ActivC人工颈椎间盘置换术与颈前路椎间盘切除融合治疗单节段颈椎病的早期疗效比较

目的:观察比较Activ C人工颈椎间盘置换术(ACDR)和颈前路椎间盘切除融合(ACDF)治疗单节段颈椎病的早期临床效果。方法:自2009年7月至2012年9月,76例单节段颈椎病患者接受Activ C人工颈椎间盘置换手术(置换组)或颈前路椎间盘切除融合手术(融合组).其中置换组28例,男18例,女10例,年龄32～62岁,平均(45.2±6.2)岁;融合组48例,男28例,女20例,年龄33～60岁,平均(45.8±6.4)岁。分别在术前,术后1周,术后3、6、12、24个月,对患者进行疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、日本矫形外科协会(JOA)脊髓功能评分和生活质量量表(SF-36)评估及影像学评估。结果:76例患者均获得随访,时间6～24个月,平均13.2个月。颈痛、上肢痛的VAS评分及JOA评分,术后均有改善(p<0.05),两组间差异无统计学意义(p>0.05).两组患者SF-36躯体评分、精神评分术后均有明显上升(p<0.05),置换组优于融合组(p<0.05).置换组术后手术节段及邻近节段屈伸活动度与术前比较差异无统计学意义(p>0.05).置换组中1例患者在6个月时椎体后缘周围出现异位骨化,1年随访时暂无融合现象;融合组中1例患者发生邻椎病并接受二次手术治疗。结论:单节段Activ C人工颈椎间盘置换术早期临床效果满意,能减少邻近节段退变,远期效果有待临床进一步研究。     

颈椎前路减压人工颈椎间盘置换术与融合术治疗单节段颈椎间盘突出症的短期疗效比较

背景：颈前路椎间盘切除植骨融合术（ACDF）能够为有症状的颈椎病患者提供较好的治疗效果,但颈椎融合可导致相邻节段椎间盘内部应力增加,加速邻近节段椎间盘的退变。颈椎人工椎间盘置换术（ACDR）作为最具代表性的颈椎前路非融合技术,为颈椎间盘突出症的治疗提供了另外一种外科手段。目的：比较ACDR和ACDF治疗单节段颈椎间盘突出症的临床效果。方法：2009年1月至2012年2月,61例单节段颈椎间盘突出症患者接受Discover人工颈椎间盘置换手术（置换组,26例）或ACDF手术（融合组,35例）。分别在术前,术后1周,术后3、6、12及24个月对患者进行疼痛视觉模拟评分（VAS）、日本矫形外科协会（JOA）评分及影像学评估,同时记录患者并发症及二次手术情况。结果：最终,52例患者（融合组29例,置换组23例）获得平均15.3个月（12-24个月）随访。两组患者术后各随访时间点的颈痛、上肢痛VAS和JOA评分,较术前均有改善（P〈0.05）,但两组间无显著统计学差异（P〉0.05）。置换组术后手术节段及邻近节段屈伸活动度与术前比较无统计学差异（P〉0.05）。融合组融合成功率为90.5%。置换组中2例患者术后6个月时假体有〈3 mm的前移,l例术后发生脑脊液漏。融合组中1例患者发生邻椎病并接受二次手术治疗。结论：单节段Discover人工颈椎间盘置换术和ACDF均可明显缓解颈椎间盘突出症患者的症状。间盘置换还能减少手术邻近节段代偿活动度的增加,有望预防相邻节段退变的发生。     

