颈前路减压支撑融合钢板内固定术治疗脊髓型颈椎病

目的 探讨颈前路减压、椎体间植骨支撑融合或颈椎椎间融合器（钛网或Cage）支撑融合、钢板内固定术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的临床方法及疗效。方法 回顾分析66例脊髓型颈椎病患者行颈前路减压后,分别采取骼骨植骨支撑融合、颈椎间融合器（钛网或Cage）植入支撑融合,钢板内固定术,随访时间平均32个月,采用Zdeblick影像学判定椎体间融合的标准,贾连顺的评定法评定术后临床疗效。结果 在颈前路减压、钢板内固定术治疗脊髓型颈椎病方法中,自体骼骨植骨融合优良率87．5％,供区并发症12．1％,椎间盘退变椎问高度丢失7．6％;颈椎间融合器支撑融合优良率96．1％,无供区并发症和椎问盘退变椎间高度丢失。结论 颈前路减压、椎体间植骨融合或颈椎间融合器支撑融合、钢板内固定术治疗脊髓型颈椎病临床疗效满意。钢板内固定术后颈椎即刻稳定;植骨融合手术操作简单,费用少,但存在供区并发症、椎问高度丢失;椎间融合器融合稳定、牢固,椎间高度丢失少,后者疗效优于前者。     

脊髓型颈椎病前路手术的临床体会

目的探讨提高脊髓型颈椎病手术效果的有效方法。方法对24例脊髓型颈椎病患者在减压后于椎间分别采用单纯植骨、椎间融合器和植骨加内固定三种方式进行治疗,并随访观察。结果经过平均15个月的观察随访,神经功能明显改善,JOA评分由术前平均9.1分,恢复到术后平均15.3分。术后6个月椎间植骨100%融合,无椎间融合器移位、钢板螺钉断裂现象。结论只要严格掌握颈椎病手术的治疗原则,术中彻底减压、充分植骨、适当应用内固定,就能取得良好的手术效果。     

颈前路分节段减压植骨融合术治疗多节段颈椎病

目的探讨颈前路分节段减压植骨融合术治疗多节段颈椎病的可行性及疗效。方法对11例病变累及3个以上椎间隙脊髓型颈椎病患者,采用经颈前路单椎体次全切除,钛网内充填减压椎体松质骨植骨融合,单间隙减压采用聚醚醚酮椎间融合器植骨融合,并行带锁钢板固定。结果11例均获随访,平均15个月,植骨于术后12～16周骨性愈合。术后恢复的椎间高度未发生再丢失现象,颈椎生理曲度维持良好,无钢板及螺钉折断、椎间融合器滑脱、植骨不融合等并发症。手术时间150min（120～240min）,JOA评分由平均术前8．3分上升至术后13分。结论颈前路分节段减压植骨融合术治疗多节段颈椎病及带锁钢板内固定应用前景良好。     

前路两种不同术式治疗脊髓型颈椎病的疗效分析

目的探讨前路两种不同的减压植骨融合术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的疗效。方法回顾性分析2004年9月-2009年6月治疗的65例脊髓型颈椎病患者。37例采用颈椎前路减压+自体髂骨植骨+锁定钢板内固定术(A组),28例采用颈椎前路减压+钛网融合器+锁定钢板内固定术(B组),术后根据JOA评分及X线表现比较2种方法的疗效。结果 2组患者术后3个月、末次随访时JOA评分与术前比较,差异有显著性(P0.05)。平均椎间高度末次随访时,A组和B组比较差异无显著性(P0.05)。术后6个月植骨全部融合。结论脊髓型颈椎病治疗的关键在于充分减压及有效植骨融合,自体植骨或钛网融合器+锁定钢板固定牢固是治疗脊髓型颈椎病的较好方法 。     

颈椎前路减压术治疗脊髓型颈椎病

目的探讨脊髓型颈椎病的手术疗效。方法对诊断明确症状较重的12例脊髓型颈椎病患者采用前路减压、植骨融合、钛板内固定。结果所有病例随访6~18个月,术后3个月椎间植骨达骨性融合,症状消失或明显改善,除1例钢板松动术后第5天再次手术外,未见食道损伤、喉返神经损伤等并发症。结论颈椎前路手术治疗脊髓型颈椎病具有减压彻底、融合率高、内固定牢靠的优点,虽手术风险较大,但如操作细致,仍可避免一些并发症的发生。     

