微创单侧椎弓根螺钉固定、椎体间融合治疗腰椎疾患所致腰痛的临床观察

目的:评价微创单侧椎弓根螺钉固定、椎间融合治疗腰椎疾患所致腰痛的临床疗效。方法:2003年12月～2006年8月,共收治不同原因所致腰痛患者29例,其中腰椎间盘突出症13例,腰椎不稳8例,椎间盘源性腰痛5例,MED术后复发3例,均采用可扩张管道系统经椎间孔行椎体间植骨融合、单侧椎弓根螺钉固定术治疗。应用视觉模拟评分系统(VAS)评估患者术前、术后疼痛情况,应用Kim方法评价临床效果,应用Schulte方法观察植骨融合情况。结果:1例患者术后出现对侧下肢放射性疼痛,保守治疗无效,再次手术行神经根管减压和内固定后症状缓解。随访21～36个月,平均31.5个月,术前VAS评分为7.7±0.6分,术后3个月时为1.9±0.9分,两者比较有显著性差异(P0.001),术后3个月时Kim优良率为89.7%,末次随访时Kim优良率为96.6%,满意率为96.6%。末次随访时椎间融合率为93.1%,1例可能融合和1例假关节形成。结论:微创单侧椎弓根螺钉固定是治疗腰痛的一种有效方法,但需要严格把握手术适应证。     

Circumferential and posterolateral fusion for lumbar disc disease

Clinical outcome of low back fusion is unpredictable. There are various reports discussing the merits and clinical outcome of these two procedures. The patients were selected from a population of patients who had chronic low back pain unresponsive to conservative treatment. Thirty-six instrumented posterolateral fusions and 35 instrumented circumferential fusions with posterior lumbar interbody fusions were done simultaneously. Preoperative radiographic assessment included plain radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging scans, and provocative discography in all the patients. Posterolateral fusion or anterior lumbar interbody fusion was done for internal disc disruption. The Oswestry disability index, subjective scoring, and assessment of fusion were done at a minimum followup of 2 years. On subjective scoring assessment there was a satisfactory outcome of 63.9% (23 patients) in the posterolateral fusion group and 82.8% (29 patients) in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion group. On assessment by the Oswestry index no difference was found in outcome between the two groups. The posterolateral fusion group had a 63.9% satisfactory outcome and the posterior lumbar interbody fusion group had an 80% satisfactory outcome using the Oswestry disability index for postoperative assessment. There was 61.1% improvement in working ability in the posterolateral fusion group and 77.1% improvement in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion group which was not statistically significant. The authors consider instrumented circumferential fusion with posterior lumbar interbody fusion better than instrumented posterolateral fusion for managing chronic disabling low back pain.     

Treatment of postdiscectomy low back pain by percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus open posterior lumbar fusion with pedicle screws

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Up to a fifth of the patients who had discectomy undergo spinal fusion because of disabling low back pain. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcome of percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PPLIF) to that of open posterior lumbar fusion (PLF). STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Two surgical methods that were tried in sequence at a university affiliated hospital. PATIENT SAMPLE: Sixty patients with disabling postdiscectomy low back pain. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity was scored on a visual analog scale (VAS) and the degree of disability was scored by the Oswestry disability index (ODI). METHODS: Thirty patients were treated by PPLIF. The outcome, after 24 months or more, was compared retrospectively with that of 30 consecutive suitable subjects who had been treated by PLF with pedicle screw fixation by the same surgeons for the same indication. RESULTS: In the PPLIF group, as compared with PLF group, mean operating time was shorter, blood loss was negligible, and mean hospital time was halved. By the last follow-up visit (greater than or equal to 2 years), pain and disability in PLF group had diminished by 31.9% and 20.1%, respectively. The corresponding figures in PPLIF group were 55.4% and 42.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of postdiscectomy low back pain, PPLIF has proven, thus far, to be a safe procedure with improved clinical results.     