颈椎间盘置换联合颈前路融合手术治疗三节段颈椎病的临床疗效分析

目的初步评估Prestige LP人工椎间盘置换联合Zero-P零切迹椎间融合固定器植骨融合治疗三节段颈椎病的安全性和有效性。方法回顾分析2012年9月到2015年4月在我院行Prestige LP人工椎间盘置换联合Zero-P零切迹椎间融合固定器植骨融合的三节段颈椎病患者的临床和影像学资料,采用视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)、日本骨科协会(Japanese orthopaedic association,JOA)脊髓功能评分及颈椎残障功能指数(neck disability index,NDI)评估患者术后临床疗效;行颈椎X线正侧位、过伸过屈位、左右侧偏位和CT三维重建检查观察患者术后假体的位置和稳定性、置换节段活动度和异位骨化情况、融合节段植骨融合情况。结果共纳入患者24例,9例患者行单节段置换+双节段融合术,其余15例行双节段置换+单节段融合术,共植入39枚Prestige LP人工椎间盘假体和33枚Zero-P零切迹椎间融合固定器。患者VAS评分、JOA评分和NDI指数在术后历次随访较术前均有明显改善(P0.05),置换节段活动度较术前无明显差异(P0.05),颈椎整体活动度较术前有明显下降(P0.05)。结论Prestige LP人工椎间盘置换联合零切迹椎间融合固定器Zero-P植骨融合的三节段Hybrid手术是一种安全的可以选择的治疗多节段颈椎病的手术方式,可以有效缓解患者临床症状,最大限度保留患者颈椎节段活动度,降低植骨不融合风险和邻近节段椎间盘的应力。     

3种前路手术方式治疗单节段颈椎间盘突出症近期疗效比较

目的比较经皮前路椎间孔镜下颈椎间盘髓核摘除术(APECD)、颈椎间盘置换术(CDR)、经颈前路椎间盘切除减压融合术(ACDF)治疗单节段颈椎间盘突出症的疗效。方法将46例单节段颈椎间盘突出症患者按手术方法分为APECD组(23例)、CDR组(10例)和ACDF组(13例)。记录3组手术时间、术中出血量,比较3组术后改善率、术后疼痛VAS评分与JOA评分。结果患者均获得随访,时间15～25 (17±3)个月。手术时间:CDR组ACDF组APECD组,3组间两两比较差异有统计学意义(P 0. 05);术中出血量:CDR组APECD组ACDF组,3组间两两比较差异有统计学意义(P 0. 05)。末次随访时,3组VAS评分和JOA评分均较术前显著改善(P 0. 05),3组间两两比较差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05)。APECD组改善率为51. 0%,CDR组改善率为43. 2%,ACDF组改善率为64. 5%,3组间两两比较差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05)。结论 3种前路手术方式治疗单节段颈椎间盘突出症均可取得满意的临床疗效,APECD手术创伤小,但术后有复发可能。     

颈椎动态稳定器植入术与Prestige LP人工椎间盘置换术治疗颈椎间盘突出症的临床效果比较

目的比较颈椎动态稳定器(dynamic cervical Implant, DCI)植入术与Prestige LP人工椎间置换术治疗颈椎间盘突出症的近中期临床疗效。方法因颈椎间盘突出症在我院手术治疗的病人49例,按术式分为两组,A组DCI植入,B组采用Prestige LP人工椎间盘置换。比较两组病人VAS、JOA、SF-36评分量表和活动度。结果 A组22例,平均随访24.5个月。B组27例,平均随访25.8个月。两组病人VAS、JOA和SF-36评分比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。两组C2～7活动度比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。末次随访B组手术节段活动度大于术前,差异有统计学意义(P0.05),大于A组末次随访,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 DCI近中期临床效果与Prestige LP人工椎间盘置换术相当,但前者理论上在一定程度上对手术节段小关节具有保护作用,具有更宽的适应证。     

