腰椎Coflex棘突间动态稳定术后再手术原因分析

目的:评价腰椎退变性疾病应用Coflex棘突间动态稳定术治疗的再手术发生情况,探讨其原因及治疗方法。方法:2007年9月~2015年7月,295例腰椎退变性疾病患者在我院接受减压及Coflex棘突间动态稳定手术。采用回顾性分析方法,统计本组患者术后再手术的发生情况,探讨其再手术原因和处理方法,并对所有再手术患者进行随访,根据患者主观满意度评价再手术效果。结果:295例患者中,再次手术患者共16例,再手术率为5.4%。所有再手术患者二次手术时间距离首次手术15.1±23.4个月(0.1~60个月)。16例再手术患者中,非内固定相关并发症者6例(37.5%),其中切口感染2例、伤口深层血肿形成4例,均采取感染清创或血肿清除(1例因行棘突切除取出Coflex)治疗后痊愈;内固定相关并发症者10例(62.5%),其中2例Topping-off术后患者再手术原因为融合节段内固定松动或神经根粘连,更换内固定及神经根松解后症状缓解;另8例单节段Coflex置入患者主要原因为原手术节段或邻近节段退变,接受再次探查减压、融合后症状缓解,其中1例为新发节段症状,予以减压融合后症状缓解。本组所有再手术患者中,无1例因Coflex内固定直接相关并发症(内固定移位、松动、脱出或棘突骨折)再次手术。所有再手术患者术后随访时间28.6±12.6个月(6~48个月),末次随访时患者主观满意度总体优良率为93.8%。结论:Coflex棘突间动态稳定术治疗腰椎退变性疾病再手术原因与Coflex装置无直接相关,主要影响因素与切口感染、深层血肿及原手术或邻近节段退变有关。     

Coflex^TM在腰腿痛治疗中的初步观察

目的初步探讨Coflex^TM治疗腰腿痛的临床疗效。方法 2007年12月至2009年6月,采用Coflex^TM治疗腰椎管狭窄症和椎间盘突出症患者22例,男12例,女10例;年龄39～60岁,平均43岁。椎管狭窄症14例,椎间盘突出症8例。手术方式分为3种：单节段Coflex18例、连续双节段Coflex 2例、单节段PLIF＋Coflex 2例。所有患者手术前后均进行Oswestry功能障碍指数评分（ODI）和疼痛视觉评分（VAS）。影像学观察指标包括X线中立位椎间隙中点、后缘高度,动力位手术节段椎体间活动度。结果所有患者均获得随访,随访时间3～9个月,平均5.4个月。ODI分值术前平均66.2±9.1,术后降至15.3±7.5（P〈0.05）;VAS平均分值由术前的5.6±0.6下降到术后1.8±0.4（P〈0.05）。术后未出现感染、脑脊液漏、植入物脱落等相关并发症。X线检查见手术节段椎间活动度下降（P〈0.05）,椎管狭窄病例椎间隙高度有所恢复（P〈0.05）,椎间盘突出病例椎间隙略有塌陷（P=0.053）。结论 Coflex^TM作为近来应用于临床的一种新技术,对于椎间盘突出症、椎管狭窄症的近期疗效满意,可恢复椎管狭窄病例的椎间隙高度,保持一定椎间活动度,短期相关并发症较少。但由于临床应用时间短、病例数量少,其适应证的选择以及长期疗效尚需进一步探索。     

