PCD组平均(12±4)个月。两组手术均获成功。两组手术时间有显著差异(t=-21·70,P=0·000);两组手术临床效果(JOA评分)经自身配对t检验显示均有显著性差异(PCN:t=14·05,P=0·000;PCD:t=-14·79,P=0·000),即两组均有效;两组手术临床效果(Williams评分)经Kruskal-Wallis检验无显著差异(z=-0·377,P=0·706,>0·05),即两组临床效果相似。两组手术后均无颈椎不稳病例发生,颈椎稳定性手术前后均无显著差异(P>0·05)。结论经皮髓核成形术与经皮椎间盘切除术治疗颈椎间盘突出症的临床疗效优良,对颈椎稳定性影响小,不会造成颈椎失稳的发生。     

颈椎不稳致交感型颈椎病的诊断和治疗

目的 探讨交感型颈型病的发病机制及有效的治疗方法。方法 回顾了1989-1998年应用颈前路间盘切除加植骨融合术治疗的交感型颈椎病患者18例,分析了患者产及术后颈椎伸、屈侧位X光片。结果 18例患者术前均有颈椎不稳,不稳定节段为1个者6例,2个者9例,3个者3例;颈椎不稳主要发生于C3-C4和C4-C5,偶见于C5-C6和C6-C7。14例患者术前行颈椎高位硬膜外封闭,11例有效;于不稳定节段行颈前路间盘切除加植骨融合术,18例均获随访,平均随访时间为1年9个月,术后有效率为88.9%,结论 颈椎不稳定是交感型颈椎病发病的重要因素。颈椎高位硬膜外封闭具有重要的诊断价值。颈前路间盘切除加植骨融合术是治疗交感型颈椎病的有效方法。     

颈椎自锁PEEK椎间融合器在颈椎病治疗中的应用

目的评价应用颈椎自锁PEEK椎间融合器前路减压治疗颈椎病的疗效。方法应用颈椎自锁PEEK椎间融合器治疗颈椎病患者18例,观察椎间融合器的稳定性和融合情况,采用Borden法测量椎间隙高度、颈椎曲度,对术前和术后JOA评分、椎间隙高度、颈椎曲度等指标进行统计学分析。结果 18例患者均获随访,时间6～42个月,未见严重并发症。术后6个月提示椎间骨性融合。椎间高度:术前为(3.26±0.68)mm,术后1周为(6.03±0.89)mm(P<0.01);术后6个月为(5.89±0.78)mm,与术后1周比较变化不大(P>0.05)。颈椎生理弧度:术前为(2.55±0.48)mm,术后1周为(3.24±0.67)mm(P>0.05);术后6个月为(8.14±1.17)mm,与术后1周比较明显改善(P<0.01)。末次随访根据JOA评分法进行疗效评价:优4例,良9例,可3例,差2例。结论颈椎自锁PEEK椎间融合器可以有效恢复颈椎生理曲度及椎间隙高度,可以获得满意的融合率,改善颈脊髓功能。     

Posterior cervical laminoplasty formultilevel cervical spine stenosis

Cervical laminoplasty for treating multilevel spinal stenosis appears to be a good surgical alternative to the more traditional laminectomy or anterior decompression and fusion. This procedure avoids the morbidity associated with extensive anterior procedures and also appears not to be associated with late kyphosis, which can be seen in patients after a laminectomy. This review outlines the rationale, indications, contraindications, and early clinical results for patients undergoing a posterior laminoplasty.     

Comparison of cervical kinematics between patients with cervical artificial disc replacement and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for cervical disc herniation

Background contextAlthough anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is an effective treatment option for patients with cervical disc herniation, it limits cervical range of motion, which sometimes causes discomfort and leads to biomechanical stress at neighboring segments. In contrast, cervical artificial disc replacement (ADR) is supposed to preserve normal cervical range of motion than ACDF. A biomechanical measurement is necessary to identify the advantages and clinical implications of ADR. However, literature is scarce about this topic and in those available studies, authors used the static radiological method, which cannot identify three-dimensional motion and coupled movement during motion of one axis.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the clinical parameters and cervical motion by three-dimensional motion analysis between ACDF and ADR and to investigate the ability of ADR to maintain cervical kinematics.Study designThis was a prospective case control study.Patient samplePatients who underwent ADR or ACDF for the treatment of single-level cervical disc herniation.Outcome measuresVisual analog scale (VAS), Korean version of Neck Disability Index (NDI, %), and three-dimensional motion analysis were used.MethodsThe patients were evaluated by VAS and the Korean version of the NDI (%) to assess pain degree and functional status. Cervical motions were assessed by three-dimensional motion analysis in terms of sagittal, coronal, and horizontal planes. Markers of 2.5 cm in diameter were attached at frontal polar (Fpz), center (Cz), and occipital (Oz) of 10–20 system of electroencephalography, C7 spinous process, and both acromions. These evaluations were performed preoperatively and 1 month and 6 months after surgery.ResultsThe ACDF and ADR groups revealed no significant difference in VAS, NDI (%), and cervical range of motion preoperatively. After surgery, both groups showed no significant difference in VAS and NDI (%). In motion analysis, significantly more range of motion was retained in flexion and extension in the ADR group than the ACDF group at 1 month and 6 months. There was no significant difference in lateral tilt and rotation angle. In terms of coupled motion, ADR group exhibited significantly more preserved sagittal plane motion during right and left rotation and also showed significantly more preserved right lateral bending angle during right rotation than ACDF group at 1 month and 6 months. There was no significant difference in other coupled motions.ConclusionThree-dimensional motion analysis could provide useful information in an objective and quantitative way about cervical motion after surgery. In addition, it allowed us to measure not only main motion but also coupled motion in three planes. ADR demonstrated better retained cervical motion mainly in sagittal plane (flexion and extension) and better preserved coupled sagittal and coronal motion during transverse plane motion than ACDF. ADR had the advantage in that it had the ability to preserve more cervical motions after surgery than ACDF.