42例腰椎融合术后难治性下腰痛的治疗体会

目的探讨腰椎融合术后骶髂关节病变的特点及治疗方法与疗效。方法回顾性分析42例因腰椎退变性滑脱、腰椎椎间盘突出、腰椎椎管狭窄曾行后路减压、后外侧或椎体间植骨融合及椎弓根内固定术,术后随访12～72个月(平均42.6个月)出现新的难治性持续性下腰痛症状的病例。本研究运用骶髂关节内封闭进行诊断性治疗。阳性标准:疼痛缓解≥75%,采用疼痛视觉模拟量表(visual analogue scale,VAS)进行定量分析。结果阳性12例(28.57%),是否融合L5/S1、术后疼痛缓解期是否≥3个月与诊断阳性率相关,有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论腰椎融合术后下腰痛部分可能是由骶髂关节病变引起的,L5/S1融合可能促进骶髂关节发生退变。症状以下腰痛症状为主者,手术应慎重。     

后路椎间盘切除椎体融合治疗椎间盘源性下腰痛

目的：观察后路腰椎间盘切除椎体融合治疗椎间盘源性下腰痛的近期疗效。方法：将经临床检查和推间盘造影确诊为椎间盘内紊乱的２７例患者分为两者,一组行椎板开窗间盘切除椎体间Ｃａｇｅ内植骨术（Ｃａｇｅ组）,另一组行椎板开窗间盘切除椎体间植骨经椎弓根内固定术（ＰＳＦ组）,术后随访２～３年,观察患者腰痛改善和腰椎融合情况。结果：腰痛改善率：术后第１年Ｃａｇｅ组为８９％,ＰＳＦ组为９１％,术后第２年Ｃａｇｅ组为９３％,ＰＳＦ组为９４％,腰椎融合率：术后第１年Ｃａｇｅ组为９２％、ＰＳＦ组为９３％,随访期内两组各有１例未融合。结论：后路椎间盘切除椎体间Ｃａｇｅ内植骨或椎间盘切除椎体间植骨经椎弓根内固定治疗椎间盘源性下腰前,近期疗效满意。     

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in spondylolisthesis: a prospective controlled study in the Han nationality

In this prospective study, our aim was to compare the clinical outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) in spondylolisthesis. A total of 138 patients with spondylolisthesis were randomly assigned to two groups: those operated on with pedicle screw fixation and posterior lumbar interbody fusion by autografting (PLIF), and those operated on with pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion by autografting (PLF). The patients were followed-up for four years. Clinical evaluation was carried out using the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and pain index (VAS). Radiography was performed preoperatively and postoperatively to assess the fusion. Both surgical procedures were effective, but the PLF group showed more complications related to hardware biomechanics. There was no significant statistical difference in clinical and functional outcome in the two groups. The PLIF group presented a better fusion rate than the PLF group.     

Costs and effects in lumbar spinal fusion. A follow-up study in 136 consecutive patients with chronic low back pain