Prestige LP颈椎人工椎间盘置换术治疗单节段退行性颈椎病的远期疗效

目的 探讨Prestige LP颈椎人工椎间盘置换术（CTDR）治疗单节段退行性颈椎病的远期疗效。方法 2009年1月—2010年12月,海军军医大学长征医院采用Prestige LP CTDR治疗单节段退行性颈椎病患者31例,其中脊髓型颈椎病（CSM）13例,神经根型颈椎病（CSR）15例,混合型颈椎病3例。采用颈椎功能障碍指数（NDI）、日本骨科学会（JOA）评分和疼痛视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分评估临床疗效。在X线片上测量颈椎曲度（C_2~7 Cobb角）、手术节段及邻近节段活动度（ROM）;采用X线片及CT观察是否发生异位骨化（HO）;采用MRI观察邻近节段退行性变（ASD）程度。结果 所有患者随访10.2 ~ 11.0年。术后各随访时间点患者NDI、JOA评分、颈部和上肢痛VAS评分较术前均明显改善,差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。末次随访时颈椎曲度、上下邻近节段ROM与术前相比,差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。末次随访时手术节段ROM与术前、术后3个月和术后2年相比,差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。末次随访时有13例（41.9%）患者发生不同程度HO,10例（32.3%）发生ASD,但并未发生颈痛、根性疼痛等不适症状。末次随访时发生HO患者的手术节段ROM比未发生HO的患者下降,差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。结论 采用Prestige LP CTDR治疗单节段退行性颈椎病具有良好的远期临床疗效,假体能在保持颈椎ROM的基础上减少手术相邻节段椎间盘的过度活动,但易发生HO而导致手术节段ROM下降。     

Prestige LP人工椎间盘置换治疗单节段颈椎病的近期疗效

目的：探讨应用Prestige LP人工椎间盘置换治疗单节段颈椎病的近期临床疗效。方法治疗单节段颈椎病患者15例,统计并分析患者术前和术后1、3、12个月随访时JOA评分、NDI脊髓功能评分、颈部及上肢疼痛VAS评分、置换节段活动度、颈椎运动范围、颈椎生理曲度等指标。结果神经系统症状均有不同程度改善,术后1、3个月及12个月时颈椎生理曲度较术前比均有显著性差异（P＜0.05）。术后1、3个月及12个月时颈椎的总活动度、置换节段活动度基本恢复至术前水平,二者无显著性差异（P＞0.05）。所有患者均未发生脊髓及神经根损伤、假体移位或异位骨化等并发症。结论应用Prestige LP人工椎间盘置换术治疗单节段颈椎间盘退变性疾病早期临床疗效良好,中远期疗效有待进一步观察。     

人工颈椎间盘置换与颈前路融合术治疗脊髓型颈椎病3年随访结果报道

[目的]比较人工颈椎间盘置换与颈前路减压植骨融合术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的3年随访结果。[方法]回顾性分析2004年11月²009年3月在本院接受手术治疗,并完成3年随访的65例脊髓型颈椎病患者。31例行人工颈椎间盘置换术,其中单节段置换26例,双节段置换5例,13例14个节段应用Bryan假体,18例22个节段应用Prestige LP假体,34例行颈前路减压植骨融合术,其中单节段融合28例,椎体次全切双节段融合6例。分别在术前,术后1周,术后12、24及36个月对患者进行SF-36生活质量量表、JOA评分、NDI评分、Nurick分级的评估,术后36个月采用Odom’s标准评价临床效果;在各随访时点采用颈椎正侧位X线片观察置入物的稳定性,并采用动力位X线片测量手术节段屈伸活动度;同时记录患者术中、术后并发症及二次手术的发生情况。[结果]两组患者的JOA评分、Nurick分级术后各随访时点较术前比较均有明显改善(P<0.05),两组之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),两组患者SF-36躯体评分及心理评分、NDI评分术后各随访时点较术前有明显改善(P<0.05),两组间比较,置换组优于融合组(P<0.05)。术后各随访时点置换组手术节段屈伸活动度维持在术前水平(P>0.05),而融合组手术节段屈伸活动度较术前明显下降(P<0.05)。置换组中2例患者发生假体前移,2例发生轻度异位骨化,1例因脑脊液漏接受二次手术。融合组中1例患者发生了假关节形成,6例存在供骨区的疼痛,3例因邻近节段退变接受二次手术。[结论]人工颈椎间盘置换术与颈前路减压植骨融合术治疗脊髓型颈椎病3年随访疗效均满意,且前者保留了手术节段运动功能,减少了融合导致的多种并发症。     

