椎间关节植骨加内固定治疗退变性腰椎管狭窄症

目的 介绍椎间关节植骨加内固定治疗退变性腰椎管狭窄症的疗效.方法 采用椎间关节植骨加内固定治疗退变性腰椎管狭窄症268例.结果 268例,平均随访36个月,优良率为89.6%,并发症2.3%.结论 椎间关节植骨加内固定治疗退变性腰椎管狭窄症疗效确切,融合率高.     

Coflex植入系统在退变性腰椎管狭窄症中的应用

药物及物理治疗退变性腰椎管狭窄症效果不明显,但椎板切除减压等手术创伤较大,患者难以接受。德国GENERAL CARE医疗技术公司根据神经源性间歇性跛行患者症状随着腰椎后伸时加重,屈曲时缓解这一特点,设计了一种动态棘突间植入物-Coflex系统,这是一种非融合性植入物。Coflex植入系统是一种治疗腰椎管狭窄症和腰椎不稳微创治疗方法,该棘突间装置稳定了术中因减压术后引起的椎体不稳,可预防远期产生的不稳。Coflex植入系统的临床应用前景广阔,为退变性腰椎管狭窄症患者提供了一种安全有效的治疗方法。     

腰椎间开窗潜行扩大减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症

目的探讨腰椎管狭窄的的手术治疗。方法自2004—03～2006—02采用腰椎间开窗潜行扩大减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症21例。结果21例全部随访，平均15个月。采用北美脊柱外科协会的腰椎功能障碍指数（ODD评定结果：优16例，良3例，可2例。结论腰椎间开窗潜行扩大减压手术是治疗腰椎管狭症的有效方法，具有减压彻底、不破坏脊柱稳定性的特点。     

腰椎间开窗潜行扩大减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症

目的探讨腰椎管狭窄的的手术治疗。方法自2004-03～2006-02采用腰椎间开窗潜行扩大减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症21例。结果21例全部随访,平均15个月。采用北美脊柱外科协会的腰椎功能障碍指数(ODI)评定结果:优16例,良3例,可2例。结论腰椎间开窗潜行扩大减压手术是治疗腰椎管狭症的有效方法,具有减压彻底、不破坏脊柱稳定性的特点。     

手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症76例疗效分析

目的探讨后路手术应用椎弓根钉内固定技术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的方法与疗效。方法对于腰椎管狭窄症患者,在严格掌握手术适应证的前提下,全部采用气管插管全麻,取俯卧位,以狭窄段为中心后正中切口,显露椎板,C型臂透视定位后,在选定的椎体上准确打入椎弓根钉,全椎板切除减压及椎间孔减压,切除突出椎间盘,部分放置椎间融合器行椎间融合,预弯钛棒后装棒,用自体骨和(人工骨)在两侧横突间丰富植骨,生理盐水反复冲洗后放置负压吸引器,关闭切口,术后应用抗生素3~5 d。结果全部病例随访,时间为3个月~4 a,平均为2 a。疗效标准按Frankel评分:优65例,良9例,3例,差2例,优良率97.36%。结论手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症,疗效确切,值得临床推广使用。     

腰椎管狭窄症62例手术治疗分析

目的探讨腰椎管狭窄症的手术治疗方法和减压范围.方法自1996-06～2002-06手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症62例,对大部分病例采取选择性椎管减压术,对发育性椎管狭窄和症状严重的退行性椎管狭窄行全椎板切除减压术.结果随访8个月～6年,优44例,良13例,进步5例,优良率92%.结论腰椎管减压手术应该具备神经减压彻底、组织损伤小、保持和重建腰椎稳定性这三个基本条件.手术成功的关键是解决椎管狭窄和神经通道狭窄.     

