后路减压内固定融合治疗退变性腰椎侧凸

目的探讨后路减压内固定植骨融合治疗退变性腰椎侧凸的临床疗效。方法后路减压内固定植骨融合治疗19例退变性腰椎侧凸患者。手术前后进行JOA、VAS评分评估临床疗效,影像学测量比较手术前后的Cobb角、骨盆倾斜角(PT)、腰椎前凸角(LL)。结果所有患者均获得随访,时间11~23(15.7±2.2)个月。JOA评分:术前为12.2分±1.7分,术后3个月为22.7分±3.1分,末次随访为24.0分±2.8分。VAS评分:术前为8.4分±0.5分,术后3个月为1.9分±0.8分,末次随访为1.8分±0.6分。Cobb角:术前为23.9°±4.2°,术后3个月为3.1°±1.4°,末次随访为3.3°±1.1°。LL:术前为31.6°±5.9°,术后3个月为42.5°±6.6°,末次随访为44.3°±6.0°。PT:术前为21.5°±7.3°,术后3个月为18.9°±9.4°,末次随访为18.5°±7.8°。以上各项指标术后3个月与术前比较差异均有统计学意义(P0.05),末次随访与术后3个月比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论后路减压内固定植骨融合治疗退变性腰椎侧凸可充分减压,缓解症状,重建腰椎矢状面和冠状面的序列并维持脊柱稳定。     

后路腰椎椎体间植骨融合术与经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间植骨融合术治疗腰椎退行性病变的近期疗效对比

目的比较后路腰椎椎体间植骨融合术(PLIF)与经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间植骨融合术(TLIF)治疗腰椎退行性病变的近期疗效。方法 62例于我院接受单节段手术治疗的部分腰椎退行性病变患者,其中接受PLIF手术患者34例,接受TLIF手术患者28例。比较两组手术时间、出血量、住院时间、并发症及植骨融合率。手术效果按照视觉疼痛模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)、JOA评分(Japanese orthopaedic association scores,JOA)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(oswestry disability index,ODI)和改良MacNab标准进行评定。结果 PLIF组与TILF组手术时间、出血量比较差异有统计学意义(P0.01);住院时间和植骨融合率比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。PLIF组和TILF组并发症发生率分别为26.5%(9/34)和14.3%(4/28),TLIF组低于PILF组(P0.01)。PLIF组和TILF组患者术后随访时间为6个月。两组患者术后各随访时间点腰腿痛VAS评分、JOA评分、ODI指数较术前均明显改善(P0.01),但PILF组术后1个月内腰痛VAS评分高于TLIF组。PLIF组和TILF组患者末次随访时按改良MacNab标准评定优良率分别为91.8%和87.5%,组间比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论单节段PLIF与TILF治疗腰椎退行性病变均可取得满意的近期临床疗效,但TLIF创伤小、出血少、对脊柱稳定性破坏较少。     

Comparison of the early results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in symptomatic lumbar instability

Background:

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has been preferred to posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for different spinal disorders but there had been no study comparing their outcome in lumbar instability. A comparative retrospective analysis of the early results of TLIF and PLIF in symptomatic lumbar instability was conducted between 2005 and 2011.

Materials and Methods:

Review of the records of 102 operated cases of lumbar instability with minimum 1 year followup was done. A total of 52 cases (11 men and 41 women, mean age 46 years SD 05.88, range 40-59 years) underwent PLIF and 50 cases (14 men and 36 women, mean age 49 years SD 06.88, range 40-59 years) underwent TLIF. The surgical time, duration of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss were compared. Self-evaluated low back pain and leg pain status (using Visual Analog Score), disability outcome (using Oswestry disability questionnaire) was analyzed. Radiological structural restoration (e.g., disc height, foraminal height, lordotic angle, and slip reduction), stability (using Posner criteria), fusion (using Hackenberg criteria), and overall functional outcome (using MacNab''s criteria) were compared.

