单侧切口微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术混合内固定治疗双节段腰椎退行性疾病北大核心CSCD

目的探讨采用单侧切口微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(minimally invasive transforaminal lumbarinterbody fusion,MIS-TLIF)以椎弓根螺钉结合对侧经椎板关节突螺钉混合内固定治疗双节段腰椎退行性疾病的可行性及临床疗效。方法 2010年1月-2012年1月,收治19例双节段腰椎退行性疾病患者。男7例,女12例;年龄22～68岁,平均50.4岁。病程8个月～15年,中位病程37个月。手术节段:L3～56例,L4～S113例。在单侧切口工作通道下完成MIS-TLIF手术,采用椎弓根螺钉结合对侧经椎板关节突螺钉双侧混合内固定。结果患者均顺利完成手术,平均手术时间158 min、术中出血量156 mL、切口长度42 mm、术后下地时间35 h、住院时间4.1 d、经椎板关节突螺钉长度51 mm。术后切口均Ⅰ期愈合;除1例术中硬膜撕裂外,未出现其他并发症。19例均获随访,随访时间12～24个月,平均17.1个月。术后各时间点腰痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、腿痛VAS评分及Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评分均较术前显著改善(P<0.05);且随时间延长症状逐渐缓解。术后X线片示内固定物位置良好,经椎板关节突螺钉均穿过棘突根部、椎板和关节突关节,其中2枚(5.3%)经椎板关节突螺钉穿透椎板外侧皮质,1枚(1.8%)椎弓根螺钉略偏出椎弓根外,但均无神经损伤症状。术后12个月CT平扫及三维重建显示椎体间骨性融合良好;根据Bridwell椎间融合评价标准评价,Ⅰ级11例,Ⅱ级8例。结论采用单侧切口MIS-TLIF混合内固定治疗双节段腰椎退行性疾病安全可行,具有手术时间短、创伤小、出血少及恢复快等优点。     

微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术治疗腰椎滑脱症的临床研究

目的 回顾性分析和比较微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术(MIS-TLIF)和开放经椎间孔腰椎间融合术(OTLIF)治疗腰椎滑脱症的临床结果.方法 自2006年6月至2010年5月,371例Ⅰ°或Ⅱ°腰椎滑脱症患者接受TLIF和腰椎弓根螺钉固定治疗并获得随访,男性134例,女性237例;年龄37～85岁,平均50.4岁.采用可扩张通道下单节段TLIF和经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗患者172例(MIS-TLIF组),传统开放TLIF和椎弓根螺钉内固定方法治疗患者199例(OTLIF组).分析两组手术时间、术中术后出血、放射线暴露时间和并发症等方面的差异.采用视觉模拟评分( VAS)和Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评分评估临床结果,行腰椎动力位X线片和薄层CT扫描重建检查评价椎间融合情况.结果 371例患者均获得随访,随访时间12～ 58个月,平均32.7个月.术前两组性别、年龄、滑脱类型和融合节段差异无统计学意义.术中出血MIS-TLIF组平均为(310±75)ml,OTLIF组(623±156)ml,MIS-TLIF组显著优于OTLIF组(t=2.836,P＜0.01).术后出血MIS-TLIF组平均为(38±13)ml,OTLIF组(184±72)ml,MIS-TLIF组显著优于OTLIF组(=3.274,P＜0.01).与OTLIF组放射暴露时间(20±10)s比较,MIS-TLIF组放射暴露时间(51±19)s更长(t=2.738,P＜0.01).两组在手术时间、腰痛VAS评分、ODI评分和并发症发生方面差异均无统计学意义.结论 针对Ⅱ°以下腰椎滑脱症,MIS-TLIF安全有效,相对而言,与开放固定比较具有出血少及组织损伤轻优点.     