椎间隙高度对Prestige LP颈椎间盘置换术后活动度和疗效的影响

目的分析术前、术后椎间隙高度对单节段Prestige LP人工颈椎间盘置换术后置换节段活动度和临床效果的影响。方法 2008年2月至2013年4月,63例患者在我院行Prestige LP人工颈椎间盘单节段置换术,其中男31例,女32例;年龄28~68岁,平均47.6岁。神经根型颈椎病32例,脊髓型颈椎病25例,混合型颈椎病6例。置换节段:C3~41例,C4~55例,C5~652例,C6~74例,C7T11例。收集患者术前及术后门诊随访时颈椎正侧位及功能位X线片,利用CANVAS软件测量术前、术后椎间隙高度和目标节段屈伸活动度(range of motion,ROM),临床效果评价采用JOA评分和NDI评分。研究术前、术后椎间隙高度对术后置换节段活动的影响,并进行椎间隙高度与术后置换节段活动度和临床效果的相关性分析。结果人工颈椎间盘置换术后置换节段ROM为(10.8±3.2)°,术前置换关节ROM为(10.4±3.3)°,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);术后置换节段椎间隙高度为(7.0±0.9)mm,术前椎间隙高度为(4.6±1.0)mm,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。术前椎间隙高度小于4.0 mm的患者,人工颈椎间盘置换术后置换节段ROM相比术前平均增加0.7°(P0.05);而术前椎间隙高度大于4.0 mm的患者,术后置换节段ROM与术前相比差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后置换节段椎间隙高度大于6 mm的患者术后ROM平均为11.3°,术后椎间隙高度小于6 mm的患者术后ROM平均为8.8°,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);而两组间术后JOA评分、NDI评分差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后置换节段椎间隙高度小于8 mm的患者术后ROM平均为11.2°,术后椎间隙高度大于8 mm的患者术后ROM平均为9.1°,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);两组间术后JOA评分、NDI评分则差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术前、术后椎间隙高度与术后置换节段ROM、术后JOA评分和NDI评分均无明显相关性。结论术前椎间隙高度小于4.0 mm的患者行Prestige LP人工颈椎间盘置换术后置换节段活动度改善更明显。术后置换节段椎间隙高度主要在6~8 mm时的置换节段活动度相对较大,但与患者术后神经症状的改善程度无关。     

连续式和跳跃式颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术治疗多节段颈椎病

目的探讨连续式和跳跃式颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)治疗多节段颈椎病的疗效及安全性。方法回顾性分析2013年1月-2018年12月收治的经非手术治疗无效的78例多节段颈椎病患者临床资料,其中36例采用跳跃式ACDF治疗(观察组),42例采用连续式ACDF治疗(对照组)。比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间等临床指标及并发症发生情况。记录2组C_2~7活动度(ROM)、矢状位垂直距离(SVA)、T₁倾斜角、植骨融合率、邻近及中间保留节段椎间盘退行性变加重率等影像学指标。采用日本骨科学会(JOA)评分及JOA评分改善率评估神经功能改善情况。结果所有手术顺利完成。所有患者随访8~19个月,中位随访时间为13个月。观察组手术时间和术中出血量明显少于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05);2组住院时间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。2组术后各随访时间点JOA评分均较术前改善,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05),组间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05);2组JOA评分改善率差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。2组术后12周C_2~7 ROM较术前降低,SVA及T₁倾斜角较术前增加,差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05),组间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05);末次随访时C_2~7 ROM、SVA及T₁倾斜角均较术后12周有所改善,接近术前水平。2组植骨融合率、邻近及中间节段椎间盘退行性变加重率比较,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。2组植骨融合率、邻近及中间节段椎间盘退行性变加重率差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。观察组术后发生吞咽困难2例、声音嘶哑1例,并发症发生率为8.33%;对照组术后发生吞咽困难2例,并发症发生率为4.76%;组间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。结论跳跃式ACDF用于经非手术治疗无效的多节段颈椎病患者可获得与连续式ACDF相近的术后疗效及安全性,并能够有效缩短手术时间,减少术中医源性创伤。     

