椎体间融合术中植骨材料的研究进展

正脊柱生理弯曲的存在导致脊柱不仅受到垂直压力,还会受到剪切和旋转应力的影响,手术后维持脊柱的稳定性仅靠内固定很难达到,椎体间融合可以有效地分担内固定负荷,防止内固定松动、断裂~([1-2])。最初的手术只能在椎体间植入骨组织来促进椎体间稳定。融合器的发明促进了椎体间融合的发展,先后出现了钛制螺纹旋入式椎间融合器、高分子聚合材料(聚醚醚酮)椎间融合器、可吸收椎间融合器、多孔钛合金材料融合器~([3-4])以及最新研     

椎体间与后外侧联合植骨RF固定治疗腰椎滑脱症(附29例分析)

[目的]探讨椎体间与后外侧联合植骨RF系统复位，固定治疗腰椎滑脱的疗效。[方法]对29例腰椎滑脱患者进行椎管减压，神经根松解，植入RF复位、固定，椎体间与后外侧联合植骨。[结果]随访6个月～3a，所有病例症状消失，无植骨块脱出及不融合现象，按Stauffe疗效评定标准，优良率为92％。[结论]椎体间与后外侧联合植骨融合界面大，抗剪力强，符合脊柱生物力学，融合率高。     

腰椎后路微创TLIF和开放PLIF两种术式临床短期效果报告

目的评价微创经椎间孔椎间融合术（transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF）与开放后路椎间融合术（posterior lumbar interbody fusion,PLIF）行后路椎间融合及椎弓根钉内固定的短期临床疗效。方法2009年1-3月对30例腰椎退变性疾病患者分别采用微创TLIF（METRXQuadrant）和开放PLIF术式进行对照研究。结果术后1周微创TLIF组腰痛VAS评分的降低更为明显（P〈0．05）;术后1周及4个月2组腿痛VAS评分比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）;术后1周微创TLIF组JOA评分同开放PLIF组比较差异具有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论METRX Quadrant系统下行微创TLIF后路腰椎管减压、椎间融合和椎弓根螺钉固定术,可促进患者早期康复,减少住院时间,是一种安全、可靠的方法。     

Biomechanical comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

STUDY DESIGN: An in vitro biomechanical comparison of 2 fusion techniques, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), on cadaveric human spines. OBJECTIVE: To compare the immediate construct stability, in terms of range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone, of ALIF, including 2 separate approaches, and TLIF procedures with posterior titanium rod fixation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Both ALIF and TLIF have been used to treat chronic low back pain and instability. In many cases, the choice between these 2 techniques is based only on personal preference. No biomechanical performance comparison between these 2 fusion techniques is available to assist surgical decision. METHODS: Twelve cadaveric lumbar motion segments were loaded sinusoidally at 0.05 Hz and 5 Nm in unconstrained axial rotation, lateral bending and flexion extension. Specimens were randomly divided into 2 groups with 6 in each group. One group was assigned for TLIF whereas the other group for ALIF. In the ALIF group, there were 3 steps. First, the lateral ALIF procedure with the anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL) intact was performed. Afterwards, the ALL was cut without removing the ALIF cage. Finally, another appropriately sized ALIF cage was inserted anteriorly. Biomechanical tests were conducted after each step. RESULTS: In the ALIF group, the lateral ALIF and subsequent anterior ALIF reduced segmental motion significantly (P=0.03) under all loading conditions. Removing the ALL increased ROM by 59% and 142% in axial rotation and flexion extension, respectively (P=0.03). The anterior ALIF approach was able to achieve similar biomechanical stability of the lateral approach in lateral bending and flexion extension (P>0.05) under all loading conditions. The TLIF procedure significantly reduced the range of motion compared with the intact state (P=0.03). However, no statistical difference was detected between the TLIF group and the ALIF group (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both ALIF and TLIF procedures combined with posterior instrumentation significantly improved construct stability of intact spinal motion segments. However, there was no statistical difference between these 2 fusion techniques. The 2 ALIF approaches (lateral and anterior) also had similar construct stability even though anterior longitudinal ligament severing significantly reduced stability.     