微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术采用两种不同内固定方式的临床对照研究

目的:比较微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,MIS-TLIF)采用单侧椎弓根螺钉结合对侧经椎板关节突螺钉混合内固定和双侧椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗单节段腰椎退行性疾病的疗效.方法:2009年1月～2012年1月共收治82例单节段腰椎退行性疾病患者,均采用MIS-TLIF手术治疗,其中37例采用单侧切口完成双侧混合内固定(A组),45例采用双侧切口完成双侧椎弓根螺钉内固定(B组),均于术前1d、术后1d、术后3、6及12个月采用疼痛视觉模拟量表(visual analogue scale,VAS)进行疼痛评分,采用Oswestry腰椎功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)进行腰椎功能评分,观察并比较两组的手术时间、术中出血量、切口长度、术后下地时间、住院时间、并发症发生情况、疼痛情况和融合情况等临床结果.结果:两组患者在性别、年龄、病变节段、患病侧、随访时间和术前VAS及ODI评分均无统计学差异(P＞0.05).A组手术时间、术中出血量、切口长度、下地活动时间和住院日分别为110±24min、68±19ml、29±3mm、23±7h、2.9±1.0d;B组分别为155±35min、96±27ml、59±5mm、27±9h、3.4±1.2d,两组间比较A组均优于B组(P＜0.05).两组术后3、6及12个月随访腰痛及腿痛VAS评分和ODI评分与术前相比均有显著改善(P＜0.05).两组术后并发症发生情况、腿痛VAS、ODI评分及融合率无统计学差异(P＞0.05),但术后1d腰痛VAS评分A组(4.1±0.8)优于B组(4.8±1.0)(P＜0.05).结论:采用单侧椎弓根螺钉结合对侧经椎板关节突螺钉双侧混合内固定和双侧椎弓根螺钉内固定完成MIS-TLIF手术均能达到良好的疗效,但前者更加微创.     

微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术治疗腰椎管狭窄合并腰椎不稳症

目的 探讨微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术(MIS-TLIF)治疗腰椎管狭窄合并腰椎不稳的临床疗效.方法 对2010年3月至2011年1月42例微创通道下行单侧入路双侧减压加MIS-TLIF手术治疗的腰椎管狭窄合并腰椎不稳患者进行回顾性分析;其中男性18例,女性24例,年龄48～79岁,平均61.7岁.病变节段为L3～4 4例,L4～5 26例,L5～S1 12例;其中间歇性跛行伴单侧下肢症状24例,伴双侧下肢症状18例.记录手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、手术并发症的情况.患者术前、术后采用视觉模拟评分(VAS)分别对腰痛及下肢痛进行评分;采用Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评估腰椎功能情况及Bridwell方法评价腰椎融合情况;术后末次随访时采用MacNab标准评价疗效.结果 手术时间120～170 min,平均150.4 min;术中出血50～400 ml,平均147.1 ml,无输血病例;术后住院天数5～18d,平均8.8d;术中l例出现硬膜囊撕裂,l例骨质疏松患者行椎间融合时融合器打入上位椎体中,术后3例发生切口愈合不良.随访6 ～14个月,平均11个月.术前腰痛VAS评分为7.3±1.0,术后3个月及末次随访时分别为2.9±0.8和2.0±0.8,与术前比较有显著改善(t =25.319和29.334,P＜0.01);术前下肢痛VAS评分为7.9±0.7,术后3个月及末次随访时分别为2.0±0.5和1.0±0.7,与术前比较差异有显著改善(t=49.584和41.885,P＜0.01);OD1评分术前为75％±6％,术后3个月随访时为16％±6％,末次随访时为l2％±5％,与术前比较差异有统计学意义(t=43.675和56.323,P＜0.01).末次随访时,根据Bridwell椎间融合评价标准,Ⅰ级和Ⅱ级为40例(95.3％),无螺钉断裂及松动发生;采用MacNab标准评价临床效果,其中优16例,良22例,可4例.结论 MIS-TLIF手术是治疗单节段腰椎管狭窄合并腰椎不稳的一种理想手术方法,但要根据术者的临床经验、手术技巧和医院的具体条件谨慎开展.     

微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术治疗腰椎退变性疾病

目的探讨微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术(MIS-TLIF)治疗腰椎退变性疾病的可行性和早期疗效。方法采用MIS-TLIF治疗30例腰椎退变性疾病患者,其中Ⅰ~Ⅱ度退行性或峡部裂型腰椎滑脱症12例,退行性腰椎管狭窄伴节段性不稳8例,腰椎间盘突出症10例。均为单节段融合。结果手术时间127~209(168±41)min;术中出血量23~361(192±169)ml;术中X线照射时间72~136(104±32)s;术后首次下床活动时间1.4~3.8(2.6±1.2)d。疼痛VAS评分术前(7.20±1.02)分,末次随访(1.71±0.66)分,差异有统计学意义(P0.01)。末次随访椎间融合率为100%。未发生并发症。X线片显示cage无移位、松动、下沉,椎弓根钉无松动、折断。结论 MIS-TLIF对腰椎的解剖结构破坏小,对椎旁肌肉的剥离少,患者术后恢复快,是一种有效、安全、损伤较小的手术方法,可用于腰椎不稳、局限节段椎间盘病变、≤Ⅱ度以下腰椎滑脱的患者;但手术时间较长,医患X线暴露较多。     

