经前侧方腹膜后入路腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效

目的探讨经前侧方腹膜后入路腰椎椎间融合术(OLIF)治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效。方法 2015年11月—2016年9月,本院采用OLIF治疗腰椎退行性疾病患者16例。记录患者手术前后日本骨科学会(JOA)评分、疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、椎间隙和椎间孔高度及并发症发生情况,以评价手术疗效。结果 16例患者均在OLIF微创管道下顺利完成所有手术,随访时间7~17个月。所有患者术后复查均未见椎弓根钉松动、断裂或Cage移位。至末次随访,仅1例椎间隙尚未融合,其余所有节段均已融合;2例Cage下沉,未见置入物松动;切口均一期愈合。所有患者术后腰椎JOA、VAS评分均优于术前,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);术后椎间隙前缘、后缘及椎间孔高度均优于术前,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 OLIF手术效果佳、并发症少,是治疗腰椎退行性疾病的一种较好的方法。     

经肌间隙入路通道腰椎固定融合术的并发症

[目的]总结肌间隙入路通道显露下腰椎固定融合术的并发症。[方法] 2012年6月～2015年12月共治疗腰椎疾病467例,男203例,女264例;平均年龄(57.63±9.16)岁;单节段病变415例,两节段病变52例。采用肌间隙入路通道下单侧椎弓根螺钉固定并椎间融合术治疗58例,肌间隙入路通道下单侧椎弓根螺钉联合对侧椎板关节突螺钉固定并椎间融合术治疗192例,肌间隙入路通道下双侧椎弓根螺钉固定并椎间融合术治疗217例。观察其临床结果及并发症。[结果]术中并发症:异常出血2例、腰椎病变节段定位错误6例、椎弓根骨折7例、终板损伤4例、硬脊膜撕裂和脑脊液漏3例、神经损伤9例、椎弓根螺钉位置不正确12例、椎板关节突螺钉位置不正确15例。术后并发症:切口表皮部分坏死19例、切口愈合不良3例、切口深部感染1例、椎间排斥反应1例、血肿2例、再次手术6例。共446例获得6～36个月,平均(19.65±5.87)个月的随访。随访期内未发现内固定松动或断裂现象,出现融合器向后移位2例,融合器沉降19例。随访病例中除23例不能明确外均获得椎间融合,JOA评分均获得明显改善。[结论]肌间隙入路通道下固定融合治疗腰椎病变临床效果良好,但也存在较高的并发症,特别在早期开展阶段。     

斜外侧入路腰椎椎间融合术临床应用研究进展

<正>腰椎椎间融合术是治疗腰椎退行性疾病的有效术式,可在保持脊柱稳定性的基础上恢复椎间隙高度^[1],为非手术治疗无效的腰椎退行性疾病的首选治疗方式,经过长期的临床实践,证实疗效满意^[2]。斜外侧入路腰椎椎间融合术(OLIF)由Silvestre等^[3]于2012年在Mayer^[4]报道的微创前路椎间融合术的基础上形成。OLIF是近年常用的椎间融合术式之一,其通过腰大肌与腹部大血管之间的天然间隙建立通道,在直视下置入融合器,进行腰椎的间接减压与融合,不破坏肌肉和椎体小关节,具有手术创伤小、手术时间短、术中出血量少、术后恢复快等优点^[3,5]。     

微创腰椎融合术的研究进展

腰椎融合术是治疗腰椎疾病的经典手术方法之一.它在腰椎退变、不稳、滑脱及椎间盘源性疼痛等疾病的治疗中扮演十分重要的角色.但是,传统的开放腰椎融合手术往往需要进行广泛的肌肉剥离及长时间的牵拉,容易引起软组织损伤.近年来,脊柱微创技术取得了较大的进展,采用各种微创技术进行腰椎融合术可以明显减少椎旁软组织的损伤,患者术中出血少,术后疼痛轻、住院时间短,其临床疗效较好.笔者对近年来微创技术在腰椎融合中的进展综述如下……     