Results:

Pain, disability, neurology, and overall functional status were significantly improved in both groups but PLIF required more operative time and caused more blood loss. Postoperative hospital stay, structural restoration, stability, and fusion had no significant difference but neural complications were relatively more with PLIF.

Conclusions:

Both methods were effective in relieving symptoms, achieving structural restoration, stability, and fusion, but TLIF had been associated with shorter operative time, less blood loss, and lesser complication rates for which it can be preferred for symptomatic lumbar instability.     

应用PLIF及TLIF治疗腰椎退变性疾病的比较研究

目的评价经后路椎间融合术(posterior lumbar interbody fusion,PLIF)与经椎间孔椎间融合术(transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF)治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效。方法分析2012-12-2015-06应用PLIF和TLIF治疗腰椎退行性疾病患者73例,比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、手术并发症及椎间融合效果;比较两组病例组内及组间术前、术后6个月的腰痛VAS(Visual Analogue Score)评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数调查表(The Oswestry Disability Index,ODI)评分。结果 PLIF组手术时间、术中出血量及术后引流量均较TLIF组高;PLIF组及TLIF组腰痛VAS评分术后6个月较术前均明显改善,两组组间比较术前腰痛VAS评分无明显差异,术后6个月腰痛VAS评分PLIF组较TLIF组高,差异有统计学意义;两组术后6个月较术前ODI评分明显改善,组间比较术前及术后ODI评分无明显差异。结论两种手术方法均可以有效缓解腰椎退行性疾病的症状,TLIF在手术时间、失血量及并发症的发生上都较PLIF低,对于单侧症状患者可选择TLIF的手术方式,对于双侧压迫患者可选用PLIF技术。     

单侧与双侧后路椎体间融合术治疗腰椎间盘突出伴腰椎不稳的疗效比较

目的比较单侧和双侧后路椎体间融合术(PLIF)治疗腰椎间盘突出伴腰椎不稳的临床疗效。方法手术治疗51例腰椎间盘突出伴腰椎不稳患者,其中行单侧PLIF治疗26例(单侧组),行双侧PLIF治疗25例(双侧组),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。结果手术时间:双侧组(168±20)min,单侧组(94±18)min;术中出血量:双侧组(750±41)ml,单侧组(450±40)ml;术后输血:双侧组7例,单侧组均未输血;以上各项两组比较差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。术中硬膜囊撕裂:双侧组1例,单侧组无。术后神经根痛加剧:双侧组2例,单侧组1例。患者均获得随访,时间14~30个月。临床疗效优良率:双侧组为84.0%(21/25),单侧组为92.3%(24/26),差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。植骨融合率:双侧组为92.0%,单侧组为96.1%,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论单侧PLIF治疗腰椎间盘突出伴腰椎不稳创伤小,并发症少,临床疗效满意率优于双侧PLIF。     

Postoperative spondylitis after posterior lumbar interbody fusion using cages

The recommended surgical options for postoperative wound infections after instrumented spine surgery include a wide debridement and irrigation with antibiotics. In most cases, implant removal is not recommended for a solid fusion. However, there are few reports on the treatment choices for persistent postoperative wound infections following a posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using cages. This paper reviewed ten patients referred to our department, who underwent revision surgery for a postoperative, deep infection after a PLIF with cages. The surgery included an anterior radical debridement and interbody fusion with removal of all implants. The clinical and laboratory results, including a bacteriologic study for the causative organism and the radiological changes, were analyzed. All patients complained of persistent severe back pain after the primary surgery. MRSA was the main organism found in these patients (five cases). Complete bony fusion was obtained in nine patients (90%). In one patient, back pain and radiating pain prevented him from returning to his original work. Despite the anterior interbody fusion with an autogenous iliac bone graft, all cases had a complete collapse of the intervertebral disc space, without a dislodgement or collapse of the graft bone. The mean loss of the height and lordosis in the involved segment was 12.7 mm (range 4–46 mm) and 5.6° (range 0–15°), respectively. Anterior radical debridement with the removal of all implants would be an effective way to manage patients with postoperative spondylitis after a PLIF using cages.     