Although cost-effectiveness is becoming the foremost evaluative criterion within health service management of spine surgery, scientific knowledge about cost-patterns and cost-effectiveness is limited. The aims of this study were (1) to establish an activity-based method for costing at the patient-level, (2) to investigate the correlation between costs and effects, (3) to investigate the influence of selected patient characteristics on cost-effectiveness and, (4) to investigate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of (a) posterior instrumentation and (b) intervertebral anterior support in lumbar spinal fusion. We hypothesized a positive correlation between costs and effects, that determinants of effects would also determine cost-effectiveness, and that posterolateral instrumentation and anterior intervertebral support are cost-effective adjuncts in posterolateral lumbar fusion. A cohort of 136 consecutive patients with chronic low back pain, who were surgically treated from January 2001 through January 2003, was followed until 2 years postoperatively. Operations took place at University Hospital of Aarhus and all patients had either (1) non-instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion, (2) instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion, or (3) instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion + anterior intervertebral support. Analysis of costs was performed at the patient-level, from an administrator's perspective, by means of Activity-Based-Costing. Clinical effects were measured by means of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire and the Low Back Pain Rating Scale at baseline and 2 years postoperatively. Regression models were used to reveal determinants for costs and effects. Costs and effects were analyzed as a net-benefit measure to reveal determinants for cost-effectiveness, and finally, adjusted analysis (for non-random allocation of patients) was performed in order to reveal the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of (a) posterior instrumentation and (b) anterior support. The costs of non-instrumented posterolateral spinal fusion were estimated at DKK 88,285(95% CI 81,369;95,546), instrumented posterolateral spinal fusion at DKK 94,396(95% CI 89,865;99,574) and instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion + anterior intervertebral support at DKK 120,759(95% CI 111,981;133,738). The net-benefit of the regimens was significantly affected by smoking and functional disability in psychosocial life areas. Multi-level fusion and surgical technique significantly affected the net-benefit as well. Surprisingly, no correlation was found between treatment costs and treatment effects. Incremental analysis suggested that the probability of posterior instrumentation being cost-effective was limited, whereas the probability of anterior intervertebral support being cost-effective escalates as willingness-to-pay per effect unit increases. This study reveals useful and hitherto unknown information both about cost-patterns at the patient-level and determinants of cost-effectiveness. The overall conclusion of the present investigation is a recommendation to focus further on determinants of cost-effectiveness. For example, patient characteristics that are modifiable at a relatively low expense may have greater influence on cost-effectiveness than the surgical technique itself--at least from an administrator's perspective.     

下腰椎内固定融合手术后复发性腰痛及下肢放射痛23例原因分析

目的分析椎弓根螺钉内固定下腰椎融合手术后腰痛原因。方法随访2001年1月~2003年12月采用椎弓根螺钉内固定下腰椎融合手术103例,男43例,女60例;腰椎滑脱28例,腰椎管狭窄54例,腰椎间盘突出症21例。随访时进行问卷调查及X线、CT或MRI检查,并分析手术后腰痛的可能原因。结果随访时间3~5年,疗效优良80例(77.7%);术后有明显腰痛或腰痛伴下肢放射痛23例(22.3%)。邻近节段疾病11例(2节段融合7例,1节段融合4例;10.7%),内固定使用不当3例,椎弓根螺钉断裂2例,减压不完全2例,高位椎间盘突出1例,不明原因4例。结论邻近节段疾病、内固定使用不当、内固定失败是复发性腰痛主要原因。原有退变基础、减压范围超过融合节段、融合节段的长短都是产生邻近节段疾病的重要的危险因素。     

Update review and clinical presentation on chronic low back pain treated by AxiaLIF

Paracoccygeal approach to the L5–S1 junction with transsacral instrumentation was described recently as an alternative method to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or posterior lumbar interbody fusion. A percutaneous L5–S1 discectomy, interbody distraction, and fixation could be achieved while preserving the integrity of the muscles, ligaments, and disc anulus. Retroperitoneal viscera and dorsal neural elements are avoided via the presacral safe zone. Additional pedicle or facet screw fixation is recommended to provide stabilization and promote fusion. AxiaLIF represents a solid-based fusion technique for degenerative disc disease at L5–S1 level with minimal collateral damage in carefully selected patients.     

