老年退变性腰椎侧凸并椎管狭窄长节段固定疗效

目的探讨腰椎后路长节段固定选择性减压治疗老年退变性腰椎侧凸(DLS)并椎管狭窄的临床效果。方法行选择性椎板减压长节段植骨融合内固定手术治疗的老年DLS合并腰椎管狭窄患者23例,术前、术后及随访时均采用疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)、日本骨科学会腰椎功能评分(JOA)评价患者症状;对腰椎Cobb角、腰椎前凸角进行统计分析。结果术前、术后VAS、ODI及腰椎JOA有统计学差异(P<0.05);全部患者腰椎Cobb角、腰椎前凸角均有明显改善。结论腰椎后路长节段固定选择性减压治疗老年DLS并椎管狭窄可达到较好中期疗效。     

OLIF联合后路固定术与TLIF术在腰椎退变性椎管狭窄中的疗效

目的 探究斜外侧腰椎间融合术(OLIF)联合后路固定术与椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)术在腰椎退变性椎管狭窄中疗效对比。方法 选取60例腰椎管狭窄症患者,采用随机数表法抽样、双盲法分为OLIF联合组(34例,采用OLIF联合后路固定术进行手术治疗)和TLIF组(26例,采用TLIF术进行手术治疗)。观察两组影像学、手术指标、视觉模拟评分(VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)、日本骨科协会评估量表(JOA)评分、治疗效果及术后并发症发生情况。结果 OLIF联合组手术后图像对比度(DH)、椎间孔高度(CSH)短于TLIF组,椎管面积(CAS)、椎间孔面积(CASF)小于TLIF组,手术后术中出血量少于TLIF组,术后卧床及住院时间短于TLIF组,手术后VAS、ODI、JOA评分明显低于TLIF组,手术后治疗总有效率高于TLIF组,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。结论 相比TLIF术,OLIF联合后路固定术在腰椎退变性椎管狭窄中效果更佳,可有效改善患者手术指标,改善患者预后。     

老年人腰椎管狭窄症的临床特点及手术治疗

目的探讨老年人退行性腰椎管狭窄症的临床特点和手术效果。方法回顾性分析42例老年人退行性腰椎管狭窄症的临床资料。结果老年人退行性腰椎管狭窄的特征为腰椎多节段退变,起病缓慢,间歇性跛行是最长伴有的症状,直腿抬高试验阳性率低,中央椎管和神经根管都有不同程度的狭窄,突出较少的椎间盘就能压迫硬膜囊或神经根而产生疼痛,所有患者的手术均安全完成。平均随访2.1年,根据JOA评分系统,将手术前后JOA评分比较,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论老年人退行性腰椎管狭窄症患者合并内科疾病多,较长的病程,症状多体征少,多节段退变,积极治疗内科并发症,根据症状、体征、影像学,给予责任节段充分减压及固定融合责任节段,能获得较好手术疗效。     

经后路椎体间融合术与经椎间孔椎体间融合术治疗老年退行性腰椎滑脱合并腰椎管狭窄症的疗效

目的探讨经后路椎体间融合术(PLIF)与经椎间孔椎体间融合术(TLIF)治疗老年退行性腰椎滑脱合并腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效。方法选取2011年12月至2012年12月该院收治的老年退行性腰椎滑脱合并腰椎管狭窄症患者40例,根据手术方式将患者分为PLIF组(n=21)和TLIF组(n=19),比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、术后卧床时间、视觉疼痛评分(VAS)、Oswestry功能不良指数(ODI)及并发症。结果TLIF组术中出血量、术后引流量以及术后卧床时间均显著优于PLIT组(P0.05),两组手术时间比较无统计学意义(P0.05);两组术后半年VAS评分以及ODI评分均显著优于术前(P0.05),但组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05);TLIF组并发症发生率显著低于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较PLIT临床疗效更佳,且术后并发症更少。     