微创经椎间孔椎间融合术联合单侧与双侧内固定技术治疗腰椎退变性疾病的疗效比较

【摘要】 目的：对比分析微创经椎间孔椎间融合术（MIS-TLIF）联合单侧内固定技术与联合双侧内固定技术在治疗单节段腰椎退行性疾病中的临床疗效。方法：回顾性分析2009年10月～2012年1月收治的因单节段腰椎退行性疾病行腰椎后路融合术并获得随访的65例患者。采用METRx-MD辅助下MIS-TLIF手术,其中31例患者采用MIS-TLIF联合单侧内固定技术（单侧组）,男性17例,女性14例,平均57.3岁;34例患者采用MIS-TLIF联合双侧经皮内固定技术（双侧组）,男性16例,女性18例,平均58.9岁。记录两组患者手术时间、出血量、术后住院天数及并发症情况。采用Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）评价腰椎功能情况,采用视觉模拟评分（VAS）分别对术前、术后腰痛及下肢痛进行评分。结果：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。单侧组手术时间80~145min,平均（101.4±27.2）min,术中出血30~100ml,平均（52.5±39.7）ml,术后住院3~7d,术后平均住院（4.4±1.5）d,1例患者硬膜囊撕裂,1例患者术后腰部切口脂肪液化,切口延迟愈合,术后随访期间腰痛和腿痛VAS评分与ODI评分与术前相比均明显改善。双侧组手术时间120~165min,平均（143.1±22.5）min,术中出血40~200ml,平均（106.3±53.8）ml,术后住院4~10d,术后平均住院（6.6±2.1）d,术后VAS、ODI评分较术前明显改善。两组间各时间点的VAS、ODI评分没有显著差异,但手术时间、出血量及住院时间单侧组优于双侧组。术后均未发现内固定松动、断裂等并发症,术后12个月均获得骨性融合。结论：MIS-TLIF联合单侧或双侧内固定技术在治疗单节段腰椎退变性疾病方面,具有相似的治疗效果,单侧内固定具有手术时间短、出血量少及住院时间短的优势。     

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.     

微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗老年腰椎退变性疾病

【摘要】 目的：探讨Pipeline可扩张通道辅助下行后路经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术（minimally invasive transforam?鄄inal lumbar interbody fusion,MI-TLIF）治疗老年腰椎退变性疾病的临床疗效。方法：2010年2月～2012年6月,共有46例老年腰椎退变性疾病患者在我院接受腰椎后路经椎间孔减压椎间植骨融合内固定术。其中24例采用Pipeline可扩张通道辅助下行MI-TLIF,男15例,女9例;年龄60～79岁,平均66.3岁;病程6～60个月,平均18.5个月,设为观察组;22例采用传统开放TLIF（conventional open TLIF,CO-TLIF）,男10例,女12例;年龄62～75岁,平均67.0岁;病程6～84个月,平均22.6个月,设为对照组。记录并比较两组患者的手术出血量、手术时间、输血量及术后并发症情况。术后1周、3个月及末次随访时采用视觉模拟评分（VAS）、术后3个月和末次随访时采用Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）评估两组临床疗效,末次随访时采用Suk标准对椎间融合情况进行评定。结果：两组患者手术出血量、输血量及并发症发生率有统计学意义（P＜0.05）,手术时间无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。随访13～26个月,平均18个月,两组患者术后各时间点的VAS及ODI与术前比较均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;两组术后1周和3个月的VAS评分及术后3个月的ODI比较有统计意义（P＜0.05）,末次随访时两组VAS评分及ODI无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。末次随访时观察组植骨融合率为87.5%（21/23例）,对照组为82.8%（18/22）,两组比较无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论：MI-TLIF治疗老年腰椎退变性疾病能获得与传统开放TLIF手术相似的早期临床疗效,而出血量和并发症更少。     

微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术治疗高位腰椎间盘突出症

目的评价微创经椎间孔入路腰椎间融合术（MIS-TLIF）治疗高位腰椎间盘突出症的中短期临床疗效。方法对自2009-01—2012—12收治的高位腰椎间盘突出症22例行MIS—TLIF术,根据患者症状、体征及影像学资料,切除单侧减压、对侧潜行减压或两侧开窗减压,并行自体及同种异体骨椎间植骨、椎间融合器融合、经皮椎弓根钉内固定。结果所有患者获平均（12±3）个月的随访,出现椎间植骨不融合1例,椎间植骨融合时间为（7．2±1．3）个月。术后下肢放射痛VAS评分及腰背痛ODI评分与术前比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。改良MacNab标准评价优良率为86．4％。结论MIS-TLIF治疗高位腰椎间盘突出症是安全、有效的方法。     