腰椎结核的一期后路经椎间隙病灶清除内固定术

 目的 评价椎板减压后,一期经椎间隙进行病灶清除及植骨融合内固定术对于腰椎结核治疗的可行性及疗效。方法 2009年1月至2012年5月,对21例脊柱结核患者采用一期经椎间隙进行病灶清除及植骨融合内固定治疗。所有患者均为单间隙病变,累及两椎体。男14例,女7例;年龄19~47岁,平均34.8岁。L_2,3椎体结核2例,L_3,4椎体结核5例,L_4,5椎体结核14例。所有患者均存在腰背部疼痛,7例患者伴有消瘦、低热、盗汗、乏力症状,2例患者双下肢麻木,1例患者间歇性跛行症状。21例患者术前至少经2~4周的正规抗结核治疗。术前均行腰椎X线、CT扫描及MR检查,按影像学结果拟定病椎椎弓根钉的进钉角度。结果 本组病例均一期后路经椎间隙病灶清除内固定术治疗,术后结核经病理或微生物学检查确诊。手术时间平均3.1 h（2.5~4.3 h）,出血量平均370 ml （250~600 ml）。21例患者均获得随访,红细胞沉降率恢复正常时间平均为术后5.8个月。术后随访时间12~48个月,平均18个月。无一例患者局部窦道形成,病灶清除术后伤口均一期愈合。脊柱结核均无复发,腰椎背部疼痛症状均明显缓解。术后随访无病灶残留及复发,无内固定松动、移位等并发症。结论 在应用有效的抗结核药物前提下,对于无明显腰大肌脓肿的患者,尽可能避开病灶,灵活置入椎弓根螺钉,一期后路经椎间隙病灶清除内固定术治疗腰椎结核可以取得满意的疗效。     

腰椎融合术后骶髂关节源性下腰痛的诊断和治疗

目的探讨腰椎融合术后骶髂关节病变的特点、治疗方法与疗效。方法回顾性分析34例因腰椎管狭窄、腰椎间盘突出、腰椎滑脱曾行后路减压、后外侧或椎体间植骨融合及椎弓根内固定术,术后随访12～48个月（平均30．6个月）出现新的难治性持续性下腰痛症状的病例。运用骶髂关节内封闭进行诊断性治疗。阳性标准：疼痛缓解75％（采用视觉模拟评分法进行定量分析）。结果阳性率为26．5％,术后腰痛部位不同于术前以及融合范围包含L5、S1是具有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论腰椎融合术后下腰痛可能部分是由骶髂关节病变引起的,骶髂关节内封闭是当前诊断和治疗骶髂关节源性下腰痛的最有效的方法。     

Primary lumbosacral stability after open posterior and endoscopic anterior fusion with interbody implants: a roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis

STUDY DESIGN: After posterior stabilization of the spondylolytic lumbosacral level, mobility of the fused vertebrae could be studied before and after an additional anterior endoscopic interbody fusion using roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. OBJECTIVE: To determine the in vivo primary lumbosacral stability of additional anterior interbody fusion after transpedicular screw fixation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In vitro studies indicate a significant decrease in segmental motion after pedicle screw fixation and additional anterior fusion. Roentgen stereophotogrammetric studies demonstrate the adequacy of transpedicular lumbar instrumentation in posterolateral fusions. There are no studies examining the effect of additional anterior interbody fusion after posterior instrumentation in vivo. METHODS: In this study, 15 patients with low-grade spondylolisthesis at L5-S1 underwent a two-stage open posterior and endoscopic anterior lumbar fusion using carbon fiber (Brantigan I/F) cages. At surgery, tantalum markers were implanted into the fifth lumbar (L5) and the first sacral (S1) vertebra. All the patients were examined by roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis after the first and second surgical procedures. RESULTS: After implantation of the posterior pedicle system only, the mean intervertebral mobility determined by roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis was 0.23 mm in the transverse (x), 0.54 mm in the vertical (y), and 1.2 mm in the sagittal (z) axes. After additional anterior endoscopic fusion with carbon cages, the remaining translation between the fused segment L5/S1 decreased to 0.17 mm in the x, 0.16 mm in the y, and 0.44 mm in the z axes. CONCLUSION: Anterior endoscopic lumbosacral fusion significantly increases the primary stability of the posterior fusion with a pedicle system in two axes of motion.     