可膨胀椎间融合器治疗腰椎退变性疾病30例回顾性分析☆

摘要：回顾性分析2005-08/2008-02北京大学第一医院骨科收治的应用可膨胀椎间融合器(B-Twin)行后路开放腰椎椎间融合治疗30例,男14例,女16例;年龄28~72岁;椎间融合节段L1/2 1例,L2/3 1例,L3/4 1例,L4/5 14例,L5/S1 13例。单独应用B-Twin 8例(单枚1例,双枚7例),结合椎弓根螺钉22例(单枚17例,双枚5例);直径9.5/ 11.0 mm 28例,直径11.5/13.0 mm 2例。术前、术后及随访时采用JOA评分(29分法)、Oswestry功能障碍指数评分评价患者生活质量改善情况,通过腰椎X射线平片评价融合间隙高度变化及腰椎滑脱纠正情况。30例患者中28例获得随访,平均随访9个月。Oswestry功能障碍指数术后优良率97%,随访优良率100%。JOA评分术后优良率93%,随访优良率96%。融合间隙高度术前占上位椎体的0.29±0.09,术后占上位椎体的0.44±0.09,随访时占上位椎体的0.42±0.09。腰椎滑脱患者中,术前滑脱占上位椎体高度的10%~60%;术后滑脱占上位椎体高度的0%~40%;随访滑脱占上位椎体高度的0%~30%。无神经损伤、感染患者。减压过程中因粘连硬膜撕裂1例,术后融合器陷入终板1例,随访时融合器碎裂1例。提示可膨胀椎间融合器有手术时间短、 创伤小、对神经刺激少等优点,术后及随访效果满意。需注意根据术前及术中测得椎间高度选择匹配的融合器型号;如放置单枚椎间融合器偏椎间隙一侧有碎裂可能,为防止碎裂应充分植骨,并可应用2枚椎间融合器。     

单侧椎弓根螺钉置入并椎间融合对邻近椎间盘节段退变的影响

背景：坚强内固定和良好融合存在严重缺陷和不足。目前还未见临床应用单侧椎弓根螺钉固定结合椎间cage植骨融合治疗腰椎退变性疾病对邻近节段退变影响的相关报道。 目的：回顾分析单侧椎弓根螺钉固定结合椎间cage植骨融合治疗部分腰椎退变性疾病后对固定融合邻近上下节段退变的影响。 方法：2006-03/2009-12对收治的部分腰椎管狭窄症、腰椎失稳及腰椎间盘脱出症患者22例,进行了单侧椎弓根螺钉固定加椎间cage植骨融合,术中不显露对侧。在固定融合后3,6,12,20个月及取出内固定钉棒后3,6个月,随访X射线片及MRI。针对X射线片运用角平分线法测量固定融合邻近上位椎间隙高度变化,MRI测量椎间盘髓核退变情况。 结果与结论：所有病例获得随访,患者椎管狭窄症状及神经根性症状消失,并且在随访期间内没有新的临床症状出现。固定融合前、固定融合后3,6,12,20个月邻近节段上位椎间隙高度分别为(7.420±0.035 4),(7.426 6±0.036 9),(7.453 3±0.036 9),(7.516 6±0.036 9),(7.430 8±0.036 9) mm,结果表明,腰椎单侧固定融合后邻近节段椎间隙高度无明显变化(P > 0.05)。MRI测量结果显示,固定融合邻近上位椎间盘髓核信号在T2加权像无明显退变。提示单侧椎弓根螺钉固定结合椎间融合治疗部分腰椎退变性疾病能有效预防固定融合邻近上下节段退变。     

两种椎间融合手术对腰椎退变性疾病术后神经功能恢复的影响

目的探讨椎间孔入路腰椎融合术(TLIF)与后路椎间融合术(PLIF)在腰椎退行性疾病治疗中对患者术后神经功能恢复的影响。方法 224例腰椎退行性疾病患者根据手术方式分为TLIF组(n=98)及PLIF组(n=126),对比2组临床效果、术后神经功能损伤及术后3个月时神经功能JOA评分。结果 2组有效率(TLIF组90.8%,PLIF组89.7%)比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05);TLIF组术后神经根损伤发生率5.1%,显著低于PLIF组的19.8%(P0.01);2组术前JOA评分比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05),术后均显著增高(P0.01),术后1周TLIF组显著高于PLIF组(P0.01),术后3个月2组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 TLIF与PLIF在腰椎退行性疾病的外科治疗中均具有良好效果,虽然手术方式不同,但术后远期神经功能恢复情况并无明显区别,应密切结合病人的病情选择合适的手术方式。     