腰椎后路椎体间融合术后5年临床疗效观察

[目的]评价腰椎后路椎体间融合(posterior lumbar interbody fusion,PLIF)术中应用双Cage和局部自体附件骨的融合率及术后5年的临床疗效。[方法]回顾接受PLIF手术、椎体间植入双Cage与局部附件骨、并行椎弓根钉内固定的84例患者的住院病历,并通过随访获得患者术前、术后1年、3年、5年的影像学资料,了解病人的康复情况,并用Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)进行评分,观察椎体融合情况、相邻椎间隙退变情况(adjacent segment degeneration,ASD)。[结果]单间隙固定、二间隙固定、三间隙固定的患者术后1年、5年ODI评分比术前均有显著性降低(P0.01);术后1年与术后5年ODI评分均无显著性差异(P0.05)。术后1年融合率均为94.95%,术后3年融合率均为100%。术后5年部分患者遗留腰部发困、发僵、下坠感等腰痛不适症状,发生率22.61%(19/84),尚不能认为单间隙固定、二间隙固定、三间隙固定腰部不适发生率有差别。术后5年相邻椎间隙退变发生率19.04%(16/84)。具有相应症状、体征伴有ODI评分增加的ASD发生率2.38%(2/84)。[结论]PLIF应用双Cage结合自体局部附件骨植入、椎弓根内固定治疗下腰椎疾病椎体融合率高,术后1年、术后5年ODI评价临床疗效好。部分病人术后遗留有腰部不适。术后5年ASD多是影像学上的变化,极少产生临床症状。     

TLIF与PLIF治疗腰椎退行性疾病疗效的Meta分析

目的:对TLIF与PLIF治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效及并发症进行Meta分析.方法:检索Medline、Ovid、中国生物医学文献数据库系统(CBM)、中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)、中文科技期刊全文数据库(VIP)等数据库,检索时间至2012年5月.本研究提取的评价指标包括手术时间、手术失血量、住院时间、视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)、Oswestry功能残障指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)等指标和并发症例数.应用Review Manager 5.1软件进行数据分析.结果:纳入文献9篇,其中随机对照研究1篇,队列研究8篇.共981例,TLIF组457例,PLIF组524例.两组间比较,手术失血量(P=0.002)及住院时间(P=0.02)TLIF组少于PLIF组,而优良例数(P＝0.27)、手术时间(P=0.07)、VAS评分(P＝0.61)和ODI评分(P＝0.24)两组间无差异;总并发症两组间差异显著(P＜0.0001),其中神经损伤(P=0.001)、硬膜损伤(P=0.04)TLIF组较少,而脑脊液漏(P=0.25)、螺钉松动(P=0.14)、内固定失败(P=0.86)、未融合例数(P=0.41)和感染(P=0.51)两组间无显著性差异.结论:两者临床总疗效优良率相当,但TLIF手术在手术失血量、住院时间及术后并发症方面,尤其是对神经和硬膜的损伤,较PLIF明显减少.TLIF手术是一种更安全有效地治疗腰椎退行性疾病的方法.     