腰椎融合联合Coflex动态固定手术治疗腰椎退行性疾病

目的：总结腰椎后路椎间融合术联合Coflex动态固定术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效。方法：对2008年3月至2010年3月应用腰椎后路椎间融合术联合Coflex动态固定治疗的18例腰椎退行性疾病患者（均为双节段）的临床资料进行回顾性总结分析。男11例,女7例;年龄41～62岁,平均50.2岁。分析内容包括：ODI指数、腰痛和下肢痛的VAS评分,并通过腰椎动力位X线观察活动度（ROM）、椎间隙高度（DHI）的变化情况。结果：所有患者获得随访,时间6～30个月,平均12个月。在末次随访时,腰痛VAS评分、下肢痛VAS评分及ODI指数均较术前明显改善（P〈0.001）。腰痛VAS评分术前（7.20±0.90）分,末次随访（1.50±0.90）分;下肢痛VAS评分术前（5.20±0.90）分,末次随访（1.10±0.80）分。ODI指数术前（52.50±5.90）%,末次随访（15.90±5.80）%。Coflex置入节段的DHI术前0.23±0.05,术后0.35±0.06,末次随访0.33±0.04,椎间隙高度未见明显丢失。Coflex置入节段的ROM术前（8.90±1.80）°,术后降至（8.30±1.90）°,末次随访（8.10±1.80）°,与术前差异无统计学意义（P=0.19）,Coflex置入节段活动度未见明显改变。L2-S1ROM术前为（20.20±5.60）°,术后（14.40±5.70）°,末次随访（15.50±5.20）°,与术前比较有统计学差异（P=0.01）。结论：腰椎后路椎间融合术联合Coflex动态固定治疗双节段腰椎退变性疾病能取得满意的中短期临床疗效,但没有充分证据证明这项技术优于多节段融合术。手术适应证的合理选择十分重要。     

Coflex棘突间动态内固定治疗退行性腰椎间盘疾病的临床分析

目的：比较Coflex棘突间动态内固定和后路腰椎椎体间融合（PLIF）术治疗退行性椎间盘疾病的临床疗效。方法：对2007年1月至2010年1月收治的42例退行性椎间盘疾病患者进行回顾性分析,其中男19例,女23例;年龄33～62岁,平均（46.5±8.5）岁;病程6个月～7年,平均36个月。X线片或CT影像学显示42例患者均为L4,5单节段病变,其中单纯腰椎间盘突出症14例,合并腰椎管狭窄症28例。42例患者分别采用Coflex棘突间动态内固定（非融合组,21例）和PLIF术（融合组,21例）进行治疗。采用日本整形外科学会（JOA）评分和ODI指数对临床疗效进行评价,通过X线片测量腰椎各间隙活动度（ROM）,并比较两组的手术时间、出血量、术后住院时间。结果：两组患者均获得随访,时间至少10个月,非融合组10个月随访时JOA评分由术前13.8±3.7提高至24.6±4.6（P〈0.01）,ODI由术前65.8±7.5降低至25.6±5.1（P〈0.01）,L4,5节段活动度由术前4.2±0.7增加至5.3±0.6（P〈0.01）。而融合组10个月随访时JOA评分由术前13.2±3.2提高至24.5±4.3（P〈0.01）,ODI由65.5±8.2降低至26.5±6.1（P〈0.01）,L4,5节段活动度丧失。非融合组手术时间（71.2±12.8）min、出血量（56.6±25.5）ml、术后住院天数（4.4±1.3）d同融合组手术时间（121.0±23.2）min、出血量（135.8±19.8）ml及术后住院天数（12.6±2.4）d相比,均存在统计学差异（P〈0.01）。随访期间未发现与Coflex装置本身的并发症。结论：与后路腰椎椎体间融合术相比,Coflex棘突间动态内固定治疗退行性椎间盘疾病具有安全性高、创伤小、能够保留一定的腰椎活动度,在预防相邻节段椎间盘退变方面有一定作用。     

Two-year results of interspinous spacer (X-Stop) implantation in 175 patients with neurologic intermittent claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis

The clinical outcome of patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) was assessed during a follow-up period of 2 years after X-Stop implantation. The X-Stop is the most commonly used interspinous distraction device in patients with neurogenic intermittent claudication due to LSS. Between 2003 and 2007, more than 1,000 patients were examined in our centre with symptoms of intermittent claudication due to spinal stenosis. Between February 2003 and June 2007, in 175 of these patients an X-Stop device was implanted in one or two levels. Patients were clinically evaluated regularly during a follow-up period of up to 4 years using the VAS (leg pain) score and the Oswestry disability index. The mean VAS (leg pain) score in these 175 patients was reduced from 61.2% preoperatively to 39.0% at the first clincal follow-up examination at 6 weeks postoperatively. The mean VAS score at 24 months postoperatively was 39.0%. Oswestry score was 32.6% preoperatively, 22.7% at 6 weeks, and 20.3% at 24 months postoperatively on average. In eight out of the implanted 175 patients, the X-Stop had to be removed and a microsurgical decompression had to be performed because of unsatisfactory effect of the interspinous distraction device. Our single-centre results indicate not only a satisfactory short-term, but also a good long-term effect during a follow-up period of 2 years. Functional MRI examinations provide helpful, positional-dependent preoperative information. More than any radiological feature, the typical clinical picture of positional-dependent claudication with a relief of symptoms during flexion is the most important factor for appropriate patient selection. The interspinous device does not replace microsurgical decompression in patients with massive stenosis and continuous claudication, but offers a save, effective and less invasive alternative in selected patients with spinal stenosis. Concerning the operative technique, a minimally invasive implantation with preservation of the interspinous ligament is appropriate. Functional (upright-) MRI examinations were able to demonstrate the positional-dependent stenosis. If available, fMRI represents the most helpful radiologic examination in assessing the outcome of interspinous spacer implantation.     