Direct current stimulation of titanium interbody fusion devices in primates.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The fusion rate for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) varies widely with the use of different interbody devices and bone graft options. Adjunctive techniques such as electrical stimulation may improve the rate of bony fusion. PURPOSE: To determine if direct current (DC) electrical stimulation of a metallic interbody fusion device enhanced the incidence or extent of anterior bony fusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: ALIF was performed using titanium alloy interbody fusion devices with and without adjunctive DC electrical stimulation in nonhuman primates. METHODS: ALIF was performed through an anterolateral approach in 35 macaques with autogenous bone graft and either a titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) fusion device or femoral allograft ring. The fusion devices of 19 animals received high (current density 19.6 microA/cm2) or low (current density 5.4 microA/cm2) DC electrical stimulation using an implanted generator for a 12- or 26-week evaluation period. Fusion sites were studied using serial radiographs, computed tomography imaging, nondestructive mechanical testing and qualitative and semiquantitative histology. RESULTS: Fusion was achieved with the titanium fusion device and autogenous bone graft. At 12 weeks, the graft was consolidating and early to moderate bridging callus was observed in and around the device. By 26 weeks, the anterior callus formation was more advanced with increased evidence of bridging trabeculations and early bone remodeling. The callus formation was not as advanced or abundant for the allograft ring group. Histology revealed the spinal fusion device had an 86% incidence of bony fusion at 26 weeks compared with a 50% fusion rate for the allograft rings. DC electrical stimulation of the fusion device had a positive effect on anterior interbody fusion by increasing both the presence and extent of bony fusion in a current density-dependent manner. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive DC electrical stimulation of the fusion device improved the rate and extent of bony fusion compared with a nonstimulated device. The fusion device was equivalent to or better than the femoral allograft ring in all evaluations. The use of adjunctive direct current electrical stimulation may provide a means of improving anterior interbody fusion.     

颈前路减压零切迹椎间植骨融合内固定系统治疗颈椎病的早期疗效分析

目的:分析颈前路减压零切迹椎间植骨融合内固定系统(Zero-P)治疗颈椎病的早期疗效。方法 :2010年6月~10月39例颈椎病患者接受颈前路减压Zero-P植骨内固定手术,患者年龄33~71岁,平均50.3岁。神经根型颈椎病8例,脊髓型31例;单间隙14例,2个间隙18例,3个间隙7例。共置入Zero-P 71枚,C3/4、C4/5、C5/6、C6/7椎间隙置入Zero-P分别为8、19、30、14枚。术前、术后2个月及12个月对神经根型颈椎病患者行VAS评分、脊髓型颈椎病患者行JOA评分,在颈椎中立侧位X线片上测量颈椎Cobb角(C2和C7椎体后缘切线的夹角),观察术后吞咽不适的发生率以及症状持续时间。根据术后伸屈侧位X线片观察手术间隙有无异常活动。结果:手术时间48~130min,平均86min;术中出血量40~310ml,平均110ml。14例患者术后1周内出现吞咽不适,其中13例术后2个月内症状消失,1例(2.6%)症状持续至术后4个月消失。随访12~16个月,平均14.6个月。神经根型颈椎病患者术后2个月、12个月时的VAS评分分别为1.5±0.8分、1.3±0.9分,均低于术前的7.3±1.3分(P<0.05)。脊髓型颈椎病患者术后2个月、12个月时的JOA评分分别为14.6±1.1分、15.0±1.2分,均高于术前的9.7±1.7分(P<0.05)。术后2个月及12个月颈椎Cobb角分别为18.4°±9.6°、17.8°±9.2°,大于术前的9.0°±10.0°(P<0.05)。术后12个月时的VAS评分、JOA评分和颈椎Cobb角与术后2个月比较无显著性差异(P>0.05)。随访期间手术间隙无异常活动,内置物无移位。结论:颈前路减压Zero-P植骨内固定治疗颈椎病的早期疗效满意,稳定性可靠,可重建颈椎曲度,术后慢性吞咽不适发生率低。     

SynCage C在颈椎前路椎体间融合术中的初步应用

目的　探讨颈椎椎间融合器的临床疗效。方法　对 16例 (共 2 0个节段 )进行颈椎前路SynCageC植入手术 ,并进行平均 5 .8月的短期随访。结果　患者手术后临床症状明显改善 ,无手术相关并发症。随访未见内植物松动、断裂和移位等。结论　短期随访结果显示 ,SynCageC是一种安全、有效的颈椎前路椎间融合内植物。     