自锚式腰椎侧方融合器在斜外侧椎间融合术治疗腰椎融合术后邻近节段病中的应用

目的 :评价自锚式腰椎侧方融合器在斜外侧椎间融合(oblique lateral interbody fusion,OLIF)术治疗腰椎融合术后邻近节段病中的应用效果。方法:2014年3月～2020年3月在我院治疗的腰椎融合术后症状性邻近节段退变患者35例,其中采用自锚式腰椎侧方融合器行斜外侧椎间融合术13例(OLIF组),男7例,女6例;年龄48～75岁(56.2±15.4岁)。采用后方经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合(transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF)术22例(TLIF组),男12例,女10例;年龄38～76岁(48.2±24.5岁)。比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、住院时间和并发症发生率,在术前、术后3个月和末次随访时采用视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)评定腰痛和腿痛情况、Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)评定临床疗效。结果:OLIF组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、住院时间均小于TLIF组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。OLIF组术后出现并发症3例(23.1%),TLIF组术后出现并发症5例(22.7%),两组并发症发生率无统计学差异(P0.05)。术后随访12～72个月(35.4±21.9个月),OLIF组术前、术后3个月和末次随访时的腰痛、腿痛VAS评分和ODI分别为7.6±1.1分、7.8±1.1分、(58.9±10.8)%,1.7±0.3分、1.8±0.2分、(19.6±1.5)%和0.7±0.3分、0.7±0.3分、(18.3±0.7)%;TLIF组分别为8.0±1.0分、8.0±1.0分、(57.4±11.5)%,1.8±0.3分、1.9±0.3分、(20.9±1.2)%和0.5±0.1分、0.5±0.2分、(19.2±0.8)%;两组术后3个月及末次随访时的腰、腿痛VAS评分及ODI均较术前显著性改善(P0.05),两组同时间点比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:应用自锚式腰椎侧方融合器行OLIF治疗腰椎融合术后邻近节段病安全、有效,并能够缩短手术时间和住院时间,有利于早期康复。     

两种椎体间融合术治疗老年腰椎滑脱合并腰椎管狭窄疗效比较

目的比较经椎间孔椎体间融合术(TLIF)和经后路椎体间融合术(PLIF)治疗老年腰椎滑脱合并腰椎管狭窄的效果。方法将50例合并腰椎管狭窄的退行性腰椎滑脱患者根据手术方法分为TLIF组(25例)和PLIF组(25例),分析两组的临床疗效及并发症发生率。结果两组术后12个月疼痛VAS评分均低于术前(P0.05);两组术后12个月Prolo评分均高于术前(P0.05)。术后VAS评分、并发症发生率TLIF组均低于PLIF组(P0.05),术后Prolo评分及优良率TLIF组均高于PLIF组(P0.05)。结论 TLIF治疗老年退行性腰椎滑脱合并腰椎管狭窄症的临床效果较好,并可降低术后并发症发生率。     

腰椎后路椎体间融合及内固定治疗低度腰椎滑脱

[目的]阐述、探讨腰椎后路椎体间融合（posterior lumbar interbody fusion，PLIF）及椎弓根内固定治疗低度腰椎滑脱的疗效及临床体会：[方法]回顾性分析2004年1月～2005年9月收治的53例行腰椎后路减压椎间融合及椎弓根内固定治疗的低度腰椎滑脱患者。分析手术前后的Boxall滑脱率、滑脱角及椎间高度的变化。分析临床疗效及融合率、手术方式、并发症之关系，阐述临床治疗新体会。[结果]53例患者均获得随访，平均随访16个月（9～21个月），49例（92，5％）病人获得椎体间骨性融合。术前与术后的Boxall指数、滑脱角及椎间高度均有显著差异（P〈0．01）。并发症：1例患者发生融合器后移；1例患者发生椎间隙低毒性感染；2例患者发生神经根牵拉伤；1例发生融合器下沉。[结论]腰椎滑脱通过腰椎后路一次完成减压、椎间植骨融合及椎弓根内固定，疗效显著。并发症发生与围手术期密切相关，手术过程因人而异，并发症的发生与手术操作技巧、协调性关系尤为密切。     

单侧双通道内镜辅助后路腰椎椎间融合术与微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎退变性疾病的临床疗效比较