单节段棘突间Coflex动态固定系统与后路椎间植骨融合术治疗腰椎间盘退行性变的疗效比较

[目的]对Coflex棘突间动态固定系统在治疗腰椎间盘退行性变中的应用进行短期疗效评价,比较其与PLIF传统方法疗效差异。[方法]回顾性分析2008年12月～2010年4月采用Coflex动态固定系统治疗腰椎间盘退行性变的病例28例,男性13例,女性15例;年龄48～69岁,平均56.7岁。病史10～54个月,平均20.4个月。随访12～22个月。后路椎间植骨融合术:32例患者,男性14例,女性18例;年龄46～72岁,平均60.8岁。通过VAS评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)和影像学分析来评价其疗效。[结果]与PLIF组相比,Coflex组术前及末次随访VAS腰痛评分、术前及末次随访ODI、术前手术节段及上邻节段ROM差异无统计学意义。Coflex组末次随访手术节段ROM较PLIF组大,差异具有统计学意义。Coflex组末次随访手术上邻节段ROM较PLIF组小,差异具有统计学意义。[结论]Coflex在治疗腰椎间盘退行性变中,对维持脊柱单元运动稳定性、缓解腰椎间盘突出症的根性症状具有积极的作用。     

Clinical evaluation of a lumbar interspinous dynamic stabilization device (the Wallis system) with a 13-year mean follow-up

The authors determined current health status of patients who had been included in a long-term survivorship analysis of a lumbar dynamic stabilizer. Among 133 living patients, 107 (average age at surgery, 44.2 ± 9.9 years) completed health questionnaires. All patients had initially been scheduled for decompression and fusion for canal stenosis, herniated disc, or both. In 20 patients, the implant was removed, and fusion was performed. The other 87 still had the dynamic stabilizer. Satisfaction, Oswestry disability index, visual analog scales for back and leg pain, short-form (SF-36) quality-of-life physical composite score, physical function, and social function were significantly better (p ≤ 0.05) in the patients who still had the dynamic stabilization device. SF-36 scores of the fused subgroup were no worse than those reported elsewhere in patients who had primary pedicle-screw enhanced lumbar fusion. This anatomy-sparing device provided a good 13-year clinical outcome and obviated arthrodesis in 80% of patients. All index operations were performed in the Unité de Pathologie Rachidienne, Centre Hospitalier Pellegrin, Bordeaux.     