多节段退变性腰椎管狭窄症手术治疗的疗效观察

目的探讨多节段退变性腰椎管狭窄症手术治疗疗效。方法自2005年3月～2009年10月,采用广泛椎板减压椎弓根螺钉内固定、椎间融合和后外侧融合或椎管钛网成形治疗多节段腰椎管狭窄症患者46例。术后平均随访3.7 a,应用JOA评分(29分法)对手术前后临床疗效进行主客观评价。结果术后患者JOA评分较术前有显著提高(P均<0.01)。术后半年优良率86.9%。结论采用广泛椎板减压椎弓根螺钉内固定、椎间融合和后外侧融合或椎管钛网成形治疗多节段退变性腰椎管狭窄症,可取得满意和持久的临床疗效。     

椎间孔镜技术与开放手术在治疗伴有骨质疏松的腰椎管狭窄症的疗效及安全性比较

目的比较椎间孔镜技术（TESSYS）与传统开放手术在治疗伴有骨质疏松的腰椎管狭窄症患者的疗效及安全性。方法从2010年3月至2013年9月武警北京市总队第三医院收治伴有骨质疏松的腰椎管狭窄症患者78例,其中43例选择TESSYS法治疗,35例选择传统开放手术治疗。术前、术后及末次随访时采用视觉模拟评分法（VAS）评估疼痛程度,术前、术后及末次随访采用日本矫形外科联合会下腰痛评分系统（JOA）评估腰椎功能改善情况。比较两组手术时间、出血量和并发症发生率。结果两组患者术前VAS和JOA评分的差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）,术后VAS评分均显著下降（P〈0．05）,JOA评分均显著升高（P〈0．05）,且两组间VAS和JOA评分的差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）;而TESSYS组的手术时间、出血量和并发症发生率显著少于开放手术组（P〈0．05）。结论与传统开放手术相比,TESSYS治疗伴有骨质疏松的腰椎管狭窄症疗效虽相当,但是安全性更高,具有手术时间短、出血量少,并发症少的优点。     

老年多节段脊髓型颈椎病并发育性椎管狭窄后路手术

目的探讨多节段脊髓型颈椎病(MCSM)并发育性颈椎管狭窄患者行后路双开门椎管扩大成型+块状珊瑚羟基磷灰石术治疗的疗效。方法回顾性研究采用颈椎后路双开门椎管扩大成型+块状珊瑚羟基磷灰石术治疗的MCSM并发育性颈椎管狭窄病患者34例,手术前后及随访时应用JOA评分和Nurick分级评价神经功能。按JOA评分标准计算优良率、术前及术后复查颈椎CT比较测量术前、术后颈椎椎管矢状径情况。结果术后随访8~16个月,平均12个月,结果显示术后颈椎椎管矢状径较术前明显扩大(P<0.01);JOA评分术后较术前明显提高(P<0.01)。结论 MCSM并发育性颈椎管狭窄患者行后路双开门椎管扩大成型+块状珊瑚羟基磷灰石术减压效果好,术后神经功能改善明显。     

MIS-TLIF手术治疗合并椎间隙狭窄的退变性腰椎管狭窄症的疗效

目的回顾性分析经椎间孔入路椎间融合术(MIS-TLIF)治疗合并有明显椎间隙狭窄的退变性腰椎管狭窄症的疗效。方法选择接受MIS-TLIF手术治疗的退变性腰椎管狭窄症患者38例,所有病例实施单节段融合椎弓根螺钉固定术,分为A、B两组,A组:退变性腰椎管狭窄症合并责任节段椎间隙明显狭窄16例,其中L4/5节段10例,L5/S1节段6例;B组为退变性腰椎管狭窄症而责任节段椎间隙基本正常22例,其中L4/5节段14例,L5/S1节段8例。比较两组术前准备、手术时间、出血量、手术操作、术后疗效等方面的不同特点。结果所有病例获得1年以上随访。两组均获得满意临床症状改善,在术后日本青科协会评估治疗(JOA)评分及视觉疼痛模拟评分(VAS)比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。A组手术时间长,出血量多,椎间隙高度(DSH)恢复,需要选用更小尺寸的椎间融合器(Cage)(P0.05)。结论 MIS-TLIF手术治疗合并有明显椎间隙狭窄的退变性腰椎管狭窄症可以获得满意的治疗效果,明显的椎间隙狭窄往往代表责任节段退变严重,细致充分地减压是术后疗效的首要条件,积极调整患者身体状态和充分术前准备是必要的。     