人工椎间盘置换术治疗跳跃型多节段颈椎病的中期疗效

 目的 评价 Bryan 人工间盘置换术治疗跳跃型多节段颈椎病的疗效。方法 回顾性分析 2002 年 2 月至 2012 年 5 月接受 Bryan 间盘置换术（Bryan 组）或颈前路减压植骨融合术（ACDF 组）治疗的跳跃型多节段颈椎病患者相关资料。临床功能评估采用日本矫形外科协会（Japanese orthopaedic association,JOA）评分、颈椎功能障碍指数（neck disability index,NDI）、疼痛视觉模拟评分（visual analoguc scale,VAS）,影像学评估采用颈椎矢状位曲度、颈椎整体活动度及中间节段活动度,并于末次随访时评估邻近节段退变情况。结果 49 例患者随访超过 24 个月,Bryan 组 18 例,ACDF 组 31 例。两组患者性别、年龄、疾病类型等人口学资料的差异无统计学意义。两组患者术后 JOA、NDI、VAS 评分均较术前有明显改善。两组间各时间节点比较仅末次随访时 VAS 评分的差异有统计学意义。Bryan 组术后轴性症状发生率、颈椎活动度和未手术节段活动度分别为 11.1%、35.5°±5.9°和 7.3°±1.4°,ACDF 组分别为 45.2%、24.5°±6.2°、10.1°±1.6°,差异均有统计学意义。Bryan 组患者邻近节段无明显退变,ACDF 组 2 例出现退变,但无需再次手术。结论 应用 Bryan 间盘置换术治疗跳跃型多节段颈椎病,可有效改善神经功能,保留颈椎整体活动度,减少未手术节段活动度的代偿性增加,从而降低邻近节段退变及轴性症状发生率。     

颈椎Zero-P植入与前路减压植骨融合术的对照研究

目的比较颈椎前路植入Zero-P系统手术方式与传统前路减压植骨融合术治疗单节段颈椎病患者的疗效。方法 2010年12月至2012年8月,58例单节段颈椎病患者接受前路Zero-P系统植入手术方式(Zero-P组,31例)或传统前路减压植骨融合术(传统手术组,27例)。比较两种手术方式的手术时间、出血量、住院日、并发症情况,对患者手术前后进行视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)和生活质量量表(Short Form-36,SF-36)的评估。结果 58例患者获得平均11.5个月(6~18个月)随访。Zero-P组及传统手术组的手术时间分别为(76±27)min和(98±21)min,术中出血量分别为(84±41)mL和(123±55)mL,住院日分别为(9±3.3)d和(15±5.1)d,两组差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后吞咽不适发生率Zero-P组明显少于传统手术组(P0.05),而硬脊膜撕裂、声音嘶哑等发生率无统计学意义(P0.05)。两组患者的颈痛、上肢痛VAS评分,术后各随访点较术前均有改善(P0.05),两组间差异无统计学意义(P0.1);SF-36躯体、精神评分术后各随访点较术前有明显上升(P0.05),两组间比较,术后3个月内Zero-P组优于传统手术组(P0.05)。结论颈椎前路植入Zero-P系统手术方式治疗单节段颈椎病,与传统前路减压植骨融合术一样能明显改善患者症状,且Zero-P系统操作简便、并发症少,是一种安全有效的颈前路内固定装置。     

Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换术与椎间融合术治疗颈椎病的中期疗效比较

目的 分析对比Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换术与颈前路减压植骨融合术(anterior ceryical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)治疗颈椎病的中期疗效.方法 2003年11月至2004年2月,16例患者行Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换术(A组),35例患者行ACDF(B组),于术前、出院前、术后6周、3、6、12、24个月及随后每半年一次随访,通过日本矫形外科协会(JOA)评分、简明健康状况调查表(SF-36评分)、颈椎残障功能指数(neck disability index,NDI)评定治疗效果.同期摄X线片,检测病变节段的稳定性和活动度.结果 两组患者术中、术后均无严重并发症发生.所有患者均获得6年以上随访,平均73.5个月.A组术后无假体移位、脱落等并发症发生,1例发生自发融合;置换节段活动度与置换前活动度的差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).B组术后6个月X线片示植骨全部达骨性融合.两组患者术后随访时临床症状均明显缓解,疗效满意.两组患者的JOA评分及SF-36评分、NDI,术后随访时均较术前有明显提高(P＜0.05).B组活动度较术前明显减小(P＜0.01),而A组手术前后差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);两组术后活动度差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换术疗效良好,同时还可保留颈椎病变节段活动度,减少轴性症状,为颈椎病治疗提供一种新的方法.

Abstract：

Objective To compare the clinical outcomes of Bryan disc replacement with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients with cervical spondylopathy. Methods Sixteen patients underwent Bryan cervical disc replacement (A group), and 35 patients underwent traditional ACDF (B group) were included in the study. Patients were followed up at regular intervals. The JOA score, SF-36, neck disability index (NDI) score and the dynamic flexion-extension radiographs were used to evaluated the oucomes.Results All the patients were followed up for more than 6 years (mean, 73.5 months). There were no severe adverse events in both groups. In A group, there were no differences between postoperative and preoperative mobility of surgical segments (P＞0.05). All patients obtained bone fusions 6 month after surgery in group B.In both groups, the clinical symptoms relieved obviously after surgery. The postoperative scores of the JOA,SF-36 and NDI significantly improved compared with those of preoperative ones (P＜0.05). In B group, range of motion (ROM) was significantly decreased postoperatively (P ＜0.01); in A group, there were no significant differences between postoperative and preoperative ROM (P＞0.05). The difference between two groups regarding ROM was noted (P＜0.05). Conclusion The mid-term outcomes of Bryan cervical arthroplasty are satisfied. And the cervical arthroplasty which can maintain the mobility of the segment, and decrease the incidence of the postoperative neck axial symptoms is a viable alternative to cervical spondylopathy.     

Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换与椎间融合治疗颈椎病疗效的对比研究

目的：分析对比Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换术与颈前路减压植骨融合术（ACDF）治疗颈椎病的疗效结果。方法：16例患者行Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换术（A组）,35例患者行ACDF（B组）,于术前、出院前、术后6周、3月、6月、12月、24月及随后每半年一次随访,通过JOA评分、生命质量SF-36评分、NDI评分评定治疗效果。同期摄X线片,检测病变节段的稳定性和活动度。结果：两组患者术中、术后均无严重并发症发生。所有患者均获得6年以上随访,平均73．5个月。A组术后无假体移位、脱落等并发症发生,有1例发生自发融合;置换节段活动度与置换前差异无显著性意义（P〉0．05）。B组术后6个月X线片示植骨全部达骨性融合。两组患者术后随访时临床症状均明显缓解,疗效满意。两组患者的JOA评分及SF-36评分、NDI评分术后随访时均较术前有明显提高（P〈0．05）。B组ROM较术前明显减小（P〈0．01）,A组手术前后的差异无统计学意义（侈O．05）;两组术后差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论：Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换术疗效良好,同时还保留颈椎病变节段活动度,减少轴性症状,为治疗颈椎病提供了一种新的方法。     

A prospective,randomised, controlled multicentre study comparing cervical disc replacement with anterior cervical decompression and fusion

Purpose

Total cervical artificial disc replacement (TDR) simulates normal disc structure, thus avoiding the drawbacks of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF). This prospective, randomized, controlled and multicentre study aimed to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes by comparing cervical disc replacement using Mobi-C disc prostheses with ACDF.