K-Rod脊柱动态稳定系统在多节段腰椎退行性疾病中的临床应用

目的:评估K-Rod脊柱动态稳定系统治疗多节段腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效。方法:2011年10月至2013年10月应用K-Rod脊柱动态稳定系统治疗多节段腰椎退行性疾病20例,男8例,女12例;年龄31～65岁,平均45.4岁;病程9个月～6.25年,平均3.8年。所有患者术前有腰腿痛病史,其中极外侧腰椎间盘突出症10例,腰椎管狭窄症7例,腰椎滑脱3例(Ⅰ度滑脱2例,Ⅱ度滑脱1例),所有病例的责任节段为单节段,并且责任间隙的相邻椎间盘至少有1节已经出现明显退变。进行手术解除神经压迫及植入K-Rod脊柱后路动态稳定系统(其中责任间隙行椎间融合,退变邻椎行动态稳定).采用疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、日本矫形外科协会关于下腰痛的评分标准(JOA)和Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评估临床疗效;通过影像学资料对退变邻椎节段活动度(ROM)、椎间盘高度及椎间盘信号(根据改良Pfirrmann分级系统)进行评估。结果:全部患者获得1年以上随访,术前症状均明显缓解,腰腿痛VAS、JOA及ODI术前与术后1周、术后1年差异均有统计学意义(p<0.05).术后影像学检查见责任节段均已融合,未见内植物松动、移位及断裂。术后相邻椎间盘的ROM有所减少(p<0.05).相邻退变椎间盘的高度术后1年与术前比较差异无统计学意义(p>0.05).对25个相邻椎间盘应用改良Pfirrmann分级系统进行分级并对比,术后1年共有8个(32%)椎间盘在评级中有所好转,15个(60%)椎间盘在评级中无变化,2个(8%)椎间盘在评级中退变加重。结论:应用腰椎融合辅以邻近节段动态固定的K-Rod脊柱动态稳定系统治疗多节段腰椎退行性疾病,可以取得良好的近期临床疗效。     

棘突间动态稳定装置Coflex预负荷置入后对腰椎矢状位序列影响的前瞻性研究

目的前瞻性分析预负荷、无预负荷Coflex内置物置入体内后对腰椎矢状位序列的影响。方法 2008年8月～2010年8月采用Coflex棘突间动态稳定装置治疗老年单节段腰椎椎管狭窄症病例59例,均为L4/L5病变。男性26例,女33例;年龄为46～63岁,平均57.8岁;平均随访6个月。随机分成2组,预负荷组21例,无负荷组38例。观察术前和术后6个月随访时腰椎中立位和屈伸侧位X线片序列变化。结果预负荷组固定节段活动度减小,2组比较差异有显著统计学意义（P〈0.05）。预负荷组术后腰椎前凸角度减小,与无负荷组相比差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;2组腰椎活动度与术前相比无明显变化,2组间比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论棘突间动态稳定装置Coflex加载一定的预负荷（术中适度撑开2～5 mm）,维持Coflex内置物受压状态,可以增加对固定节段后伸的限制,而对腰椎序列无明显影响。     

Posterior dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine with the Accuflex rod system as a stand-alone device: experience in 20 patients with 2-year follow-up

Decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis is a common procedure. After surgery, segmental instability sometimes occurs, therefore, different methods for restabilization have been developed. Dynamic stabilization systems have been designed to improve segmental stability. In this study, clinical results of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis that underwent decompression and stabilization with the Accuflex dynamic system are presented; clinical, radiographic, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings are fully described. Improvements in all clinical measurements, including visual analog scale for back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index, and SF-36 health status survey were noticed. At a 2-year follow-up, 22.22% of patients required hardware removal due to fatigue while in 83% of them no progression of disk degeneration was observed after implantation of the Accuflex system. Additionally, as demonstrated by the MRI images at follow up, three patients (16%) showed disk rehydration with one grade higher on the Pfirmann classification. Although a relatively high hardware failure was observed (22.22%), the use of the dynamic stabilization system Accuflex posterior to decompression procedures, showed clinical benefits and stopped the degenerative process in 83% the patients.     

Wallis棘突间动态稳定装置治疗腰椎退行性疾病

目的:评价Wallis装置治疗腰椎退行性疾病的初步临床疗效。方法:对2007年8月至2010年6月接受Wallis棘突间动态稳定装置治疗的48例腰椎退行性疾病患者进行回顾性分析,男30例,女18例;年龄40～68岁,平均54.2岁。单节段病变44例,双节段病变4例;其中L3,44例,L4,540例,L3,4和L4,5双节段4例。采用JOA、Oswestry评分标准进行疼痛及功能评价,采用Odom方法进行疗效评估,并摄X线片进行影像学评估。结果:48例均获随访,时间12～24个月,平均18个月。采用Odom评估标准:优20例,良24例,可4例。JOA评分由术前的(12.4±2.7)分增加到术后12个月的(26.1±2.0)分(P<0.01);Oswestry疼痛功能障碍指数由术前的(14.1±2.9)分降至术后12个月的(5.5±1.8)分(P<0.01)。腰椎侧位X线片显示神经根管高度和椎间隙后高度术前与术后12个月比较均有统计学差异(P<0.01)。结论:Wallis棘突间动态稳定装置可较好地维持相应节段的动态稳定,扩大椎管容积,安全可行,近期疗效满意。     

