两种颈前路减压融合术治疗两节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效分析

目的:探讨颈前路椎间盘切除融合术(anterior cervical discectomy with fusion,ACDF)与颈前路椎体次全切减压融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion,ACCF)治疗相邻两节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法:对2016年1月至2017年12月收治的相邻两节段脊髓型颈椎病37例患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,男15例,女22例,年龄43～69岁,平均54.6岁。根据手术方法的不同分为ACDF治疗组(A组,17例)和ACCF治疗组(B组,20例)。记录两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量,比较两组患者术前及术后1、12个月颈椎融合节段Cobb角、颈椎曲度,采用日本矫形外科协会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA)评分评价临床疗效,并观察两组术后并发症情况。结果:所有患者获得随访,时间12～24个月,平均18.5个月。手术时间、术中出血量A组分别为(106.3±22.6) min、(52.2±26.4) ml,B组分别为(115.6±16.8) min、(61.7±20.7) m...     

两种前路手术治疗邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床效果

目的 :比较双节段前路椎间盘切除减压融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)和单节段前路椎体次全切除减压融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion,ACCF)对邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病的治疗结果。方法:对2010年09月~2013年7月应用双节段椎间盘切除减压聚醚醚酮融合器(Polyetheretherketone cage,PEEK cage)植骨融合术及单节段椎体次全切减压钛网植骨融合术进行治疗的54例邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病患者进行回顾性分析,ACCF组23例,ACDF组31例。比较两组患者基线资料、住院天数、手术时间、出血量、日本骨科协会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA)评分及疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue score,VAS)的不同。通过测量术前、术后3d、末次随访时的影像学图片,分析两组患者颈椎曲度、融合节段高度及融合率的变化。结果:年龄、性别、病变节段、矢状位序列、植骨材料、住院天数和手术时间两组间差异无统计学意义,ACDF组的出血量显著少于ACCF组(175.4±12.1ml VS 201.3±80.4ml)。ACDF组JOA及VAS评分在术前(13.06±0.81、6.48±1.43)与末次随访时(15.45±1.06、2.97±1.28)比较均有显著统计学意义(P=0.000),ACCF组JOA及VAS评分同ACDF组,术后与术前比较均有统计学意义(P0.05);但组间比较未发现明显差别(P0.05)。两组颈椎曲度和融合节段高度术后3d时较术前均有增加(P0.05),而末次随访时轻度下降(P0.05),ACDF组改善程度明显大于ACCF组(P0.05)。两组均获得了100%的融合率。结论 :在邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病的手术治疗中,ACDF出血量相对较少,能更好地改善颈椎曲度和维持融合节段高度。     

多节段脊髓型颈椎病的手术治疗:三种手术方法的初期临床疗效比较

[目的]探讨分析颈前路椎间盘切除植骨融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)或颈前路椎体次全切除融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion,ACCF)、颈后路椎管扩大成形术(posterior cervical laminoplasty,PCL)以及前后路联合手术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病(multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy,MCSM)的初期临床疗效。[方法]回顾性分析2009年1月~2012年1月在本院接受手术治疗,并完成至少2年随访的82例多节段脊髓型颈椎病患者。将37例行ACDF或ACCF的患者归入A组,将32例行PCL的患者纳入B组,其余13例行ACDF联合PCL的患者列为C组。比较分析A、B、C三组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症发生率、日本矫形外科学会评分(Japan Orthopaedic Association,JOA)、JOA改善优良率、颈椎功能残障指数(neck disability index,NDI)和颈椎活动度(rang of motion,ROM)。[结果]截至末次随访时,A、B、C三组患者均获得良好的手术疗效。A组和B组的手术时间、术中出血量比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05),均显著少于C组(P0.05);三组患者的术后并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。所有患者术后JOA评分、NDI及ROM均较术前明显改善(P0.05),术后6个月随访时,A组的NDI明显优于B组和C组(P0.05),其余各项指标在三组间无差异(P0.05)。截至术后2年,B组的NDI劣于A组(P0.05),而ROM则优于A组和C组(P0.05),其余指标无统计学差异(P0.05)。[结论]此三种手术方法对治疗CSM均可获得良好的初期临床效果,前路手术在颈椎功能改善方面优于后路手术,而后路手术在颈椎活动度的丧失方面要优于前路手术和前后路联合手术。     