降钙素及七叶皂甙钠治疗老年腰椎管狭窄症的疗效

腰椎管狭窄症是一组临床病理症候群,是腰椎管和神经根管狭窄引起的椎管内神经和血管受压及神经功能障碍,其主要症状为间歇性跛行及腰腿痛,治疗方法包括手术和非手术治疗,多数患者不愿接受或不能耐受手术治疗,而传统的保守治疗效果欠佳.我科自2007年1月以来对腰椎管狭窄症患者在传统的康复治疗基础上给予鲑鱼降钙素及七叶皂甙钠治疗取得了良好的疗效. 1资料与方法 1.1 资料与分组腰椎管狭窄症患者共56例,所有患者均经腰椎正侧位片和腰椎CT检查确诊为腰椎管狭窄症,部分病人行腰椎MRI.患者年龄均大于60岁,平均年龄治疗组(65.2±6.5)岁,对照组(64.3±7.1)岁,简体中文版Oswestry功能障碍指数(SCODI),两组患者一般资料比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).见表1.     

微创单侧椎板入路双侧减压治疗老年腰椎管狭窄症的疗效

目的探讨微创单侧椎板入路双侧减压治疗老年腰椎管狭窄症的临床效果。方法回顾性分析采用单侧椎板入路双侧椎管减压治疗的23例老年腰椎管狭窄症患者的临床资料,分析该术式临床效果。男7例,女16例;年龄65~79岁,平均73.5岁。术后随访1年以上。采用JOA评分方法对患者术前术后症状进行评分。结果 JOA评分术后症状均有不同程度改善(P0.01)。结论微创单侧椎板入路双侧减压可以作为治疗老年腰椎管狭窄症的有效方法之一。     

经皮椎间孔镜椎板间入路与椎间孔入路治疗腰椎管狭窄症

腰椎管狭窄症是老年人常见病、多发病。手术方式包括开放手术和微创手术。椎间孔镜以其创口小、疼痛轻及恢复快的特点已成为目前治疗腰椎管狭窄症的微创手术首选器械。其手术入路主要分为经皮椎板间入路和经皮椎间孔入路,然而这两种手术入路各有优缺点及适应证。在实际的临床工作中选择椎间孔镜治疗腰椎管狭窄症时,对不同病理类型的腰椎管狭窄症选用合适的手术入路进行治疗,是达到良好手术效果的前提。     

The serpentine pattern on MRI as an early prognostic factor after fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis

This study aimed to determine the relationship between the serpentine pattern nerve roots (SNR) and prognosis after lumbar fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) by comparing clinical outcomes in patients with or without a serpentine pattern. LSS patients with neurological symptoms often present with SNRs. Several studies have shown that LLS symptoms are worse in patients with SNRs. However, the relationship between SNR and outcome after spinal fusion surgery has not yet been established. A total of 332 patients who underwent spinal fusion surgery between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, were enrolled. Patients were divided into those with a serpentine pattern (S group) and those without a serpentine pattern (N group). The prognosis of the 2 groups was compared using visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index, claudication distance, medication dose for leg dysesthesia, and glucose tolerance. A total of 113 patients had a serpentine pattern, while the remaining 219 did not. Symptom duration and presence of diabetes mellitus were significantly different between the 2 groups (N = 25.4, S = 32.6, P < .05). Changes in the VAS score for lower extremity pain between the 2 groups at 1 year after surgery showed that patients without a serpentine pattern had significantly better outcomes than those with a serpentine pattern (N: 2.7 ± 1.1 vs S: 4.1 ± 1.3; P < .001), despite the score change at 1 month showing no difference (N: 3.5 ± 0.9 vs S: 3.8 ± 1.0; P = .09). SNRs on MRI are more prevalent in diabetic patients and are a negative prognostic factor in lumbar fusion surgery for LSS. Our insights may help physicians decide the optimal surgical plan and predict the postoperative prognosis of patients with LSS.     