骨密度对斜侧方入路椎体间融合术治疗腰椎退行性滑脱症疗效的影响

【摘要】 目的：分析骨密度对斜侧方入路椎体间融合术（oblique lateral interbody fusion,OLIF）治疗腰椎退行性滑脱症疗效的影响。方法：回顾性分析2017年12月~2020年7月期间我科在脊柱微创通道系统辅助下OLIF治疗的Meyerding Ⅰ级腰椎退行性滑脱症患者的临床资料。根据患者术前骨密度分为低骨量组（-2.5相似文献   

微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术的研究进展

腰椎融合是目前治疗腰椎退变性疾病、腰椎不稳及椎间盘源性等疾病的主要手段.经椎间孔腰椎间融合术(transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF)是近年发展起来的新型的腰椎融合术,而随着微创脊柱外科(minimally invasive spinal surgery,MISS)的进步,微创TLIF技术也得到了快速的发展,相对传统开放TLIF又有了更进一步的优势.作者就微创TLIF的适应证与禁忌证,手术方式,发展与优势及微创手术辅助器械等方面的研究现状作一综述.     

腰椎结构经后路病灶清除与融合术

目的：探讨腰椎结核后路病灶清除适应证与方法。方法：分析8例病人的治疗效果,叙述后路手术方法。结果：8例病人施行后路病灶清除,神经功能完全恢复6例,明显恢复2例,6例植骨病人获骨性融合,没有并发症。结论：腰椎后路病灶清除与融合术治疗腰椎后缘结核合并神经损害病人能够获得成功。     

斜外侧经肌间隙入路与改良侧方经腰大肌入路腰椎融合术联合后路经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗退行性腰椎不稳的短期疗效比较

【摘要】 目的：比较采用斜外侧经肌间隙入路腰椎融合术（oblique lateral interbody fusion,OLIF）与改良侧方经腰大肌入路腰椎融合术（crenel lateral interbody fusion,CLIF）联合后路经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗退行性腰椎不稳的短期疗效。方法：回顾性分析2019年6月~2022年6月30例在宁波大学附属第一医院和浙江大学医学院附属邵逸夫医院因退行性腰椎不稳进行OLIF或CLIF手术的患者资料,根据手术方式分为OLIF组和CLIF组,两组患者一期术后4周均进行二期后路经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定术。OLIF组18例,男7例,女11例,年龄69.9±7.9岁,身体质量指数（body mass index,BMI）为25.67±3.05kg/m2,2节段病变6例,3节段病变12例;CLIF组12例,男4例,女8例,年龄66.5±8.6岁,BMI 24.03±2.06kg/m2,2节段病变2例,3节段病变10例。收集两组一期手术术中出血量、手术时间、住院时间、术后并发症资料,术前和一期手术术后1个月、6个月、1年时进行背部和下肢疼痛视觉模拟评分（visual analogue score,VAS）、Oswestry功能障碍指数（Oswestry disability index,ODI）评估,测量手术节段椎间隙高度（disc height,DH）、腰椎前凸角（lumbar lordosis,LL）,一期手术术后1年融合器沉降高度、融合器与冠状面的夹角。对两组所有数据进行统计学比较。结果：两组患者年龄、性别、BMI、病变节段数均无统计学差异（P>0.05）,有可比性。OLIF组和CLIF组一期手术手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间分别为183.89±39.43min、55.56±27.49ml、8.39±4.804d和198.75±23.27min、65.00±44.62ml、8.75±2.30d,两组间比较均无统计学差异（P>0.05）。OLIF组术后5例出现大腿前方麻木和屈髋无力,经营养神经治疗1个月后恢复正常;1例切口感染,经抗感染治疗3周后治愈。CLIF组术后4例出现大腿前方麻木和屈髋无力,经营养神经治疗1个月后恢复正常;1例患者术中出现腰椎节段动脉损伤,出血量达到200ml;1例患者腰大肌积液伴感染,经抗生素治疗6周后治愈。两组术前VAS、ODI、LL及DH比较均无显著性差异（P>0.05）,术后1个月、6个月和1年时与术前比较均有显著性改善（P<0.05）,术后两组同时间点比较均无显著性差异（P>0.05）,术后1个月和术后1年的LL差值（OLIF组12.47°±6.69° vs CLIF组6.26°±6.47°）有显著性差异（P<0.05）。术后1年随访时,OLIF组和CLIF组椎间融合率（83.33% vs 91.67%）、融合器沉降高度（1.54±0.72mm vs 1.44±0.61mm）无统计学差异（P>0.05）,OLIF组融合器与冠状面夹角（8.94°±4.97°）显著性大于CLIF组（5.30°±3.69°）（P<0.05）。结论：OLIF与CLIF联合后路经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗退行性腰椎不稳均能够获得满意的短期临床效果且疗效相当,而CLIF利用多角度融合器增加LL和维持腰椎曲度方面具有一定优势。     