椎弓根内固定一期前后路TFC椎体融合治疗腰椎滑脱

目的 探讨采用椎弓根内固定及椎间融合技术治疗腰椎滑脱的方法。方法 腰椎滑脱患者２６例,男１４例,女１２例;采ＲＦ及ＳＯＣＯＮ椎弓根内固定器,Ⅰ期行前路和后路植骨及ＴＦＣ椎体融合治疗腰椎滑脱,其中,采用ＲＦ内固定 时行ＴＦＣ椎体后路融合６例,采用ＳＯＣＯＮ同时加ＴＦＣ椎体后路融合１５例;余５例均行ＲＦ加Ⅰ期前路异体骨环加自体松质骨植骨融合。结果 本ＴＦＣ椎体后路融合１５例;余５例均行ＲＦ加Ⅰ期前路异     

椎弓根固定结合经椎间孔椎间融合治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症伴腰椎不稳

目的：探讨经肌间隙入路椎弓根固定结合经椎间孔椎间融合（transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF）治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症伴腰椎不稳的临床疗效。方法：2008年3月至2010年5月收治35例复发性腰椎间盘突出症,其中15例行经肌间隙入路单边椎弓根固定结合TLIF术式（单边固定组）,20例行后正中入路双边椎弓根固定结合后路椎间植骨融合（posterior lumbar interbody fusion,PLIF）术式（双边固定组）.观察手术时间、术中出血量,并比较手术前后两组患者JOA评分、腰痛及腿痛VAS评分及融合情况。结果：所有患者获得随访,时间6～30个月,平均16.8个月。两组患者腰腿痛等临床症状较术前明显缓解,X线片显示植骨融合良好（双边固定组中1例未融合）,无融合器移位、下沉及内固定器械松动或断裂。两组患者手术时间、术中出血量比较差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）.术后JOA评分均较术前降低（P<0.05）.术后1周,两组患者腰痛VAS评分比较差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）,腿痛VAS评分比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;末次随访,腰痛及腿痛VAS评分两组比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）.结论：两种术式在治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症伴腰椎不稳均可达到满意的疗效,经肌间隙入路单边椎弓根固定结合TLIF术式切口较小,手术时间较短,术中出血量较少,术后腰痛缓解较快。     

退行性腰椎滑脱后路手术临床分析

目的 探讨退行性腰椎滑脱的后路手术治疗,比较后路腰椎管减压内固定并后外侧植骨及椎体间联合后外侧植骨术的临床疗效.方法 37例退行性腰椎滑脱患者采用后路减压、后外侧植骨内固定(A组21例)和椎体间联合后外侧植骨内固定(B组16例)手术,对两组术后植骨融合率及临床症状改善情况进行分析比较.根据术前、术后X线片和JOA评分评价植骨融合率及临床症状改善程度.结果 平均随访42个月.A组骨融合率为86%,B组为94%,两组无显著性差异.A组JOA评分优良率为90%,B组为94%,两组无显著性差异.结论 后路后外侧植骨内固定和椎间联合后外侧植骨内固定术均是有效的手术方法,但椎间联合后外侧植骨融合术的骨融合率较高.     

后路椎间植骨椎弓根螺钉固定治疗椎间盘源性腰痛

目的研究后路椎体间融合加椎弓根固定治疗腰椎间盘源性腰痛的手术疗效。方法 35例腰椎间盘源性下腰痛,选择后路椎体间植骨融合（posterior lumbar interbody fusion,PLIF）加椎弓根螺钉系统内固定术。分别于术前、术后对患者的腰痛情况进行JOA评分,同时评估术后腰椎融合率。结果术后随访时间8～24个月,平均18个月。术后腰部疼痛症状缓解明显,优21例,良8例,一般4例,差2例,有效率95%。术后椎间植骨临床愈合35例,植骨愈合有效率100%。结论后路椎间植骨椎弓根螺钉固定术对椎间盘源性腰痛是一种有效的治疗方法。     

The Steffee variable screw placement system using different methods of bone grafting.