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy compared with other surgeries for lumbar disc herniation: A meta-analysis

Objective:This meta-analysis was performed to investigate whether percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) had a superior effect than other surgeries in the treatment of patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH).Method:We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science through February 2018 to identify eligible studies that compared the effects and complications between PELD and other surgical interventions in LDH. The outcomes included success rate, recurrence rate, complication rate, operation time, hospital stay, blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS) score for back pain and leg pain, 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF12) physical component score, mental component score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score, Oswestry Disability Index. A random-effects or fixed-effects model was used to pool the estimate, according to the heterogeneity among the included studies.Results:Fourteen studies (involving 2,528 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with other surgeries, PELD had favorable clinical outcomes for LDH, including shorter operation time (weight mean difference, WMD=−18.14 minutes, 95%CI: −25.24, −11.05; P < .001) and hospital stay (WMD = −2.59 days, 95%CI: −3.87, −1.31; P < .001), less blood loss (WMD = −30.14 ml, 95%CI: −43.16, −17.13; P < .001), and improved SF12- mental component score (WMD = 2.28, 95%CI: 0.50, 4.06; P = .012)) and SF12- physical component score (WMD = 1.04, 95%CI: 0.37, 1.71; P = .02). However, it also was associated with a significantly higher rate of recurrent disc herniation (relative risk [RR] = 1.65, 95%CI: 1.08, 2.52; P = .021). There were no significant differences between the PELD group and other surgical group in terms of success rate (RR = 1.01, 95%CI: 0.97, 1.04; P = .733), complication rate (RR = 0.86, 95%CI: 0.63, 1.18; P = .361), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score score (WMD = 0.19, 95%CI: −1.90, 2.27; P = .861), visual analog scale score for back pain (WMD = −0.17, 95%CI: −0.55, 0.21; P = .384) and leg pain (WMD = 0.00, 95%CI: −0.10, 0.10; P = .991), and Oswestry Disability Index score (WMD = −0.29, 95%CI: −1.00, 0.43; P = .434).Conclusion:PELD was associated with better effects and similar complications with other surgeries in LDH. However, it also resulted in a higher recurrence rate. Considering the potential limitations in the present study, further large-scale, well-performed randomized trials are needed to verify our findings.     

Comparison of clinical outcomes and spino-pelvic sagittal balance in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: Minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF)

Spino-pelvic sagittal parameters are closely related to the lumbar degenerative diseases. The present study aims to compare clinical results and spino-pelvic sagittal balance treated with oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis at single segment.We retrospectively reviewed and compared 28 patients who underwent OLIF (OLIF group) and 35 who underwent TLIF (TLIF group). Radiological results were evaluated with disc height (DH), foraminal height (FH), fused segment lordosis (FSL), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), and sacral slope (SS). Clinical results were evaluated with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and VAS for back and leg pain.The OLIF group showed higher improvement of DH and FH than the TLIF group at all time points after surgery (P < .05). No significant differences were found in PT, PI, and SS between the 2 groups (P > .05). Significant restoration of spino-pelvic sagittal balance was observed in the 2 groups after surgery. Significant differences in postoperative lumbar lordosis and fused segment lordosis were found between the 2 groups (P < .05). Significant difference in the improvement of symptoms was observed between the 2 groups. The OLIF group had lower VAS scores for back pain and ODI compared after surgery (P < .05).It can be concluded that there are exactly differences in improvement of radiographic parameters between 2 approaches, which confirmed that OLIF is better in restoring spinal alignment. Besides, due to the unique minimally invasive approach, OLIF did exhibit a greater advantage in early recovery after surgery.     