颈前路手术治疗4个节段脊髓型颈椎病的中期疗效分析

目的 :探讨颈前路手术治疗4个节段脊髓型颈椎病的中期临床效果及其并发症分析。方法 :回顾性分析2013年9月～2016年10月,行颈椎前路手术治疗的4个节段脊髓型颈椎病31例患者资料,男18例,女13例,年龄54～74岁,平均58.1±4.9岁,对所有患者进行随访,采用疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)评估颈肩肢体疼痛情况,日本骨科协会(Japanese Orthopedic Association,JOA)评分评估患者神经功能恢复情况,行颈椎正侧位及过伸过屈位X线片,观察钛网等内固定情况,测量C2～C7颈椎椎体高度和颈椎生理曲度,评估植骨融合情况。并记录患者手术相关并发症。结果:27例患者获得随访,随访时间为35～72个月,平均52.7±3.6个月。末次随访时VAS为1.6±0.6分,低于术前的7.2±1.5分,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。末次随访JOA评分为16.1±4.2分,高于术前的8.8±3.7分,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。至末次随访时,患者颈椎椎体高度及颈椎曲度较术前均有明显改善,差异有统计学意义(P<...     

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。     

两种前路手术治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效比较

目的比较颈前路椎间盘切除减压融合术(ACDF)和颈前路椎体次全切减压融合术(ACCF)治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法将43例双节段脊髓型颈椎病患者按治疗方法分为两组,ACDF组23例,ACCF组20例。比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、并发症发生率、术后JOA评分、植骨融合率和颈椎生理曲度改善情况。结果患者均获得随访,时间15~46个月。手术时间ACDF组为(106±23)min,ACCF组为(142±35)min;术中出血量ACDF组为(121±76)ml,ACCF组为(208±125)ml;两组两项比较差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组住院时间、并发症发生率、植骨融合率比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。末次随访时JOA评分ACDF组从术前(10.32±1.47)分增加到(14.55±1.65)分,改善率62.82%±12.58%;ACCF组从术前(10.21±1.53)分增加到(14.39±1.76)分,改善率59.91%±13.28%;两组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后颈椎生理曲度均得到明显改善,但ACDF组优于ACCF组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ACDF和ACCF治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病均可取得满意的临床疗效,ACDF具有手术时间短、出血少、创伤小等优点。     

颈前路ACCF术精准治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效

目的 分析颈前路椎体次全切除减压融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy decompression and fusion,ACCF)精准治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效及手术策略.方法 回顾性分析2016年5月～2018年7月本院治疗的36例三节段脊髓型颈椎病患者的临床资料.根据具体的病理特性分两组,A组20例行ACCF联合Zero-p固定术,B组16例行两椎体ACCF术治疗.采用JOA评价评价临床效果,根据颈椎Cobb角、椎间隙高度变化评价矫形效果.结果 所有患者均获随访,A组平均随访(18.6±7.3)个月,B组(20.1±8.2)个月.两组手术时间、术中出血量有显著性差异(P<0.05),A组优于B组.两组术后1个月和末次随访的JOA评分、颈椎Cobb角及椎间隙高度均较术前显著改善(P<0.05),术后JOA评分、颈椎Cobb角及椎间隙高度差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 ACCF联合Zero-p固定术与两椎体ACCF术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病均可获得良好的疗效,前者手术时间短、创伤小.术中应严格把握手术适应证,根据具体的病理特性,精准选择手术方式.     

两种颈椎前路减压融合术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效分析

[目的]回顾性分析比较椎间盘切除减压融合术(ACDF)和椎体次全切除减压融合术(ACCF)在治疗相邻两个节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效及影像学数据.[方法]2005年4月～2007年8月,采用ACDF和ACCF治疗相邻两个节段脊髓型颈椎病156例.临床疗效采用日本骨科学会评分系统(JOA评分)对术前、末次随访的临床疗效进行评价.比较两组患者I临床疗效及手术时间、住院大数、术中失血量、颈椎活动度、颈椎曲度及节段性高度.[结果]两组的临床改善优良率无显著性差异(P＞0.05),ACDF组与ACCF组术中平均出血量及手术时间有显著性差异(P＜0.01),ACCF较ACDF增加,而ACCF组术后的节段性高度及颈椎前凸角较ACDF组明显降低(P＜0.01).[结论]ACDF与ACCF均能达到良好的手术疗效,然而ACDF在减少术中出血量、手术时间,改善和维持术后颈椎前凸角度及节段性高度较ACCF作用明显,但ACDF要求技术较高,有较长的学习曲线.     