Two groups of patients with diseased lumbar spines treated by the Steffee variable screw placement system were studied, in order to compare concomitant posterolateral fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion. The use of posterolateral fusion resulted in less invasiveness than posterior lumbar interbody fusion, with regard to operating time and blood loss. With the posterolateral fusion method, correction of olisthesis or kyphotic deformity, if attained at all, was difficult to maintain. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion produced better correction and maintenance, even in osteoporotic cases. Bone union was achieved at an average of 11 months in only 60% of the posterolateral fusion group, whereas it was complete within a significantly shorter period (average; 6 months) in 91% of the posterior lumbar interbody fusion group. Breakage or loosening of screws occurred in 14% of the posterolateral fusion group. Deep wound infection and adhesive arachnoiditis, which were never seen in the posterolateral fusion group, developed in 3% of the posterior lumbar interbody fusion group. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion is considered to be a better method of bone grafting than posterolateral fusion, when used with the Steffee variable screw placement system.     

Posterolateral lumbar and lumbosacral fusion with and without pedicle screw internal fixation.

Forty-seven patients who had lumbar or lumbosacral fusion with or without pedicle screw internal fixation by one surgeon for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease with clinical instability were retrospectively reviewed by an independent observer. Eighteen of the 21 patients whose fusions were internally fixed with the Variable Spinal Plating (VSP) system were available for review. A control group consisted of 27 patients who had fusion without internal fixation. The rate of pseudarthrosis did not significantly differ between the two groups (VSP group, 22%; versus control group, 26%). Twelve (67%) of the 18 patients treated with fusion and VSP instrumentation were considered to have had a good or excellent outcome, whereas 19 (70%) of the 27 patients treated by fusion without internal fixation had good or excellent results. Two VSP-instrumented patients had postoperative leg dysesthesias, whereas this complication was not observed in the control group. Bilateral posterolateral lumbar or lumbosacral fusion without internal fixation is as effective as and safer than fusion with pedicle screw instrumentation.     

退变性腰椎滑脱后路融合术后的远期疗效分析

[目的]探讨后路减压复位融合内固定术治疗退变性腰椎滑脱的远期疗效.[方法]2001年1月～2005年7月行后路减压、植骨融合、椎弓根螺钉复位内固定术,资料完整并获得未次随访的退变性腰椎滑脱患者62例,随访5～9年(平均6.4年).融合方式有后外侧融合(PLF)、自体髂骨椎问融合(PLIF)、椎间Cage植入融合(PLJF+Cage).评价JOA评分改善率、优良率、满意度、融合及临近节段退变情况等,对术前、术后及末次随访时滑脱率、椎问高度、椎间盘角、节段侧凸角等影像学指标进行比较和分析.[结果]JOA评分改善率(67.7±19.4)%,优良率85.5%,满意度87.1%,融合率95.2%,临近节段退变或原有退变加重26例(41.9%),各融合方式间均无显著性差异(P>0.05).术后滑脱率、椎间高度、椎间盘角及节段侧凸角较术前均显著改善(P<0.05),末次随访时滑脱复位、椎间高度、椎间盘角有所丢失,椎间Cage植入融合丢失最少.[结论]后路减压、植骨融合、椎弓根螺钉复位内固定术治疗退变性腰椎滑脱远期疗效满意,椎间Cage植入融合的放射学表现更佳.     

Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

A prospective analysis of consecutive patients who had lumbar fusion using the unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation is presented to assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion procedure and describe the technique and indication in the treatment of degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Forty patients treated with transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine (with anterior column deficiency) were followed up for a minimum of 3 years (mean, 3.4 years; range, 3-3.9 years). Radiographic assessment included plain and flexion and extension radiographs. Clinical outcome was based on pain relief, ability to do activities of daily living, and return to work. Thirty-six patients (90%) had solid fusions and at latest followup, segmental lordosis has increased in all patients. Eighty-five percent of patients had excellent or good clinical outcome(s). The unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion provides bilateral anterior column support through a unilateral approach. The patients had high fusion rates and patient satisfaction as reported with similar complications found in other methods commonly used for spinal decompression and stabilization.