Methods

This prospective, randomized, controlled and multicentre study consisted of 111 patients undergoing single-level Mobi-C disc prosthesis replacement (TDR group, n?=?55) or ACDF (n?=?56) from February 2008 to November 2009 at 11 medical centres across China. Patients were assessed before surgery, at seven days postoperation and one, three, six, 12, 24, 36 and 48 months postoperation. Clinical and neurological outcome was determined by measuring the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, visual analogue scale (VAS) and Neck Disability Index (NDI). Static and dynamic radiographs were obtained of the cervical curvature, the functional spinal unit (FSU) angle and range of motion (ROM) of the cervical spine, FSU angle and treated and adjacent segments.

Results

A total of 111 patients were included and randomly assigned to either Mobi-C disc prosthesis replacement or ACDF. JOA, VAS and NDI showed statistically significant improvements 48 months after surgery (P?p?>?0.05). ROM in the ACDF group was significantly reduced at one month and remained so throughout the follow-up. By 48-months, more ACDF patients required secondary surgery (four of 56 patients).

Conclusions

Although ACDF may increase the risk of additional surgery, clinical outcomes indicated that both Mobi-C artificial cervical disc replacement and ACDF were reliable. Radiographic data showed that ROM of the cervical spine, FSU angle and treated and adjacent segments were relatively better reconstructed and maintained in the Mobi-C group compared with those in the ACDF group.     

颈前路减压植骨融合与Bryan人工颈椎间盘置换疗效比较

目的探讨颈椎前路减压植骨融合术(anterior cervical decompression and fusion,ACDF)与Bryan人工颈椎椎间盘置换术(artificial cervical disc replacement,ACDR)两种手术方式用于治疗脊髓型颈椎病及神经根型颈椎病的近期和远期疗效。方法系统分析我院2010年11月至2012年11月70例(70个节段)脊髓型或神经根型颈椎病患者病例资料,将70例(70个节段)脊髓型或神经根型颈椎病患者,通过随机数字表法随机分为ACDF组(35例)及Bryan组(35例)。通过分析术前及术后随访12个月的Odom's标准评分、活动度(range of motion,ROM)、日本骨科协会(Japanese orthopaedic association,JOA)、健康调查简表(the MOS item short from health survey,SF-36)及颈椎残障功能指数(neck disability index,NDI)观察指标的差异,同时对随访12个月的上述各项指标进行两组间比较,比较两者疗效,分析两种术式的优点及他们产生的问题。结果两种手术方式都能取得明确疗效,治疗后患者症状明显缓解(P0.05),两种术式在创伤、出血量等方面差异性不显著(P0.05);JOA评分及SF-36评分两者差异性不显著(P0.05);而在12个月随访ROM评估及NDI比较有差异,Bryan组数据优于ACDF组,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);Bryan组在Odom's评分中因减压不彻底及异位骨化,有2例等级为差,ACDF组则为0例。结论 Bryan人工颈椎椎间盘置换术在减少颈椎临近节段退变上优于ACDF,短中期疗效优于ACDF,但Bryan人工颈椎椎间盘置换术同时存在减压不彻底及异位骨化等并发症,远期疗效不如ACDF。     

Surgically treated cervical myelopathy: a functional outcome comparison study between multilevel anterior cervical decompression fusion with instrumentation and posterior laminoplasty