【摘要】 目的：比较单侧双通道内镜辅助后路腰椎椎间融合术（unilateral biportal endoscopic assisted posterior lumbar interbody fusion,UBE-PLIF）与微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术（minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,MIS-TLIF）治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效。方法：回顾性分析2020年1月~2021年1月我院收治的60例腰椎退变性疾病患者临床资料,其中UBE-PLIF组27例,MIS-TLIF组33例。两组性别、年龄、病程、主要诊断、合并慢性疾病及手术节段等一般资料比较,差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。统计两组手术时间、术中失血量、术后引流量、住院天数,术前、术后3个月、术后6个月及末次随访的腰痛疼痛视觉模拟评分（visual analogue scale,VAS）、腿痛VAS评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）,术前和术后3d、3个月、6个月及末次随访的手术节段椎间隙高度（intervertebral disc height,IDH）,术后6个月椎间融合情况、术后1年椎旁肌脂肪浸润分级及手术并发症。结果：两组患者均获随访,UBE-PLIF组随访12~15个月（13.3±1.0个月）,MIS-TLIF组随访12~16个月（13.4±1.2个月）,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。UBE-PLIF组手术时间274.3±88.2min、术中出血量261.1±207.7ml、术后引流量95.7±79.7ml,MIS-TLIF组分别为181.8±58.7min、331.8±247.1ml、125.4±113.1ml,两组比较均有统计学差异（P＜0.05）;UBE-PLIF组住院天数7.4±2.3d,MIS-TLIF组7.5±1.0d,无统计学差异（P＞0.05）。两组患者腰痛、腿痛VAS评分及ODI在术后3个月、6个月及末次随访均较术前明显改善（P＜0.05）;两组患者术前、术后6个月及末次随访的腰痛及腿痛VAS评分差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）,术后3个月腰痛及腿痛VAS评分UBE-PLIF组优于MIS-TLIF组（P＜0.05）;术前、术后3个月、术后6个月及末次随访ODI两组患者间差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。两组患者术后3d、3个月、6个月及末次随访IDH均较术前有所改善,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;术前和术后3d、3个月、6个月及末次随访IDH两组间比较均无统计学差异（P＞0.05）。术后6个月植骨融合评估,UBE-PLIF组I级融合23例、Ⅱ级4例,MIS-TLIF组I级28例、Ⅱ级5例,两组比较无统计学差异（P＞0.05）。术后1年椎旁肌脂肪浸润分级,UBE-PLIF组1级2例、2级18例、3级7例,MIS-TLIF组1级0例、2级15例、3级18例,两组间比较有统计学差异（P＜0.05）。两组患者均未发生手术相关并发症。结论：UBE-PLIF治疗腰椎退变性疾病的临床疗效与MIS-TLIF相近,术后3个月UBE-PLIF组腰腿痛症状较MIS-TLIF组明显改善,并且UBE-PLIF具有创伤小、术中出血少、术后引流少等优点。     

Subsidence after anterior lumbar interbody fusion using paired stand-alone rectangular cages

The authors conducted a study to determine at what stage after surgery the subsidence occurred, and to assess the relationships of radiographic fusion and the recurrence of symptoms with the development of subsidence. Ninety patients underwent a single-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) using paired stand-alone rectangular cages between November 2000 and June 2002. All patients had regular clinical or imaging follow-up for a minimum of 19 months (range 19-38 months, mean = 27 months). The ratio of male to female patients was 1:3.1. The patients' ages at the time of ALIF ranged from 25 to 72 years, with a mean of 53 years. The preoperative and postoperative intervertebral disc heights were serially measured by plain radiographs. The location of cage subsidence into the vertebral body and times until the presence of subsidence were also assessed. The mean preoperative intervertebral disc height was 11.6+/-3.1 mm, which spread immediately after surgery to 16.9+/-2.0 mm. This increase was statistically significant (P = 0.001). At the last follow-up visit, the mean intervertebral disc height had been reduced to 13.2+/-2.4 mm. Sixty-nine of 90 patients (76.7%) developed cage subsidence into the surrounding vertebral body. Subsidence was more often noted in the superior endplate above the cage with regard to the location of cage subsidence [superior endplate: 27 patients (39.1%), inferior endplate: 12 patients (17.3%), both: 30 patients (43.6%)]. The onset of subsidence varied from 0.25 to 8 months after surgery (median, 2.75 months). The 8-, 12-, and 16-week actuarial rates for developing cage subsidence were 38.9, 63.4, and 70.7%, respectively, when using the Kaplan-Meier method. There was no statistical correlation between the recurrence of symptoms (P = 0.3952) and radiographic fusion (P = 0.9518) with the log-rank test in development of subsidence. This study demonstrates that cage subsidence is an expected occurrence after ALIF using stand-alone rectangular cages. The 3- and 4-month actuarial rates for developing cage subsidence were 63.4 and 70.7%, respectively, and cage subsidence had no correlation with recurrence of symptoms and radiographic fusion in our study.     