侧方入路腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎管狭窄症伴马尾神经冗余征的疗效分析

目的 ：探讨侧方入路腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎管狭窄症伴马尾神经冗余征(redundant nerve roots,RNRs)的临床疗效。方法：回顾性分析2018年1月～2022年7月在我院接受侧方入路腰椎椎间融合术治疗48例腰椎管狭窄症伴马尾神经冗余征的病例资料,男23例,女25例,年龄45～81岁,平均65.4±7.5岁,接受单节段手术17例,多节段手术31例。患者术前及术后均进行腰椎MRI扫描,按术后的RNRs是否解除分为RNRs解除组(A组)与RNRs未解除组(B组)。测量两组患者术前术后马尾神经冗余节段的椎间隙高度、椎间隙角度、椎管横截面积等指标进行影像学评估。术前和术后1个月时采用疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)、日本骨科协会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scores,JOA)评分评估手术疗效。结果：所有患者均顺利完成手术。A组术前的椎管横截面积为65.2±21.5mm²,B组为35.9±1...     

经多裂肌间隙入路腰椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病67例分析

目的探讨经多裂肌间隙入路行经椎间孔腰椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效。方法单节段腰椎退行疾病患者67例,经多裂肌间隙入路行腰椎椎弓根螺钉内固定椎间融合器植骨融合术,137例经正中入路行腰椎椎弓根螺钉内固定椎间融合器植骨融合术,比较两组术前、术后疼痛视觉模拟量表(visual analog scale,VAS)评分、ODI(oswestry disability index)评分、手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量和术后卧床时间。结果两组患者随访9~36个月,平均14.3个月。多裂肌间隙入路组和经正中入路组术中出血量分别为(45.55±12.55)ml和(60.42±16.22)ml,术后引流量分别为(20.35±10.25)ml和(35.24±15.42)ml,术后3天VAS评分分别为(2.32±0.22)分和(3.84±0.32)分,术后卧床时间分别为(2.52±0.54)天和(5.22±2.24)天,术后3个月ODI评分分别为(26.54±4.32)分和(34.04±5.42)分,两组比较差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组患者术前VAS和ODI评分、手术时间、术后3个月V.AS评分、末次随访VAS和ODI评分比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论经多裂肌间隙入路治疗腰椎退行性疾病,手术创伤小、术后腰痛症状改善明显。     

Transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion technique and indications

Multiple surgical approaches to the lumbar spine exist, with recent trends towards minimally invasive techniques to decrease tissue trauma, hospitalization duration, and postoperative pain. Lateral minimally invasive approachs to the lumbar spine have become popular with the transpsoas approach being one pathway for access. This chapter will review the transpsaos lateral lumbar approach technique and highlight indications for its utilization.     

Complications of lateral lumbar interbody fusion

In recent years, the lateral approach to lumbar interbody fusion has become increasingly adapted by spine surgeons due to its benefits in approach (avoiding dissection through spinal canal and neural foramina), biomechanics (wide interbody cage spanning the dense apophyseal ring), and minimally invasive technique. LLIF is a safe and reproducible surgery that can be performed as a standalone procedure or with circumferential fusion. Complications related to LLIF remain an area of concern, particularly at the L4-5 segment, as lasting approach related neurological deficits have been noted to occur. The approach is also limited by the inability to treat the L5-S1 segment. In indicated patients, LLIF is an effective minimally invasive procedure to address diseases of the spine, but the technique has its own set of complications. The objective of this chapter is to review the advantages and complications of the LLIF technique.     