颈椎椎间融合器治疗颈椎病疗效分析

由于颈椎椎节活动度大，稳定性差，颈椎病行颈椎前路减压，椎间盘切除术后都面临着植骨及固定问题。传统的椎间自体髂骨块植骨以及颈椎前路钢板固定都存在许多并发症。近年来，国内外学者应用各种颈椎椎间融合器进行椎间融合固定，取得了一定疗效，自2002年6月到2003年12月，我们对22例颈椎病患者共44个椎间隙采用颈椎前路椎间盘切除加颈椎椎间融合器置入手术治疗，随访效果满意，报告如下。     

颈椎前路减压cage与zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定治疗单节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效比较

目的比较颈椎前路减压cage椎间植骨融合钛板内固定与zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定治疗单节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效及并发症情况。方法纳入自2013-06—2015-06诊治的110例单节段脊髓型颈椎病,采用颈椎前路减压cage椎间植骨融合钛板内固定治疗55例(cage组),采用颈椎前路减压zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定治疗55例(zero-p组)。比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间,术后12个月JOA评分、NDI指数、颈椎曲度、颈椎节段高度及植骨融合率,术后1周、3个月吞咽困难发生例数。结果所有患者均获得(22.78±3.10)个月随访。2组手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。2组术后12个月JOA评分、NDI指数、颈椎曲度、颈椎节段高度、植骨融合率差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。zero-p组术后1周、3个月吞咽困难发生例数少于cage组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论颈椎前路减压cage椎间植骨融合钛板内固定与zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定治疗单节段脊髓型颈椎病均可取得满意的临床疗效,但zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定术后吞咽困难发生的风险明显较低,其安全性更符合临床需要。     

前路减压Zero-P椎间融合器与C-JAWS颈椎压力固定器治疗脊髓型颈椎病的疗效分析

目的比较前路减压Zero-P椎间融合器(A组)和C-JAWS颈椎压力固定器(B组)治疗脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2011-08-2013-01采用颈前路髓核摘除植骨融合术的35例脊髓型颈椎病的临床资料。结果35例获得随访13~24个月,平均18个月。2组手术时间、术后并发症比较,差异有统计学意义(P0.05),术中出血量、影像学表现和术后3 d、术后1个月及末次随访时JOA和VAS评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论应用Zero-P椎间融合器和C-JAWS颈椎压力固定器植骨融合内固定治疗脊髓型颈椎病均可取得满意的疗效,失血量少、术野清晰、创伤小,Zero-P可减少术后吞咽困难的发生率,C-JAWS颈椎压力固定器手术时间更短、操作更简便,各具优势。     

自锁式椎间融合器在一期后前路联合手术治疗脊髓型颈椎病中的应用(2年随访)

[目的]分析一期颈椎后路单开门椎管成型、前路椎间减压、自锁式椎间融合器自体植骨椎间融合术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的疗效.[方法]2006年9月～ 2008年4月,采用一期颈椎后路单开门椎管成型、前路椎间减压、自锁式椎间融合器自体植骨椎间融合术连续治疗脊髓型颈椎病52例;前路椎间减压单节段23例、双节段29例.记录患者术前及术后的JOA评分,在颈椎侧位X线片上测量椎间隙高度、椎间前凸角、颈椎前凸角的变化.[结果] 52例共随访24～40个月(平均30个月).52例患者在术后2周内均感到神经症状明显好转;没有发生手术相关并发症.术后6个月随访时,所有患者主诉四肢感觉、肌力、活动均较前明显改善,颈椎X线检查可见椎间已融合,椎间高度及生理曲度完好,无融合器移位、下沉、断裂发生.平均JOA评分由术前(7.3±0.5)分,提高到术后6个月(14.1±0.7)分,术后12个月(14.7±0.6)分,术后24个月(14.9±1.2)分;术后6个月随访时的JOA评分改善率:优21例,良25例,可6例,术后12个月及术后24个月时的JOA评分改善率与术后6个月无明显改变.[结论]采用一期颈椎后路单开门椎管成型、前路椎间减压、自锁式椎间融合器自体植骨椎间融合术治疗脊髓型颈椎病能获得颈髓前后方的充分减压及满意的临床疗效,能获得满意的颈椎曲度、稳定性重建及椎间融合.     