单侧钉棒固定单枚Cage融合治疗腰椎间盘突出合并腰椎不稳症

目的观察扩大开窗两节段神经根管减压髓核摘除术加单侧钉棒系统固定单枚Cage椎间融合治疗腰椎间盘突出症合并腰椎不稳的临床疗效。方法自2007-09-2009-09,对46例腰椎间盘突出症合并腰椎不稳患者采用扩大开窗两节段神经根管减压髓核摘除同时结合单侧椎弓根钉棒系统固定,单枚Cage椎间植骨融合。结果本组随访观察1～3年,平均2年,根据Macnab疗效评定标准：优25例,良18例,可3例,差0例,优良率93.5%。结论采用扩大开窗两节段神经根管减压髓核摘除术加单侧钉棒系统固定单枚Cage椎间融合是治疗腰椎间盘突出症合并腰椎不稳的有效方法。     

Quadrant通道下腰椎间盘切除单边动态固定术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效观察

目的：探讨Quadrant通道下腰椎间盘切除单边动态固定术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床效果。方法：回顾性分析2013年1月～2018年11月在我院行Quadrant通道下腰椎间盘切除单边动态固定术治疗的23例单节段腰椎间盘突出症患者,其中男13例,女10例;年龄20～40岁（31.0±6.9岁）。术后均获随访,随访时间28～68个月（42.0±6.6个月）。记录手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间等资料;于术前及术后2d、末次随访时采用视觉模拟（visualan alogue scale,VAS）评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数（Oswestry disability index,ODI）、日本骨科协会（Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA）评分评估手术的临床效果;于术后2d、末次随访时行腰椎正侧位及动力位X线片检查,测量椎间隙高度、椎间活动度;术前及末次随访时行腰椎MRI检查,应用Pfirrmann分级评估手术节段及邻近节段椎间盘高度及信号变化,计算Pfirrmann分级改善率。结果：所有患者均顺利完成手术,手术时间82.5±11.6min,术中出血量...     

Outcomes of a prospective cohort study on peri-radicular infiltration for radicular pain in patients with lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis

The purpose of this study was to assess the outcome of peri-radicular infiltration for radicular pain in patients with spinal stenosis and lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Patients with spinal stenosis ( n=62) or LDH ( n=55) who met our criteria received fluoroscopically guided peri-radicular infiltration of local anaesthetic and steroid at the site of documented pathology. All the patients were followed-up at 3 months. There was a statistically significant difference in the functional outcome between the spinal stenosis group and the LDH group. The mean change in the Oswestry disability index (ODI) score for the spinal stenosis group was 5.5% compared to 12% for the LDH group. The spinal stenosis group had a mean change in visual analogue scales (VAS) of 1.2 compared to 2 for the LDH group. The higher the modified somatic perception score, modified zung depression and age at injection, the less favourable the outcome. There was a significantly better response to peri-radicular infiltration for radicular pain in patients with LDH than the spinal stenosis. Our findings help us to provide a better information for future patients. We do not know if this is a treatment effect or natural history of the pathology, as this is a cohort study and not a randomised controlled trial.     

METR_X内窥镜辅助X-Tube下减压、融合、内固定治疗腰椎退变性疾病

目的探讨METRX内窥镜辅助X-Tube下腰椎管减压、椎间盘切除、椎间植骨融合、椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗腰椎退变性疾病的临床效果。方法对11例腰椎间盘突出和（或）腰椎滑脱患者应用METRX内窥镜手术系统辅助下行椎管减压、椎间盘切除、椎间植骨融合、椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗。结果1例出现疼痛、麻木症状加重,1例术中出现脑脊液漏,给予对症处理均治愈。手术切口均一期愈合。所有患者均获随访,时间3～27个月。ODI评分：术前为（49±17）分,术后3个月为（38±19）分,末次随访为（15±13）分;VAS评分：术前为（7.2±1.0）分,术后3个月为（5.1±1.1）分,末次随访为（1.5±1.1）分;与术前比较差异均有显著性（P〈0.05）。末次随访时采用改良Macnab标准评价临床效果：优6例,良4例,可1例。结论内窥镜辅助X-Tube下腰椎管减压、椎间融合、椎弓根螺钉固定治疗腰椎退变性疾病可获得良好的临床效果,是一种安全有效的微创手术方法。     