Outcomes following transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion

The transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is utilized to treat multiple spinal conditions ranging from degenerative disorders to spinal deformities. The transpsoas LLIF was developed to limit the vascular complications of the anterior lumbar approach and minimize extensive soft tissue dissection and neural manipulation of the posterior approach. Compared to other fusion techniques, the transpsoas LLIF has demonstrated more favorable clinical outcomes (lower VAS and ODI scores), a greater improvement in radiological outcomes, lower risk of bleeding, shorter operative times, and higher fusion rates. It is a cost-effective technique that is associated with a shorter length of stay, lower reoperation/readmission rates, and minimal risk of complications. This review provides an overview of transpsoas LLIF and highlights the surgical outcomes, including operative and postoperative complications associated with this surgical technique.     

单纯或附加后路内固定的侧方腰椎椎体间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病疗效的Meta分析

目的:通过Meta分析评价单纯侧方腰椎椎体间融合术(lateral lumbar interbody fusion,LLIF)与附加后路内固定的LLIF治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效.方法:检索PubMed、EMBASE、Web of Science、Cochrane Library、CNKI、万方数据库自建库起至2021年...     

Neurologic deficit following lateral lumbar interbody fusion

Purpose

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a minimally invasive technique that has gained growing interest in recent years. We performed a retrospective review of the medical records and operative reports of patients undergoing LLIF between March 2006 and December 2009. We seek to identify the incidence and nature of neurological deficits following LLIF.

Methods

New occurring sensory and motor deficits were recorded at 6 and 12 weeks as well as 6- and 12 months of follow-up. Motor deficits were grouped according to the muscle weakness and severity and sensory deficits to the dermatomal zone. New events were correlated to the patient demographics, pre-operative diagnosis, operative levels, and duration of surgery. At each post-operative time-point patients were queried regarding the presence of leg pain.

Results

A total of 235 patients (139 F; 96 M) with a total of 444 levels fused were included. Average age was 61.5 and mean BMI 28.3. At 12 months’ follow-up, the prevalence of sensory deficits was 1.6%, psoas mechanical deficit was 1.6% and lumbar plexus related deficits 2.9%. Although there was no significant correlation between the surgical level L4–5 and an increased psoas mechanical flexion or lumbar plexus related motor deficit, a trend was observed. Independent risk factors for both psoas mechanical hip flexion deficit and lumbar plexus related motor deficit was duration of surgery.

Conclusion

LLIF is a valuable tool for achieving fusion through a minimally invasive approach with little risk to neurovascular structures.     

斜外侧入路腰椎椎间融合术的应用进展

腰椎椎间融合术（LIF）被广泛应用于腰椎椎间盘退行性疾病^[1-2]。LIF包括前/后路椎间融合术（ALIF/PLIF）、经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术（TLIF）、极外侧/直接外侧腰椎椎间融合术（XLIF/DLIF）等,这些术式具有一定的临床疗效,亦各有优缺点^[3-4]。Mayer^[5]于1997年首先提出一种微创手术入路,Silvestre等^[6]于2012年将其正式命名为斜外侧腰椎椎间融合术（OLIF）,该术式提供了一条通过腹膜后血管鞘和腰大肌前缘间隙到达腰椎的入路,通过避开固有结构,降低了血管及神经丛的损伤风险,同时有较大的操作空间可更好地清除椎间盘及置入更大的椎间融合器,避免暴露引起术后并发症。近年来,OLIF广泛应用于治疗腰椎退行性疾病,相比传统椎间融合术,OLIF具有创伤小、出血少、恢复快及融合率高等优点^[6]。本文从OLIF的手术技术,适应证及禁忌证,临床应用及并发症等方面进行分析,综述如下。     