颈前路减压零切迹椎间融合器与传统钛板固定融合术后相邻节段退变的比较

目的 :比较颈前路减压零切迹椎间融合器(Zero-P)与传统钛板内固定融合术治疗单/双节段脊髓型颈椎病对术后相邻节段退变的影响。方法:回顾性分析2015年1月～2018年3月采用颈前路减压Zero-P与传统钛板内固定融合术治疗的113例脊髓型颈椎病患者的资料,其中Zero-P组(A组)65例,传统钛板组(B组)48例,A组再分为单节段组(n=44)和双节段组(n=21),B组再分为单节段组(n=28)和双节段组(n=20),4组患者年龄、性别构成比、手术节段均无统计学差异(P>0.05)。比较两种术式的手术时间、术中出血量,以及4组的术前、末次随访时的日本骨科协会(Japanese Orthopaedie Association,JOA)评分、疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analog scale,VAS),末次随访时评估患者术后是否出现吞咽困难,并在颈椎侧位X线片上测量术前、术后即刻、末次随访时相邻节段椎间隙高度,评估术前、末次随访时的相邻椎体骨化情况,在颈椎MRI上应用椎间盘Pfirrmann分级评估术前、末次随访时的相邻节段椎间盘退变情况。结果:单节段A组随访时间为18....     

异体骨椎间融合器在颈椎前路融合术中的应用价值

目的探讨螺纹异体骨椎间融合支架(allograft interbody fusion cage,AIFC)在颈椎前融合术中的应用价值.方法自1998年6月～2000年6月,采用AIFC行颈椎前路融合术90例,其中男35例,女55例,年龄37～72岁,平均47岁,其中神经根型颈椎病56例,脊髓型颈椎病32例,椎动脉型颈椎病2例.采用颈前横行切口,C臂X线透视定位病变间隙,行环钻前路减压,AIFC植入融合固定.术后随访观察AIFC的融合率,椎间高度维持情况及有无并发症.结果76例获得良好随访,随访时间18个月～3年,平均26个月,术后3 d、1、3、6、9、12、18、24个月常规X线片检查,74例获得骨性融合,融合率为97.3%,椎间高度维持良好,AIFC无移位,2例成角畸形愈合,颈椎呈后凸畸形.结论AIFC具有良好的维持椎间高度功能,抗压缩、抗旋转,稳定性好,椎间融合率高,符合颈椎生物力学及临床要求.     

经椎间孔入路与经后方入路椎间融合术治疗退变性腰椎失稳症的疗效比较

目的回顾性研究经后方入路椎体间融合术（posterior lumbar interbody fusion,PLIF）和切除上、下关节突的经椎间孔入路椎体间融合术（transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF）治疗腰椎失稳症的疗效及并发症情况。方法采用PLIF和TLIF治疗2004年1月至2008年1月本院收治的退变性腰椎失稳症患者78例,其中PLIF31例,TLIF47例。比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、平均卧床时间、Nakai评分优良率、融合时间（按Suk标准）及术后并发症发生率。对两组术前及末次随访时的椎间隙高度及椎间孔高度进行对比研究。结果 78例患者均获随访,随访时间1.5～4.5年,平均3.5年。所有患者均获椎间骨性融合。对两组卧床时间、Nakai评分优良率、融合时间、同时间点椎间隙高度和椎间孔高度进行比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;而在手术时间、出血量以及术后并发症发生率方面,两组之间的差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。两组末次随访时的椎间隙高度和椎间孔高度均较术前有明显改善（P〈0.05）。结论 TLIF和PLIF治疗退变性腰椎失稳症效果良好;与PLIF相比,TLIF操作简单,出血量小,并发症少。     

前路减压Zero-P椎间融合器治疗颈椎病的疗效

[目的]评价前路减压Zero-p椎间融合器治疗颈椎病临床和影像学结果。[方法]回顾性分析2010年1月~2013年1月接受颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)联合Zero-p椎间融合器固定治疗颈椎病患者相关资料。临床功能评估采用颈椎功能障碍指数(neck disability index,NDI)、疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS),影像学评估采用颈椎正侧位X线片,通过Cobb角测量方法,测量病变节段上下椎体Cobb角,测量C_(3~7)椎体颈前软组织厚度,并于术后2年评估融合情况,吞咽困难等并发症也被观察。[结果]共纳入45例患者(50个节段),27例男性和18例女性,平均年龄(45.64±6.28)岁。所有患者至少随访24个月,平均随访时间为(41.11±7.82)个月。患者术后NDI、VAS评分均较术前有明显改善。影像学上94%的置入物融合。最终随访时颈椎前凸保持良好。术后颈前软组织厚度较术前显著增加,从平均(7.6±1.9)mm增至(15.2±2.9)mm,最终随访时(9.9±1.9)mm。按吞咽困难Bazaz分级,术后吞咽困难发生率44.4%,然而在最终的随访时仍有6.6%的患者具有轻、中度吞咽困难。在术后即刻和最终随访时颈前软组织厚度和吞咽困难分级Pearson相关性分析表明二者呈显著正相关。1例患者术后出现持续性的左上肢疼痛伴左三角肌肌力减弱,1例患者发生声音嘶哑,随访3个月后完全恢复。[结论]颈前椎间盘切除融合术联合Zero-p椎间融合器固定治疗颈椎病可获得较好的临床和影像学结果,术后吞咽困难发生与颈前软组织厚度呈显著正相关。     