ROI-C与钢板联合cage在单节段脊髓型颈椎病ACDF术中应用的效果比较

目的比较双嵌式椎间融合器(ROI-C)与钢板联合cage在单节段脊髓型颈椎病前路减压植骨融合内固定(ACDF)术中应用的临床效果。方法纳入自2013-03—2015-03诊治的39例单节段脊髓型颈椎病,21例采用ROI-C行ACDF术(ROI-C组),18例采用钢板联合cage行ACDF术(cage组)。比较2组手术时间、术中出血量,术后3 d、3个月、12个月手术间隙相邻椎间高度,末次随访时JOA评分,植骨融合及并发症情况。结果 39例均获得随访,ROI-C组随访时间为(13.3±1.9)个月,cage组随访时间为(14.9±1.7)个月。所有患者术后1年内植骨融合,均未发现融合器移位、变形。与cage组比较,ROI-C组手术时间更短,术中出血量更少,吞咽不适发生率明显更低,差异有统计学意义(P 0.05)。ROI-C组与cage组术后3 d、3个月、12个月手术间隙相邻椎间高度及末次随访时JOA评分比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ROI-C系统在单节段脊髓型颈椎病手术治疗中应用具有稳定性好、创伤小、术后吞咽不适发生率低的优点。     

Spinal fusion: A combined anterior and supplementary interspinous technique

Standard, noninstrumented, techniques of anterior interbody fusion are frequently followed by nonunion and collapse of the intervertebral space, probably because of persistent rocking movements, particularly in the sagittal plane. Elimination of these theoretical movements by supplementing an anterior interbody fusion with a posterior interspinous H-graft and a cerclage wire was considered to be biomechanically attractive without having the disadvantages associated with posterior instrumentation. In a prospective study a solid fusion was obtained at 16 of 17 operated levels, with a mediocre (± 50%) fusion as the exception. The height of the intervertebral space was increased at the majority of the fused levels. The technique is only applicable where neural arches are intact. The technique proved to be safe, simple, effective and inexpensive.     

A systematic review with meta-analysis of posterior interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in lumbar spondylolisthesis

Purpose

To compare the clinical effectiveness of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) for lumbar spondylolisthesis and to collect scientific evidence for determining which fusion method is better.

Methods

After systematic search, comparative studies were selected according to eligibility criteria. Checklists by Furlan and by Cowley were used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled studies, respectively. Weighed mean differences (WMDs) and risk differences were calculated for common outcomes. The final strength of evidence was expressed as different levels recommended by the GRADE Working Group.

Results

Four RCTs and five comparative observational studies were identified. Moderate-quality evidence indicated that PLIF was more effective than PLF for clinical satisfaction [odds ratios (OR) 0.49, 95 % confidence limits (95 % CI): (0.28, 0.88, P = 0.02)]. Moderate-quality evidence showed that no significant difference was found for the complication rate [OR 2.28, 95 % CI (0.97, 5.35), P = 0.06]. In secondary outcomes, moderate-quality evidence indicated that PLIF improved fusion rate [OR 0.32, 95 % CI (0.17, 0.61), P = 0.0006]. Low-quality evidence showed that PLIF resulted in a lower reoperation rate than PLF [OR 5.30, 95 % CI (1.47, 19.11), P = 0.01]. No statistical difference was found between the two groups with regard to blood loss [WMD = 76.52, 95 % CI (−310.68, 463.73), P = 0.70] and operating time [WMD = −1.20, 95 % CI (−40.36, 37.97), P = 0.95].

Conclusions

Moderate-quality evidence indicates that PLIF can improve the clinical satisfaction and increase the fusion rate compared to PLF. No superiority was found between the two fusion methods in terms of complication rate, amount of blood loss, and operating time for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.     