Fusion rate for stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review

BACKGROUNDLateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is used to treat multiple conditions, including spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disorders, adjacent segment disease, and degenerative scoliosis. Although many advocate for posterior fixation with LLIF, stand-alone LLIF is increasingly being performed. Yet the fusion rate for stand-alone LLIF is unknown.PURPOSEDetermine the fusion rate for stand-alone LLIF.STUDY DESIGNSystematic review.METHODSWe queried Cochrane, EMBASE, and MEDLINE for literature on stand-alone LLIF fusion rate with a publication cutoff of April 2020. LLIF surgery was considered stand-alone when not paired with supplemental posterior fixation. Cohort fusion rate differences were calculated and tested for significance (p<0.05). All reported means were pooled.RESULTSA total of 2,735 publications were assessed. Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria, including 736 patients and 1,103 vertebral levels. Mean age was 61.7 years with BMI 26.5 kg/m². Mean fusion rate was 85.6% (range, 53.0%–100.0%), which did not differ significantly by number of levels fused (1-level, 2-level, and ≥3-level). Use of rhBMP-2 was reported in 39.3% of subjects, with no difference in fusion rates between studies using rhBMP-2 (87.7%) and those in which rhBMP-2 was not used (83.9%, odds ratio=1.37, p=0.448). Fusion rate did not differ with the addition of a lateral plate, or by underlying diagnosis. All-complication rate was 42.2% and mean reoperation rate was 11.1%, with 2.3% reoperation due to pseudarthrosis. Of the studies comparing stand-alone to circumferential fusion, pooled fusion rate was found to be 80.4% versus 91.0% (p=0.637).CONCLUSIONSStand-alone LLIF yields high fusion rates overall. The wide range of reported fusion rates and lower fusion rates in studies involving subsequent surgical reoperation highlights the importance of proper training in this technique and employing a rigorous algorithm when indicating patients for stand-alone LLIF. Future research should focus on examining risk factors and patient-reported outcomes in stand-alone LLIF.     

Fusion rate following extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion

Introduction

Lumbar fusion has been found to be a clinically effective procedure in adult patients. The lateral transpsoas approach allows for direct visualization of the intervertebral space, significant support of the vertebral anterior column, while avoiding the complications associated with the posterior procedures. The aim of this study is to determine the fusion rate of inter body fusion using computed tomography in patients treated by extreme lateral intersomatic fusion (XLIF) technique.

Materials and methods

All patients intervened by XLIF procedure between 2009 and 2013 by a single operating team at a single institution were recruited for this study. A clinical evaluation and a CT scan of the involved spinal segments were then performed with at least 1-year follow-up following the standard clinical practice in the center.

Results

A total of 77 patients met inclusion criteria, of which 53 were available for review with a mean follow-up of 34.5 (12–62) months. A total of 68 (87.1 %) of the 78 operated levels were considered as completely fused, 8 (10.2 %) were considered as stable, probably fused, and 2 (2.6 %) of the operated levels were diagnosed as pseudarthrosis. When stratified by type of graft material complete fusion was obtained in 75 % of patients in which autograft was used to fill the cages, compared to 89 % of patients in which calcium triphosphate was used, and 83 % of patients in which Attrax? was used.

Discussion

Reports of XLIF fusion rate in the literature vary from 85 to 93 % at 1-year follow-up. Fusion rate in our series corroborates data from previous publications. The results of this series confirm that anterior inter body fusion by means of XLIF approach is a technique that achieves high fusion rate and satisfactory clinical outcomes.

     

开展侧方入路腰椎间融合术应思考的几个问题

正腰椎融合术是治疗腰椎退变性疾病的主要手术方式,分为前方和后方入路,包括前路腰椎间融合术(anterior lumbar interbody fusion,ALIF)、后路腰椎间融合术(posterior lumbar interbody fusion,PLIF)、经椎间孔椎间融合术(transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF)等。近年来开展的侧方入路腰椎间融合术(lateral lumbar interbody fusion,LLIF)可经腹膜后间隙直达椎间隙,处理椎间盘组织,进行椎体     

The 25 most cited articles on lateral lumbar interbody fusion: short review

Neurosurgical Review - The lateral lumbar interbody fusion technique for lumbar arthrodesis is gaining popularity and being added as an option to traditional posterior and anterior approaches. In...