颈前路联合手术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病

目的:评价颈椎前路椎间隙减压自锁融合器结合前路短节段钢板固定治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床效果。方法:对2012年1月至2015年6月采用颈椎前路椎间隙减压自锁融合器结合前路短节段固定钢板治疗的106例多节段脊髓型颈椎病患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,男71例,女35例;年龄42~74岁,平均(55.4±5.1)岁。受累节段:3节段82例,4节段24例。记录手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量及住院时间;分析术前,术后5 d,术后3、6、12个月及末次随访时颈肩痛视觉评分(VAS)和日本骨科协会(JOA)评分,并计算出JOA改善率;测量术前,术后3、6、12个月及末次随访时颈椎曲度和颈椎ROM。对术后并发症进行统计分析。结果:106例手术均顺利进行,手术时间为(126.2±25.1)min,失血量为(82.1±26.3)ml。所有患者获得随访,时间12~48个月,平均(30.4±10.5)个月。颈肩痛VAS评分和JOA评分分别由术前的6.11±1.54、9.22±2.42改善为术后5 d的2.14±0.51、12.46±1.42(P0.05),术后各时间点VAS及JOA评分比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05),术后5 d JOA改善率达(56.7±21.6)%,术后各时间点JOA改善率比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。颈椎生理曲度术后3个月为(19.6±8.9)°比术前的(11.5±6.8)°明显改善(P0.05),术后能够获得比较满意的稳定(P0.05);而颈椎ROM由术前的(37.6±10.4)°减少为术后3个月的(18.2±5.9)°,颈椎活动减少明显(P0.05),随访过程中无明显改变(P0.05)。术后出现吞咽困难19例,轴性痛6例,脑脊液漏3例,声音嘶哑2例,保守治疗好转;3例患者各有1个椎间隙未融合(无临床症状),未出现内固定松动、断裂、移位。结论:颈椎前路椎间隙减压自锁融合器结合前路短节段钢板固定,能够减少术中损伤,恢复颈椎生理曲度,改善脊髓神经功能,减少术后并发症,是治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的可选方案。     

ACCF联合颈前路减压zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病

目的探讨颈前路椎体次全切除减压融合术(ACCF)联合颈前路减压zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2016-05—2017-07采用ACCF联合颈前路减压zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定术治疗的30例多节段脊髓型颈椎病,比较术前、术后1周及末次随访时JOA评分、颈椎Cobb角、椎间隙高度。结果30例均顺利完成手术并获得完整随访,随访时间平均21.6个月,切口均一期愈合,植骨均骨性愈合,无内固定松动、移位、断裂、伤口感染、声音嘶哑及神经功能加重等并发症。术后1例出现脑脊液漏,2例出现吞咽不适,非手术治疗后均治愈。术后1周与末次随访时JOA评分、颈椎Cobb角、椎间隙高度较术前均明显改善,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。末次随访时根据JOA评分改善率评定综合疗效:优12例,良14例,可4例。结论ACCF联合颈前路减压zerop椎间植骨融合内固定术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病安全可靠,能够有效地恢复椎间隙高度和颈椎生理曲度。     

Outcomes of three anterior decompression and fusion techniques in the treatment of three-level cervical spondylosis