后路腰椎间融合治疗腰椎管狭窄症患者腰痛的疗效分析

[目的]分析腰椎管狭窄症患者腰痛的原因,探讨后路腰椎间融合术对腰椎管狭窄症腰痛的治疗效果.[方法]比较腰痛明显的腰椎管狭窄症患者和典型间歇性跛行症状的腰椎管狭窄症患者的年龄、术前腰椎失稳、生理前凸消失和退变性侧弯的发生率;分析后路腰椎间融合 (posterior lumbar interbody fusion, PLIF) 治疗腰椎管狭窄症患者下腰痛的随访结果.[结果]腰痛明显组的腰椎管狭窄症患者的平均年龄、腰椎节段性失稳率、腰椎前凸消失和退变性侧弯的比率高于间歇性跛行组的腰椎管狭窄症患者.PLIF术后腰痛症状明显减轻,JOA评分改善,退变性侧弯程度减轻,腰椎前凸恢复,椎间均达到骨性融合.[结论]PLIF可消除腰椎管狭窄症的多种腰痛病因,是治疗腰椎管狭窄症下腰痛的较好术式选择.     

腰椎后路椎体间融合术与后外侧融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的系统评价

[目的]系统评价腰椎后路椎体间融合术(posterior lumbar interbody fusion)对比后外侧融合术(posterolateral fusion)治疗腰椎退行性疾病的术后疗效.[方法]计算机检索PubMed、EMBASE、CNKI、CBM等数据库、学术会议资料和学位论文等.全面收集有关两种方法治疗腰椎退行性疾病的文献.制定文献纳入及排除标准,由2名研究者分别独立筛选文献,按照Cochrane Handbook 5.1进行严格的质量评估,并用Revman 5.2软件进行Meta分析.[结果]经过筛选,共有6篇研究符合纳入标准,包括487例患者被纳入分析.Meta分析结果显示,PLIF组的融合率＞ PLF组[OR=3.90,95％ CI (2.05,7.40),P＜0.001],但PLIF组术后1年ODI评分＜PLF组[WMD=-3.86,95％ CI(-7.59,-0.t3),P=0.04],差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05);而两组在手术时间[WMD=15.85,95％CI(-16.25,47.96),P=0.33]、术中失血量[WMD=-90.57,95％ CI(-292.50,111.36),P=0.38]术后并发症[OR =0.99,95％CI (0.22,4.47),P=0.99]、二次手术率[OR =0.87,95％ CI (0.52,1.45),P=0.25]无统计学差异(P＞0.5).[结论] PLIF手术方式的骨融合率较高,但术后1年ODI评分低于PLF组,且两组在手术时间、术中失血量、术后并发症、二次手术率方面结果相似.     

斜外侧腰椎体间融合术初次术后邻近节段退变

[目的]评价斜外侧腰椎体间融合术(oblique lumbar interbody fusion,0LIF)治疗腰椎融合术后邻近节段退变的临床效果。[方法]回顾性分析2016年12月一2019年12月本院脊柱外科采用0LIF术治疗腰椎融合术后邻近节段退变50例患者的临床资料。[结果]50例患者均顺利完成手术,均未发生严重并发症。所有患者随访12?16个月,平均(13.74±1.63)个月。术后(12.66±3.64)周患者恢复完全负重活动。随访期间,患者术后疼痛逐步减缓,功能逐步改善。与术前相比较,末次随访时VAS和0DI评分均显著下降(P<0.05)。影像方面,与术前相比,末次随访时患者的腰椎前凸角(LL)显著增加(P<0.05),而侧凸Cobb角显著减少(P<0.05)。至末次随访时,50例患者再次手术椎间隙均达到骨性融合,椎间融合器无移位、下沉。[结论]采用0LIF治疗腰椎融合术后邻近节段退变具有较好的安全性和有效性。     