Long-term reduction in pain and disability after surgery with the interspinous device for intervertebral assisted motion (DIAM) spinal stabilization system in patients with low back pain: 4-year follow-up from a longitudinal prospective case series

Patients with low back pain (LBP) suffer chronic disability. In 40% of LBP patients degenerative disc disease (DDD) seems to be the cause. This prospective case series assessed the efficacy of the interspinous device for intervertebral assisted motion (DIAM™) in patients with LBP resulting from DDD. All patients were initially assessed by physical examinations, magnetic resonance imaging, dynamic X-rays and provocative discography. Eligible patients (n = 52) had LBP for a minimum of 4 months, and received surgery with the DIAM™ system 2–4 weeks after diagnosis. Patients were evaluated pre-/post-operatively for pain severity using a visual analogue scale (VAS), and for dysfunction and disability with the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). VAS and RMDQ score changes were assessed using the appropriate contrasts and Bonferroni-corrected P values. As a result, significant (P < 0.0001) pain score reductions were observed between baseline values, and 2 (3.7, 95% CI 3.1; 4.2) and 48 (3.1, 95% CI 2.5; 3.6) months follow-up (intent-to-treat population). Disability scores were significantly (P < 0.0001) reduced between baseline and 2 (8.6, 95% CI 7.4; 9.9) and 48 (7.5, 95% CI 6.1; 8.9) months. Disability scores were similar from months 2 to 48. At 48 months, 67.3% of patients reached the minimum clinically important difference (MCID; ≥1.5-unit improvement) in VAS score and 78.9% of patients reached the MCID (≥30% improvement) in RMDQ score. No complications were associated with surgery. In conclusion, patients with LBP treated with the interspinous DIAM™ system showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in pain and disability for up to 4 years.     

微创经椎间孔椎间融合术联合单、双侧内固定治疗单间隙腰椎退变性疾病

 目的 探讨微创经椎间孔椎间融合术（minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,MIS-TLIF）联合单侧或双侧内固定治疗单节段腰椎退行性疾病的临床及影像学疗效。方法 回顾性分析 2009年 10月至 2011年 12月期间,采用 METRx-MD（Microscopic Endoscopic Tubular Retractor System）进行 MIS-TLIF治疗单节段腰椎退行性疾病并获得长期随访的 65例患者的相关资料。根据内固定方式分为两组,单侧固定组（31例）采用 MIS-TLIF联合单侧内固定技术,双侧组（34例）采用 MIS-TLIF联合双侧经皮内固定技术。采用 Oswestry功能障碍指数（Oswestry disability index,ODI）评价腰椎功能情况,采用疼痛视觉模拟评分（visual analogue scale,VAS）分别对腰痛及下肢痛进行评估;在 X线片上测量手术前后的腰椎前凸角度、手术节段前凸角度、腰椎侧凸角度、手术节段侧凸角度,计算腰椎前凸指数及椎间高度指数。结果 所有患者均顺利完成手术,术后随访 18~36个月,平均 26.6个月。所有患者术后 12个月均获得骨性融合。两组患者术后 VAS及 ODI评分均较术前有明显改善,两组间术前及随访期间 VAS及 ODI评分的差异无统计学意义。影像学测量结果显示两组间腰椎前凸角度、手术节段前凸角度、腰椎侧凸角度、手术节段侧凸角度、腰椎前凸指数及椎间高度指数的差异均无统计学意义,腰椎前凸角度与腰椎前凸指数呈线性相关。结论 对于治疗单间隙腰椎退变性疾病,MIS-TLIF联合单侧或双侧经皮内固定技术具有相似的临床及影像学疗效。     

Women do not fare worse than men after lumbar fusion surgery: Two-year follow-up results from 4,780 prospectively collected patients in the Swedish National Spine Register with lumbar degenerative disc disease and chronic low back pain

Background Context

Proper patient selection is of utmost importance in the surgical treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD) with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Among other factors, gender was previously found to influence lumbar fusion surgery outcome.