Background contextMultilevel cervical myelopathy can be treated with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or corpectomy via the anterior approach and laminoplasty via the posterior approach. Till date, there is no proven superior approach.PurposeTo elucidate any potential advantage of one approach over the other with regard to clinical midterm outcomes in this study.Study designA prospective, 2-year follow-up of patients with cervical myelopathy treated with multilevel anterior cervical decompression fusion and plating and posterior laminoplasty.Patient sampleIn total, 116 patients were studied. Sixty-four patients underwent ACDF two levels and above or anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion one level and above. Fifty-two patients underwent posterior cervical surgery (laminoplasty C3–C6 and C3–C7).Outcome measuresSelf-report measures: Japan Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, JOA recovery rate, visual analog scale for neck pain (VASNP), neck disability index (NDI), and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) neurogenic symptom score (AAOS-NSS). Physiologic measures: range of motion (ROM) flexion and extension of neck. Functional measures: short-form 36 (SF-36) score comprising physical functioning, physical role function, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social role function, emotional role function, and mental health scales.MethodsComparison of the JOA scores, JOA recovery rates, NDI scores, SF-36 scores, VASNP, and ROM preoperatively to 2 years. Chi-square and two-sided Student t tests were used to analyze the variables.ResultsPosterior surgery took an hour shorter (p<.05) and had better improvement in JOA scores at early follow-up of 6 months (p=.025). Anterior surgery group had better improvement of NDI scores at early follow-up of 6 months (p=.024) and was associated with less blood loss intraoperatively compared with posterior surgery. There was no statistical difference between the two groups for JOA scores, JOA recovery rates, SF-36 quality-of-life scores, NDI, AAOS-NSS, VAS neck pain, and ROM at 2 years. Complications were higher for anterior surgery group: two hematoma postoperation, one vocal cord paresis, and one new onset C6/C7 dermatome numbness versus one dura leak in posterior surgery group.ConclusionsOur study showed that patients with multilevel disease treated with laminoplasty do well and compare favorably with patients treated with an anterior approach. Notably, posterior surgery was associated with shorter operating time, better improvement in JOA scores at 6 months, and a tendency toward lesser complications. Posterior surgery was not associated with increased neck disability and neck pain at 2 years. Anterior surgery had better NDI improvement at early follow-up. There is a need for a larger study that is prospectively randomized with long-term follow-up before we can confidently advocate one approach over the other in the management of cervical myelopathy.     

3种前路手术治疗单节段脊髓型颈椎病的中期疗效比较

目的比较分析颈前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)、颈前路椎体次全切除融合术(ACCF)和人工颈椎间盘置换术(CADR)治疗单节段脊髓型颈椎病的中期疗效。方法回顾性分析自2004-01—2012-01行ACDF、ACCF和CADR手术治疗的79例单节段脊髓型颈椎病。ACDF组44例,ACCF组22例,CADR组13例。比较3组手术时间、术中出血量,术后6、60个月VAS评分、JOA评分、NDI指数、SF-12评分及颈椎曲度。结果 79例均获得61~88(69.8±12.7)个月随访。ACDF组与ACCF组植骨融合时间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后6个月时,ACCF组JOA评分均高于ACDF组及CADR组,ACDF组与ACCF组颈椎曲度优于CADR组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);而3组VAS评分、NDI指数和SF-12评分比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后60个月时,ACDF组与CADR组VAS评分、NDI指数低于ACCF组,而SF-12评分高于ACCF组;ACDF组颈椎曲度优于ACCF组与CADR组,且CADR组优于ACCF组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);而3组JOA评分差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ACCF在短期内神经功能恢复优于ACDF和CADR,但在随访中期ACCF在症状缓解、生活质量改善及颈椎曲度的维持方面却差于ACDF和CADR。     

Fusion versus Bryan Cervical Disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective,randomised study

In this prospective study, our aim was to compare the functional results and radiographic outcomes of fusion and Bryan Cervical Disc replacement in the treatment of two-level cervical disc disease. A total of 65 patients with two-level cervical disc disease were randomly assigned to two groups, those operated on with Bryan Cervical Disc replacement (31) and those operated on with anterior cervical fusion with an iliac crest autograft and plate (34). Clinical evaluation was carried out using the visual analogue scale (VAS), the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and the neck disability index (NDI) during a two year follow-up. Radiological evaluation sought evidence of range of motion, stability and subsidence of the prosthesis. Substantial reduction in NDI scores occurred in both groups, with greater percent improvement in the Bryan group (P = 0.023). The arm pain VAS score improvement was substantial in both groups. Bryan artificial cervical disc replacement seems reliable and safe in the treatment of patients with two-level cervical disc disease.