可吸收止血流体明胶在腰椎后路手术中的临床应用研究

目的探讨可吸收止血流体明胶在腰椎后路椎间融合术中控制出血的有效性和安全性。方法选取我科2016年10月至2017年10月期间因腰椎管狭窄症,行单节段腰椎后路减压椎间融合植骨内固定术的患者共96例,分为试验组和对照组,每组分别为48例。对照组采用常规外科手术方法止血,试验组术中除常规外科止血外,同时使用可吸收止血流体明胶。通过对比两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量,术后感染的发生情况等综合评价两组患者的治疗效果。结果试验组应用可吸收止血流体明胶后,其术中出血量(180.7±15.6)mL、手术时间(95.6±13.8)min,均少于对照组术中出血量(216.8±19.2)mL、手术时间(103.7±18.9)min,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);试验组术后第1、2、3天的引流量分别为(186.8±29.2)mL、(286.7±27.1)mL、(320.7±30.2)mL,与对照组(210.8±36.1)mL、(315.5±20.5)mL、(372.8±22.2)mL相比,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后伤口发生感染的情况,试验组发生率为2/48,对照组发生率为3/48,无统计学差异(P0.05)。结论流体明胶可减少手术时间、术中出血量以及术后引流量,并不增加伤口感染的风险。它是一种安全、有效的止血剂,在腰椎后路手术中有其应用价值。     

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using rhBMP-2

The use of biological technologies for the treatment of degenerative spinal diseases has undergone rapid clinical and scientific development. BMP strategies have gained wide support for an inherent potential to improve the ossification process. It has been extensively studied in combination with various techniques for spinal stabilisation from both anterior and posterior approach. We studied the fusion process after implantation of rhBMP-2 in 17 patients with degenerative lumbar spine diseases in combination with dorsal fixation with pedicle screws and poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) interbody cages. We used 12 mg rhBMP-2 carried by collagen sponge, 6 mg in every cage. Patient follow up consisted of pre-operative radiographic and clinical evaluation. Similar post-operative evaluations were performed at 3 and 6 months. Clinical assessment demonstrated clear improvement in all patients despite evidence of vertebral endplate osteoclastic activity in the 3-month radiographs. The 6-month radiograph, however, confirmed evidence of fusion, and no untoward results or outcomes were noted. While previous studies have shown exclusively positive results in both fusion rates and process, our study demonstrated an intermediate morphology at 3 months during the ossification process using Induct Os in combination with peek-cages using a PLIF-technique. The transient resorption of bone surrounding the peek cage did not result in subsidence, pain or complication, and fusion was reached in all cases within a 6-month-controlled evaluation. Although there was no negative influence on clinical outcome, the potential for osteoclastic or metabolic resorption bears watching during the post-surgical follow up.     

腰椎后路椎体间采用不同植骨方式的融合效果之比较

目的探讨采用不同的植骨方式对于腰椎后路椎体间融合效果的影响。方法回顾性分析我院1999-2006年间采用后路椎间盘切除,椎间植骨融合 椎弓根螺钉内固定手术治疗的426例病例,通过其术后X线融合率或CT进行效果评价。结果365例获得随访(平均1.7年),术后结果:自体棘突椎板植骨融合率为91.9%,自体髂骨植骨融合率94.0%,异体骨植骨融合率87.5%,椎间融合器融合率94.0%。结论自体棘突椎板植骨是一种可靠,简单有效的植骨融合方式。