Morphologic analysis of Chinese lumbar endplate by three-dimensional computed tomography reconstructions for helping design lumbar disc prosthesis

Lumbar disc prostheses have been used increasingly in recent years. The successful design of lumbar disc prostheses depends on accurate morphometric parameters. However, the morphologic dimensions of lumbar endplate area have not been investigated in Chinese population.A total of 1800 lumbar endplates were retrospectively accessed in 150 Chinese adults. Eighteen parameters of each lumbar segment were measured by three-dimensional computed tomography reconstructions from T12/L1 to L5/S1. These obtained parameters were compared between genders, bilateral sides, vertebral segments, and different populations.Endplate length and width increased in general, and there was a significant decrease for length/width ratio from T12 to S1 (P = .03). The average concavity depth of the lower lumbar endplate (2.09 ± 0.93 mm) was usually larger than that of the upper lumbar endplate (1.61 ± 0.74 mm) (P = .02). The percentage of the most concave point of the upper and lower lumbar endplate was 50.01 ± 10.76% and 56.41 ± 9.93%, respectively. Anterior, medium, or posterior intervertebral endplate height was severally 10.01 ± 1.98 mm, 10.46 ± 2.03 mm, and 6.41 ± 1.74 mm, and increased among vertebral segments (P = .01).The intervertebral endplate angle significantly increased from T12-L1 to L5-S1 (P = .01). Parameters displayed significant difference between genders. The morphometric parameters of different populations also showed differences.In conclusion, there is a morphologic discrepancy in dimensions of lumbar endplate regarding genders, vertebral segments, and different populations. It is essential to design the lumbar disc prosthesis suited for Chinese patients specially, for which the morphometric parameters in our study can be utilized.     

Universal approach for full endoscopic decompression and percutaneous transpedicular fixation of the lumbar spine: A medial central approach (ACM)

Cohort study.This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of the universal approach of full endoscopy and percutaneous transpedicular fixation via a medial central approach (ACM) performed to surgically treat patients with lumbar degenerative surgical pathologies.Alternatives to interventionist treatments available to patients with lumbar degenerative surgical pathologies are related to recovery from minimally invasive surgery. Considering this, full endoscopic spinal decompression (full endoscopy) and percutaneous transpedicular fixation via an ACM represent advances in neurosurgical procedures, in particular, spinal surgery. Thus, the introduction of endoscopic and minimally invasive surgeries for the lumbar region has become 1 of the most important advances in modern surgery.A cohort of 79 patients undergoing full endoscopy and percutaneous transpedicular fixation was evaluated 6 times in 1 year. Pain intensity was measured using the visual analog scale (VAS), and lumbar functionality was measured using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Six evaluations were performed: before surgery and on discharge after surgery as well as at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.Before the ACM was applied, the VAS pain score was 8.52. At 11 hours post-surgery, the pain score reduced to 2.59 points (a difference of 5.73 points; P = 0.001). Of the 10 ODI domains evaluated, a difference was found between the period prior to surgery and 1 month later (P < 0.01).The universal approach to full endoscopy and lumbar percutaneous transpedicular fixation via an ACM is highly effective for patients with lumbar surgical degenerative pathologies.     