两种不同材料椎间融合器治疗腰椎不稳症的应用比较*

背景：碳纤维箱型和钛合金螺纹状椎间融合器是两种材料及形状均不同的椎间融合器,均取得了良好的临床效果。 目的： 应用碳纤维箱型及钛合金螺纹状Cage联合椎弓根内固定系统治疗腰椎不稳症,比较影像学变化及临床症状改善情况。 方法：对59例行后路短节段椎弓根钉系统复位与内固定单节段腰椎不稳症患者进行随访,其中实施碳纤维楔型椎间融合器37例,钛合金螺纹状椎间融合器22例。用M-JOA评分的症状改善率评价患者治疗效果;术前、术后1周及1年摄X射线片及CT,观察椎体间高度、融合节段前凸弧度及植骨融合情况。 结果与结论：术后1周,碳纤维箱型Cage组术后的椎体间高度及腰椎前凸弧度的恢复值与钛合金螺纹状Cage组差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05);术后1年,碳纤维箱型Cage组椎体间高度及腰椎前凸弧度的恢复值高于钛合金螺纹状Cage组(P < 0.01)。两组患者术后1年均获得骨性融合,临床症状缓解良好,下腰痛症状改善率差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05)。结果表明,应用碳纤维箱型Cage与钛合金螺纹状Cage行椎间融合联合椎弓根内固定系统治疗腰椎不稳症,二者在缓解下腰部疼痛及植骨融合方面效果显著,但碳纤维箱型Cage行椎间融合联合椎弓根内固定系统行后路腰椎融合术可以维持较好的椎体间高度及腰椎前凸弧度。 关键词：椎间融合术;椎间融合器;腰椎不稳症;内固定系统;碳纤维箱型Cage;钛合金螺纹状Cage     

Symptomatic progression of degenerative scoliosis after decompression and limited fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis

Significant degenerative scoliosis together with lumbar spinal stenosis increases the complexity of planning a surgical intervention for iatrogenic instability may be introduced by decompression in the midst of the curve, especially at or near the curve apex, that may lead to more rapid progression of a deformity, especially if surgery is at, or is near, the apex of the curve and a listhesis is present. Surgical options include simple laminectomy, a laminectomy with limited fusion, or an extensive fusion that addresses the overall curve, but there is no consensus as to the best approach. There is scant information in the literature about specific instances of failure of a limited surgical approach from which any instructive lessons may be learned. We report a surgical failure in a 59-year-old woman with degenerative lumbar stenosis and scoliosis from L3–5 and L3–4 disc herniation treated with a simple hemilaminectomy and discectomy, a subsequent fusion for symptomatic progression of deformity, and a third surgery to fuse the entire scoliotic curve after development of severe deformity, pain, and neurological deficits. We conclude that surgical decision-making should take into consideration any risk factors for deformity progression as well as overall sagittal and coronal balance and advise that similar patients be followed for a lengthy period following surgery to monitor for stability.     

Efficacy of surgery and type of fusion in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) can be treated by several surgical procedures. However, the choice of procedure and use of instrumentation remain controversial. In this retrospective study of 81 patients with DLSS, 43 patients received decompression and posterolateral fusion without instrumentation, and the surgery for 38 patients was supplemented with posterior transpedicular screw fixation. Both surgeon-based (Fischgrund criteria) and patient-based (Medical Outcome Trust Short-Form 36 [SF-36] questionnaire) standards were used to assess the clinical outcomes. An excellent to good result was achieved in 71.6% of patients and there was no significant difference 6.2 years later between groups with or without instrumentation (Z = 0.0358, p > 0.05). SF-36 data revealed significant postoperative improvement (p < 0.01), and there was no significant difference between the two groups (t = 1.67, p > 0.05). Successful fusion occurred in 87% of patients with instrumentation versus 67% of the patients without instrumentation (χ² = 4.23, p < 0.05). Thus, surgical treatment of DLSS generally results in satisfactory outcomes. Transpedicular screw fixation may not improve clinical outcomes and the use of posterior instrumentation should be adopted cautiously.     