CT evaluation of interbody fusion

Reformatted computed tomography (CT) of the spine is very useful in the evaluation of patients who have previously been treated by lumbar or cervical interbody fusions. It allows incontrovertible evidence of failure of osseous fusion as well as defines the major causes of residual or recurrent symptoms. As CT methodology becomes a routine procedure, it will be the primary diagnostic aid in evaluating postoperative posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) patients.     

Technique of cervical interbody fusion

A dovetail autogeneic graft is demonstrated for anterior interbody fusion of the cervical spine for degenerated or protruded intervertebral discs. The method is applicable for one or more levels and has been successfully combined with vertebral body resection for metastatic tumors and trauma. The procedure provides secure initial interbody immobilization and prevents interbody collapse. None of the 58 cases had grafts slip from their original position. The union rate has been 100%.     

后路椎间融合术和经椎间孔入路融合术治疗腰椎滑脱症的临床比较

目的比较研究经椎间孔入路和后路椎间融合术治疗腰椎滑脱症的临床疗效、植骨融合率及术后并发症。方法 31例腰椎滑脱症的患者行椎间融合术附加双侧椎弓根螺钉固定术,PLIF组16例,TLIF组15例,比较两组的手术时间、术后并发症、临床疗效满意率和植骨融合率等。结果所有患者伤口均一期愈合。术后神经根痛加剧:PLIF组有3例,TLIF组1例。术中硬膜囊撕裂:PLIF组1例,TLIF组未出现该并发症。PLIF组临床疗效优良率为85.1%,而TLIF组优良率为90.2%,两者无显著性差异(P0.05)。植骨融合率:PLIF组植骨融合率为93.4%,TLIF组植骨融合率94.1%,两者无显著性差异(P0.05)。结论 PLIF和TLIF是治疗腰椎滑脱症的有效方法,两者在临床疗效满意率和植骨融合率方面没有显著性差异,但是在手术时间、创伤、并发症等方面,TLIF组明显优于PLIF。     

Posterior and anterior lumbar interbody fusion

Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF) may be indicated for intractable back pain, as it maintains adequate distraction of the intervertebral space thus relieving pressure on the nerve root. Iliac crest autografts, allografts and porous metallic cages are used.Success rates of above 90% have been reported, but complications due to the operative approach have been described. While biomechanically PLIF is superior to simple disc excision in relieving intractable back pain, the procedure is technically difficult in the presence of scar tissue from previous surgery. A proper understanding of operative principles and appropriate patient selection is essential to achieve good results. As an alternative technique, Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) has advocates.     

微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术与传统后路腰椎椎体间融合术并发症的比较分析

目的对比分析微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术（minimally invasive transforaminal lumbarinter bodyfusion,MIS．TLIF）与后路腰椎椎体间融合术（posterior lumbar interbody fusion,PLIF）的并发症,并探讨并发症发生原因和相关对策。方法回顾性分析本院2008年1月-2011年7月收治的215例下腰椎退变性疾病患者,其中110例行传统切开减压及PLIF,105例行MIS—TLIF,记录患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后卧床时间、各种并发症发生率,并对结果进行统计学分析。结果随访12～30个月,平均16个月。MIS—TLIF组所有患者7人次（6．67％）出现并发症：硬膜囊破裂3例（2．86％）;神经损伤1例（0．95％）;切口浅部感染1例（0．95％）;椎间融合器下沉2例（1．90％）。PLIF组所有患者20人次（18．18％）出现并发症：硬膜囊破裂6例（5．45％）;神经损伤8例（7．27％）;切口感染3例（2．73％）;椎间融合器下沉2例（1．90％）;椎弓根螺钉松动l例（0．91％）。2组间神经损伤和总并发症发生率,MIS—TLIF组低于PLIF组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论MIS—TLIF治疗下腰椎退变性疾病安全、可靠,并发症发生率与传统PLIF手术相比减少。