The purpose of this article is to compare the outcomes of three different anterior approaches for three-level cervical spondylosis. The records of 120 patients who underwent anterior approaches because of three-level cervical spondylosis between 2006 and 2008 were reviewed. Based on the type of surgery, the patients were divided into three groups: Group 1 was three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF); Group 2 anterior cervical hybrid decompression and fusion (ACHDF, combination of ACDF and ACCF); and Group 3 two-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF). The clinical outcomes including blood loss, operation time, complications, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, C2–C7 angle, segmental angle, and fusion rate were compared. There were no significant differences in JOA improvement and fusion rate among three groups. However, in terms of segmental angle and C2–C7 angle improvement, Group 2 was superior to Group 3 and inferior to Group 1 (all P < 0.01). Group 2 was less in operation time than Group 3 (P < 0.01) and more than Group 1 (P < 0.01). Group 3 had more blood loss than Group 1 and Group 2 (all P < 0.01) and had higher complication rate than Group 1 (P < 0.05). No significant differences in blood loss and complication rate were observed between Group 1 and Group 2 (P > 0.05). ACDF was superior in most outcomes to ACCF and ACHDF. If the compressive pathology could be resolved by discectomy, ACDF should be the treatment of choice. ACHDF was an ideal alternative procedure to ACDF if retro-vertebral pathology existed. ACCF was the last choice considered.     

Efficacy of multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus corpectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a minimum 5-year follow-up study

Purpose

We evaluated radiologic and clinical outcomes to compare the efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).

Methods

A total of 40 patients who underwent ACDF or ACCF for multilevel CSM were divided into two groups. Group A (n = 25) underwent ACDF and group B (n = 15) ACCF. Clinical outcomes (JOA and VAS scores), perioperative parameters (length of hospital stay, blood loss, operation time), radiological parameters (fusion rate, segmental height, cervical lordosis), and complications were compared.

Results

Both group A and group B demonstrated significant increases in JOA scores and significant decreases in VAS. Patients who underwent ACDF experienced significantly shorter hospital stays (p = 0.031), less blood loss (p = 0.001), and shorter operation times (p = 0.024). Both groups showed significant increases in postoperative cervical lordosis and achieved satisfactory fusion rates (88.0 and 93.3 %, respectively). There were no significant differences in the incidence of complications among the groups.

Conclusions

Both ACDF and ACCF provide satisfactory clinical outcomes and fusion rates for multilevel CSM. However, multilevel ACDF is associated with better radiologic parameters, shorter hospital stays, less blood loss, and shorter operative times.     

Comparison between anterior cervical discectomy fusion and cervical corpectomy fusion using titanium cages for reconstruction: analysis of outcome and long-term follow-up

Retrospective comparative study of 80 consecutive patients treated with either anterior cervical discectomy fusion (ACDF) or anterior cervical corpectomy fusion (ACCF) for multi-level cervical spondylosis. To compare clinical outcome, fusion rates, and complications of anterior cervical reconstruction of multi-level ACDF and single-/multi-level ACCF performed using titanium mesh cages (TMCs) filled with autograft and anterior cervical plates (ACPs). Reconstruction of the cervical spine after discectomy or corpectomy with titanium cages filled with autograft has become an acceptable alternative to both allograft and autograft; however, there is no data comparing the outcome of multi-level ACDF and single-/multi-level ACCF using this reconstruction. We evaluated 80 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for the treatment of multi-level cervical spondylosis at our institution from 1998 to 2001. In this series, 42 patients underwent multi-level ACDF (Group 1) and 38 patients underwent ACCF (Group 2). Interbody TMCs and local autograft bone with ACPs were used in both procedures. Medical records were reviewed to assess outcome. Clinical outcome was measured by Odom’s criteria. Operative time and blood loss were noted. Radiographs were obtained at 6 and 12 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years (if necessary). Early hardware failures and pseudarthroses were noted. Cervical sagittal curvature was measured by Ishihara’s index at 1 year. Group 1 had a mean age 46.2 years (range 35–60 years). Group 2 had a mean age 50.1 years (range 35–70 years).The operative time was significantly lower (P < 0.001) and blood loss significantly higher (P < 0.001) in Group 2 than in Group 1. At a minimum of 1 year follow up, patients in both groups had equivalent improvement in their clinical symptoms. The fusion rates for Group 1 were 97.6 and 92.1% for Group 2. The rates of early hardware failure were higher in Group 2 (2.6%) than in Group 1 (0%). The fusion rates for Group 1 were not significantly higher than Group 2 (P > 0.28). There was one patient in Group 1 and 2 patients in Group 2 with pseudarthroses. Complication rates in Group 2 were not significantly higher (P > 0.341). Cervical lordosis was well-maintained (80%) in both groups. Both multi-level ACDF and ACCF with anterior cervical reconstruction using TMC filled with autograft and ACP for treatment of multi-level cervical spondylosis have high fusion rates and good clinical outcome. However, there is a higher rate of early hardware failure and pseudarthroses after ACCF than ACDF. Hence, in the absence of specific pathology requiring removal of vertebral body, multi-level ACDF using interbody cages and autologous bone graft could result in lower morbidity.     