Posterolateral lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis

This study compares the safety and efficacy of posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS). Forty DLS patients with Cobb angles of 20–60 degrees were randomized into either the PLF or TLIF treatment group, and were followed up for 2–5 years. Operating time, intraoperative blood loss, clinical outcomes, complications and imaging were compared between the two groups. There were significant differences between the PLF and TLIF treatment groups in operative time (187.8 ± 63.5 minutes and 253.2 ± 57.6 minutes, respectively; p = 0.002) and intraoperative blood loss (1166.7 ± 554.1 mL and 1673.7 ± 922.4 mL, respectively; p = 0.048). The occurrence rates of early complications in the two groups were 11.1% and 26.3%. The recovery rates of the lumbar lordotic angle and spinal sagittal balance were significantly different (36.7% versus 62.5% and 44.8% versus 64.1%, respectively). In various domains of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire, the scores for pain and satisfaction with the treatment showed significant differences between PLF and TLIF group (p = 0.033 and p = 0.006, for pain and satisfaction respectively), and the TLIF group showed better outcomes than the PLF group. There were no significant differences in the recovery rates in the Cobb angle and the spinal coronal balance, function, self-image, or mental health scores. Although TLIF increases the surgical trauma and occurrence of complications, it helps to improve lumbar lordosis and sagittal balance and shows better clinical outcomes. For patients without significant loss of lumbar lordosis and with good spinal sagittal balance preoperatively, PLF is still an option.     

Minimally invasive surgery compared to open spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathologies

This clinical study prospectively compares the results of open surgery to minimally invasive fusion for degenerative lumbar spine pathologies. Eighty-two patients were studied (41 minimally invasive surgery [MIS] spinal fusion, 41 open surgical equivalent) under a single surgeon (R. J. Mobbs). The two groups were compared using the Oswestry Disability Index, the Short Form-12 version 1, the Visual Analogue Scale score, the Patient Satisfaction Index, length of hospital stay, time to mobilise, postoperative medication and complications. The MIS cohort was found to have significantly less postoperative pain, and to have met the expectations of a significantly greater proportion of patients than conventional open surgery. The patients who underwent the MIS approach also had significantly shorter length of stay, time to mobilisation, lower opioid use and total complication rates. In our study MIS provided similar efficacy to the conventional open technique, and proved to be superior with regard to patient satisfaction, length of hospital stay, time to mobilise and complication rates.     

Modified minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion under microscopic view to achieve bilateral decompression and fusion through a single approach to treat developmental lumbar spinal stenosis

PurposeTo describe a modified minimally invasive spine (MIS) procedure to treat lumbar developmental spinal stenosis (DSS) to achieve complete decompression and fusion. The method preserves the muscles, ligaments, and most of the bony structures. DSS is not considered a good indication for MIS procedures and few reports discuss alternative treatments. Because MIS has the advantages of low blood loss, rapid recovery, and short hospital stay, it would be ideal for DSS.MethodsAfter confirming the screw positions, we placed a tube retractor in the facet joint on the decompressed side. The inferior facet joint and part of the superior joint of the lower segment were removed, the spinal canal was carefully exposed under a microscopic view, and fusion was performed through Kambin’s triangle. Next, the operation table was rotated to the contralateral side and angled to approximately 15–20 degrees. We then tilted the tube retractor in the facet joint toward the operation side by 15–20 degrees, which provided access to the contralateral canal for decompression. The ligament flavum was carefully removed and the dural sac was gently retracted to expose the lateral recess on the other side. We then examined the nerve root on the contralateral side to ensure there was no compression.ResultsEight patients with lumbar DSS were treated using this method. Patients' neurological symptoms improved greatly without complications and patients were able to walk the day after surgery. The inner plate of the contralateral lamina and muscle as well as most of the ligaments that contribute to stability were preserved.ConclusionThis modified MIS decompression procedure successfully treated DSS by providing spinal canal decompression and preserving most of the stabilizing structures.     