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results

The unilateral transforaminal approach for lumbar interbody fusion as an alternative to the anterior (ALIF) and traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) combined with pedicle screw instrumentation is gaining in popularity. At present, a prospective study using a standardized tool for outcome measurement after the transforaminal lumber interbody fusion (TLIF) with a follow-up of at least 3 years is not available in the current literature, although there have been reports on specific complications and cost efficiency. Therefore, a study of TLIF was undertaken. Fifty-two consecutive patients with a minimum follow-up of 3 years were included, with the mean follow-up being 46 months (36–64). The indications were 22 isthmic spondylolistheses and 30 degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine. Thirty-nine cases were one-level, 11 cases were two-level, and two cases were three-level fusions. The pain and disability status was prospectively evaluated by the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and a visual analog scale (VAS). The status of bony fusion was evaluated by an independent radiologist using anterior–posterior and lateral radiographs. The operation time averaged 173 min for one-level and 238 min for multiple-level fusions. Average blood loss was 485 ml for one-level and 560 ml for multiple-level fusions. There were four serious complications registered: a deep infection, a persistent radiculopathy, a symptomatic contralateral disc herniation and a pseudarthrosis with loosening of the implants. Overall, the pain relief in the VAS and the reduction of the ODI was significant (P<0.05) at follow-up. The fusion rate was 89%. At the latest follow-up, significant differences of the ODI were neither found between isthmic spondylolistheses and degenerative diseases, nor between one- and multiple-level fusions. In conclusion, the TLIF technique has comparable results to other interbody fusions, such as the PLIF and ALIF techniques. The potential advantages of the TLIF technique include avoidance of the anterior approach and reduction of the approach related posterior trauma to the spinal canal.     

The influence of intervertebral disc tissue on anterior spinal interbody fusion: an experimental study on pigs

Intervertebral disc has been shown to be related to low back pain and nerve root injury in pathologic conditions. However, little is known about its influence on spinal fusion. With the development of minimal invasive operations, such as laparoscopic anterior spinal fusion with cages, insufficient discectomy may occur. With its inflammatory properties, the residue nucleus pulposus may have an effect on spinal fusion. In this study, a two-level lumbar spine interbody fusion (L3/4, L5/6) with a Brantigan cage was performed on ten Danish Landrace pigs. Each level was randomly assigned to one of the following methods: (1) implantation of Brantigan cage filled with autogenous iliac crest bone graft, or (2) implantation of Brantigan cage filled with a mixture of autograft and the nucleus pulposus tissue harvested from the disc level in which it was to be inserted. Each level was stabilized with two staples. The pigs were followed for 12 weeks in the same standardized condition. After sacrifice, the lumbar spines were taken out, and plain X-ray, computed tomographic (CT) scanning and histomorphometry were performed to study the fusion mass inside the cages. From plain radiographs, new bone formation could be seen inside and around the cage. CT evaluation showed that the nucleus pulposus level had a 20% (2/10) fusion rate, while the pure autograft level had a 70% (7/10) fusion rate ( P=0.07). The histological fusion rate was even lower in the nucleus pulposus level (10%), and was significantly different from the autograft level (70%, P=0.02). Histomorphometric parameters of new bone formation, bone marrow space and fibrous tissue differed significantly between the two levels ( P=0.04; P=0.02; P=0.04 respectively). We conclude that when nucleus pulposus is mixed with the autogenous bone graft, it can delay or decrease the bone formation inside the cage, thus influencing the final fusion.     

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。     

PLF与PLIF治疗峡部裂性腰椎滑脱的疗效比较

目的对比研究后外侧融合(posterolateral fusion,PLF)与后路椎间融合(posterior lumbar interbody fusion,PLIF)治疗Ⅰ～Ⅱ度峡部裂性腰椎滑脱的疗效。方法76例采取植骨融合附加椎弓根内固定的手术方法,33例采用后外侧融合,其余采用椎间融合,比较两种植骨方式术后植骨融合率和临床症状改善情况。结果临床优良率分别为81．82％和88．37％,两者无显著性差异(P>0．05);骨融合率分别为75．76％和90．7％,两者有显著性差异(P<0．05)。结论后外侧融合与椎间融合治疗Ⅰ～Ⅱ度峡部裂性腰椎滑脱的疗效相似,无明显差别。