Postoperative improvement in health-related quality of life: a national comparison of surgical treatment for focal (one- to two-level) lumbar spinal stenosis compared with total joint arthroplasty for osteoarthritis

Background context

The results of single-center studies have shown that surgical intervention for lumbar spinal stenosis yielded comparable health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improvement to total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Whether these results are generalizable to routine clinical practice in Canada is unknown.

Purpose

The primary purpose of this equivalence study was to compare the relative improvement in physical HRQoL after surgery for focal lumbar spinal stenosis (FLSS) compared with TJA for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) across six Canadian centers.

Study design/setting

A Canadian multicenter ambispective cohort study.

Patient sample

A cohort of 371 primary one- to two-level spinal decompression (n=214 with instrumented fusion) for FLSS (n=179 with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis [DLS]) was compared with a cohort of primary total hip (n=156) and knee (n=208) arthroplasty for OA.

Outcome measures

The primary outcome was the change in preoperative to 2-year postoperative 36-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary (PCS) score as reflected by the number of patients reaching minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB).

Methods

Univariate analyses were conducted to identify baseline differences and factors that were significantly related to outcomes at 2 years. Multivariable regression modeling was used as our primary analysis to compare outcomes between groups.

Results

The mean age (years) and percent females for the spine, hip, and knee groups were 63.3/58.5, 66.0/46.9, and 65.8/64.3, respectively. All three groups experienced significant improvement of baseline PCS (p<.001). Multivariate analyses, adjusting for baseline differences (age, gender, baseline Mental Component Summary score, baseline PCS), demonstrated no significant differences in PCS outcome between spinal surgery and arthroplasty (combined hip and knee cohorts) patients with an odds ratio of 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57–1.11; p=.17) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.58–1.09; p=.15) for achieving MCID or SCB, respectively. In subgroup analysis, spine and knee outcomes were not significantly different, with hip arthroplasty superior to both (p<.0001).

Conclusions

Significant improvement in physical HRQoL after surgical treatment of FLSS (including DLS) is consistently achieved nationally. Our overall results demonstrate that a comparable number of patients can expect to achieve MCID and SCB 2 years after surgical intervention for FLSS and total knee arthroplasty.     

Supracondylar femoral fractures in elderly patients treated with the dynamic condylar screw and the retrograde intramedullary nail: a comparative study of the two methods

Introduction The objective of this study is to present the results of surgical management of supracondylar fractures of the femur (types A and C according to the AO/ASIF classification) in elderly patients with the use of two different methods of fixation: the mini open dynamic condylar screw fixation (DCS) and the closed retrograde intramedullary nailing (RIN).Materials and methods Eighty patients with supracondylar fractures of the femur were treated from January 1994 to June 2000 and 72 of them followed up completely. There were 25 (34%) men and 47 (65%) women with a median age of 73.2 years (range 60–88 years). In patients with the same type of fracture, the chosen method was random, one after the other (alternately). RIN was used in 35 patients, and DCS was used in 37. The mean operative time for the DCS fixation group was 145 min (range 115–180 min), whereas for the RIN group it was 92 min (range 76–110 min) (p<0.001) with an average estimated blood loss of 310 cc (range 120–450 cc) and 118 cc (range 90–165 cc), respectively (p<0.001). The mean follow-up was 28 months (range 18–42 months).Results According to the criteria set by Schatzker and Lambert, excellent results were recorded in 18 (51%), good in 11 (31%), moderate in 3 (9%), poor in 3 (9%) patients with RIN and excellent in 19 (51%), good in 11 (30%), moderate in 4 (11%) and poor in 3 (8%) patients with DCS (p>0.05). The complications that occurred in the RIN group were 2 (6%) stiffness of the knee (mean flexion 80°), 2 (6%) non-unions, 2 (6%) varus deformity and in the DCS group 2 (5%) haematomas, 4 (11%) stiffness of the knee (mean flexion 73°) and 2 (5%) non-unions.Conclusion Although the two methods appear to have the same percentage of excellent results and same time to bony union, RIN is preferable to DCS in terms of less blood loss and shorter operating time.