老年退行性腰椎管狭窄症患者围手术期心理状况评估

目的探讨老年退行性腰椎管狭窄症(DLSS)患者围手术期心理状况,为其心理疾病防治提供参考。方法以2014年1月-2015年6月在绵阳市第三人民医院脊柱外科进行手术治疗的125例老年DLSS患者为研究对象。于术前、术后1周、术后半年和术后1年采用Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)、汉密尔顿抑郁量表24项版(HAMD-24)进行测评。结果术后86例患者随访1~2年,平均随访1.4年。术前与术后各时间点ODI、HAMA、HAMD-24评分比较差异均有统计学意义(P均0.05)。其中术前和术后1年ODI评分[(46.00±1.81)分vs.(11.00±1.64)分]、HAMA评分[(24.18±2.20)分vs.(5.15±1.15)分]、HAMD-24评分[(29.46±2.30)分vs.(7.52±2.00)分]比较差异均有统计学意义(P均0.05),减分率分别为87%、79%和76%。结论老年DLSS患者围手术期可能存在焦虑或抑郁症状。     

Posterior interbody fusion using a diagonal cage with unilateral transpedicular screw fixation for lumbar stenosis

Few reports have described the combined use of unilateral pedicle screw fixation and interbody fusion for lumbar stenosis. We retrospectively reviewed 79 patients with lumbar stenosis. The rationale and effectiveness of unilateral pedicle screw fixation were studied from biomechanical and clinical perspectives, aiming to reduce stiffness of the implant. All patients were operated with posterior interbody fusion using a diagonal cage in combination with unilateral transpedicular screw fixation and had reached the 3-year follow-up interval after operation. The mean operating time was 115 minutes (range = 95-150 min) and the mean estimated blood loss was 150 mL (range = 100-200 mL). The mean duration of hospital stay was 10 days (range = 7-15 days). Clinical outcomes were assessed prior to surgery and reassessed at intervals using Denis’ pain and work scales. Fusion status was determined from X-rays and CT scans. At the final follow-up, the clinical results were satisfactory and patients showed significantly improved scores (p < 0.01) either on the pain or the work scale. Successful fusion was achieved in all patients. There were no new postoperative radiculopathies, or instances of malpositioned or fractured hardware. Posterior interbody fusion using a diagonal cage with unilateral transpedicular fixation is an effective treatment for decompressive surgery for lumbar stenosis.     

MAST QUADRANT 可扩张管下单侧椎弓根钉置入与椎体间融合治疗腰椎退变性疾病**★

背景：腰椎后路椎体间融合治疗腰椎退变性疾病，能够恢复椎间隙高度、维持腰椎生理前凸、提供腰椎的即刻稳定性及取得较高的椎间骨性融合率。 目的：验证运用MAST QUADRANT 可扩张管通道微创系统行单侧椎弓根钉置入并椎体间融合治疗腰椎退变性疾病的适应证及有效性。 方法：在3.0 cm的微创切口内放置MAST QUADRANT可扩张管，应用单侧椎弓根钉内固定加椎体间融合治疗腰椎退变性疾病患者32例。 结果与结论：患者置入内固过程中未发生硬膜囊撕裂、神经根和大血管等副损伤。随访3个月以上。置入3个月后JOA评分明显高于置入前(P < 0.01)，目测类比评分显著低于置入前(P < 0.01)。X射线片显示椎间隙骨密度均逐渐增加，未发现椎间融合器移位、假关节、内固定松脱或折断等并发症，亦无炎症、过敏等不良反应。     

斜外侧腰椎间融合术治疗退行性腰椎疾病一例

正患者女性,48岁,主因反复腰腿痛3年,加重伴间歇性跛行3个月,于2015年8月12日入院。患者3年前无明显诱因出现间断性腰部胀痛伴双臀和双大腿疼痛,活动和行走无明显受限,劳累后加重、卧床休息后缓解,当地医院行腰椎CT检查显示,L4-5椎间盘突出,临床诊断为L4-5椎间盘突出症。予牵引、理疗、敷中药(具体药物不详)等治疗后好转,但上述症状反复发作,时轻时重。3个月前腰痛和双下肢放射痛加重,尤以右侧显著,伴间歇性跛行,当