前路联合术式与后路单开门治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效观察

目的:比较前路颈椎间盘切除融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)联合前路椎体次全切钛网植骨融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion,ACCF)与颈后路单开门微型钛板内固定术治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法:对2014年3月至2016年3月手术治疗的63例(男39例,女24例)3节段脊髓型颈椎病患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,其中43例行ACDF联合ACCF(前路组),20例行颈后路单开门微型钛板内固定术(后路组)。比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症发生率,并按照JOA评分标准评定两组患者的临床疗效。结果:所有病例获得随访,时间16~40个月,平均25.8个月。前路组与后路组患者手术时间分别为(123.70±6.21)min和(118.70±5.41)min,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);术中出血量分别(85.23±7.51)ml和(107.18±9.41)ml,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。前路组发生轴性症状6例,吞咽困难1例,未发生C5神经根麻痹、声音嘶哑及呛咳等并发症,并发症发生率为16.3℅(7/43);后路组发生轴性症状5例,C5神经根麻痹1例,未发生吞咽困难、声音嘶哑及呛咳等并发症,并发症发生率为30.0℅(6/20),两组并发症发生率比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。前路组术后1周及末次随访时的JOA评分均优于后路组(P0.05)。结论 :两种手术方式治疗脊髓型颈椎病均能提供即刻的稳定性,前路联合手术在术中出血量、并发症发生率、临床疗效方面均优于后路组,因此对于连续性3节段脊髓型颈椎病的治疗倾向于前路联合手术。     

颈前路椎间融合术限制型与半限制型钢板内固定治疗颈椎病的比较研究

目的比较颈前路椎间融合术中限制型与半限制型钢板内固定治疗颈椎病术后维持颈椎前凸和椎间高度的差异。方法回顾性分析自2002-01—2014-12诊治的62例脊髓型颈椎病,其中28例行颈前路减压+钛网植骨融合+限制型钢板内固定术(限制型钢板组),34例行颈前路减压+钛网植骨融合+半限制型钢板内固定术(半限制型钢板组),比较2组术后植骨融合率、颈椎曲度、椎间高度及JOA评分。结果 62例均获得随访8~12个月,平均11个月。2组植骨材料(钛网)均与相邻椎体骨性融合。半限制型钢板组术后1年Cobb角较术后3 d增加幅度更大,差异有统计学意义(t=-9.894,P0.001)。2组术后1年与术后3 d的D值与融合节段椎体高度变化差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。2组术后3 d(t=0.801,P=0.426)与术后1年(t=0.437,P=0.663)的JOA评分比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论限制型与半限制型钢板均可提供颈前路椎间融合术后颈椎的稳定性直至植骨材料(钛网)与相邻椎体骨性融合。钛网植骨和半限制型钢板共同使用时,更容易发生融合节段曲度的丢失。     

颈椎前路X形椎体次全切除融合内固定术治疗双节段颈椎病的疗效分析

目的：探讨颈椎前路X形椎体次全切除融合内固定术（anterior cervical X-shape-corpectomy and fusion,ACXF）治疗双节段颈椎病的临床疗效。方法：回顾性分析2019年1月～2020年12月间在我院骨科行ACXF治疗的双节段颈椎病患者的临床资料,并与同期行颈椎前路椎体次全切除融合固定术（anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion,ACCF）治疗的双节段颈椎病患者进行比较。收集两组患者的基线信息、手术时间、出血量及住院时间,术前和术后即刻、3个月、6个月及1年时行日本骨科学会（Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA）评分、疼痛视觉模拟评分（visual analogue scale,VAS）,术前和术后3个月、术后6个月及术后1年行颈椎功能障碍指数（neck disability index,NDI）评估;测量ACXF组术中前方截骨距离以及两组患者术前和术后不同随访时间点的颈椎整体曲度、手术节段脊柱功能单位（functional spine unit,FSU）活动度及高度、后方减...