The effect of surgical and nonsurgical treatment on longitudinal outcomes of lumbar spinal stenosis over 10 years

OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative effect of initial surgical and nonsurgical treatment on longitudinal outcomes of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis over a 10-year follow-up period. DESIGN: A prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Enrollment from community-based specialist practices throughout Maine. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred forty-four patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who had at least one follow-up: 77 initially treated surgically and 67 initially treated nonsurgically. INTERVENTION: Initial surgical or nonsurgical treatment. MEASUREMENTS: Clinical data were obtained at baseline and outcomes followed at regular intervals over 10 years with mailed questionnaires including patient-reported symptoms of back pain, leg symptoms, back-specific functional status, and satisfaction. Longitudinal data were analyzed using general linear mixed models. In addition to treatment (initial surgical or nonsurgical care), time period, and the interaction between treatment and time, the models included baseline score, patient age and sex, and a time-varying general health status score. The effects of these covariates in explaining differences between treatment groups were also examined. The effect of subsequent surgical procedures was assessed using different analysis strategies. RESULTS: The 10-year rate of subsequent surgical procedures was 23% and 38% for patients initially treated surgically and nonsurgically, respectively, and the overall 10-year survival rate was 69%. Patients undergoing initial surgical treatment had worse baseline symptoms and functional status than those initially treated nonsurgically. For all outcomes and at each time point, surgically treated patients reported greater improvement in symptoms and functional status and higher satisfaction scores, indicative of better outcomes, than nonsurgically treated patients. However, the relative magnitude of the benefit diminished over time such that the relative differences for low back pain and satisfaction were no longer significant over long-term follow-up (both P=.08 for treatment effect between 5 and 10 years after controlling for covariates). Regardless of initial treatment received, patients undergoing subsequent surgical procedures reported less improvement in outcomes over time than patients who did not undergo subsequent procedures, but the relative differences between treatment groups were similar in analyses that controlled for outcomes after subsequent procedures. CONCLUSION: After controlling for covariates, patients initially treated surgically demonstrated better outcomes on all measures than those initially treated nonsurgically. Although outcomes of initial surgical treatment remained superior over time, the relative benefit of surgery diminished in later years, especially for low back pain and satisfaction. Patients undergoing subsequent surgery had worse outcomes regardless of initial treatment received, but excluding them did not change overall treatment group comparisons. The analytical methods described may be helpful in the design and analysis of future studies comparing treatment outcomes for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.     

腰椎后路椎间融合与后外侧融合治疗腰椎退行性疾病疗效比较的meta分析

目的 系统评价后外侧融合与后路椎体间融合两种融合方式治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效。方法按Cochrane系统评价方法,计算机检索Cochrane图书馆（2012年第1期）、Medline（1966~2012.3）、EMBASE（1988~2012．3）、中国生物医学文摘数据库（1986~2012.4）,并手工检索相关杂志收集后外侧融合与后路椎体间融合治疗腰椎退行性疾病疗效对比的随机对照试验。评价纳入研究的方法学质量,采用RevMan5软件进行Meta分析。结果纳入4篇随机对照试验,共329例腰椎退行性疾病患者。Meta分析结果显示,后路椎间融合组术中及术后24h总出血量明显少于后外侧融合组【加权均数差值（WMD）320．03,95％CI241．26~398．79],差异有统计学意义（P〈O．00001）。后路椎间融合组融合率高于后外侧融合组（OR0．41,95％C10．19～0．85）,差异有统计学意义（P=0．02）。后路椎间融合组对腰背痛缓解优于后外侧融合组（WMD0．43,95％C10．10～0．76）,差异有统计学意义（P=0．01）。两组Oswestry功能障碍指数（WMD2．86,95％CI-0．56～6．26）、术后腿痛视觉疼痛评分（WMD0．34,95％CI-0．11～0．79）、术后腰椎前凸角度（WMD-2．43,95％CI-5．42～0．55）差异均无统计学意义。结论在治疗腰椎退行性疾病中,后路椎间融合组较后外侧融合组有更高的融合率,能更好的缓解腰部疼痛,且术中及术后24h内总出血量少。但仍需要设计良好、方法学质量更高的随机对照试验进一步验证。