微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术的应用解剖学研究

目的:探讨微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合(TLIF)术的解剖要点及手术方法.方法:在40套正常腰椎MRI片上测量与TUF手术人路相关的解剖学参数,包括:手术切口旁开中线距离(m)、手术路径长度(n)、手术通道倾斜角(α).根据测量结果在5具人尸体标本上模拟微创通道下TLIF,切除上下关节突后显露硬膜囊及上位出口神经根,用卡尺测量硬膜囊边缘以外的椎间盘宽度(a)及神经根下缘到人字缝顶点的距离(b).结果:手术切口距中线距离为3.78±1.38cm,手术通道内倾斜角平均15.8°±3.3°,不同腰椎节段无统计学差异(P＞0.05).手术路径长度为5.89±2.14cm(4.98～7.62cm).在多裂肌和最长肌之间存在疏松软组织肌肉间隙,通过该间隙可以比较容易地将微创通道放置到小关节突附近.在微创通道下切除小关节突进入椎间孔获得的"矩形区域"可显露椎间盘的有效宽度分别为:L3/4 11.3±3.1mm,L4/5 13.1±2.6mm,L5/S1 14.1±3.8mm:各腰椎上位出口神经根下缘与同节段腰椎人字缝的距离分别为:L3/4 17.7±3.5mm,L4/5 16.7±3.8mm,L5/S1 15.6±4.0mm.结论:在椎膀肌存在一个天然的组织间隙,可以很容易将工作管道放置到小关节附近,在上下小关节下方有一个安全的椎间盘"矩形区域",在该区域内切除椎间盘和置人融合器时不需牵拉硬膜囊和神经根.     

Delta椎板间内镜技术与开放经椎间孔入路椎间融合术治疗单节段腰椎失稳的对比研究

目的 对比Delta椎板间内镜技术(iLESSYS Delta)与开放经椎间孔入路腰椎椎体间融合术(transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF)治疗单节段腰椎失稳的临床效果.方法 选取本院2018年3月至2021年3月需行手术治疗的单节段腰椎不稳病人80例,采取简单数字表随机...     

Clinical and Radiographic Comparison of Oblique Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients with L4/5 grade-1 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

Objectives

To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with grade-1 L4/5 degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Methods

Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the comparative analysis included consecutive patients with grade-1 degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent oblique LIF (OLIF, n = 36) or minimally invasive transforaminal LIF (MI-TLIF, n = 45) at the Department of Spine Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital from January 2016 to August 2017. Patient satisfaction Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), radiographic outcomes including anterior/posterior disc heights (ADH/PDH), foraminal height (FH), foraminal width (FW), cage subsidence, cage retropulsion, and fusion rate were assessed during a 2-year follow-up. Continuous data are presented as mean ± standard deviation and were compared between groups using the independent sample t-test. Categorical data are presented as n (%) and were compared between groups using the Pearson chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test. Repetitive measurement and analysis of variance was employed in the analysis of ODI, back pain VAS score, and leg pain VAS score. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

Results

The OLIF and MI-TLIF groups comprised 36 patients (age, 52.1 ± 7.2 years; 27 women) and 45 patients (age, 48.4 ± 14.4 years; 24 women), respectively. Satisfaction rates at 2 years post procedure exceeded 90% in both groups. The OLIF group had less intraoperative blood loss (140 ± 36 vs 233 ± 62 mL), lower back pain VAS score (2.42 ± 0.81 vs 3.38 ± 0.47), and ODI score (20.47 ± 2.53 vs 27.31 ± 3.71) at 3 months follow-up (with trends toward lower values at 2 years follow-up), but higher leg pain VAS scores at all postoperative time points than the MI-TLIF group (all p < 0.001). ADH, PDH, FD, and FW improved in both groups post-surgery. At the 2 year follow-up, the OLIF group had a higher rate of Bridwell grade-I fusion (100% vs 88.9%, p = 0.046) and lower incidences of cage subsidence (8.33% vs 46.67%, p < 0.001) and retropulsion (0% vs 6.67%, p = 0.046) than the MI-TLIF group.

Conclusions

In patients with grade-I spondylolisthesis, OLIF was associated with lower blood loss and greater improvements in VAS for back pain and ODI and radiologic outcomes than MI-TLIF. The OLIF is more suitable for these patients with low back pain as the main symptoms are accompanied by mild or no leg symptoms before operation.     

Computed Tomography Evaluation of Percutaneous Pedicle Screws Inserted during Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Long-term Follow-up Results of Screw Violation

BackgroundTo evaluate the accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) insertion in degenerative lumbar disease treated with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) and to analyze risk factors and long-term clinical outcomes of screw violation.MethodsSixty-two consecutive patients (262 screws) were included. Based on postoperative computed tomography (CT) axial images, a PPS that perforated out of the pedicle was classified into a violation group, while screws surrounded by pedicular cortical bone were classified into a correct group. A logistic regression model was used for risk factor analysis of violation. We also observed the long-term clinical outcomes using the Oswestry disability index and visual analog scale.ResultsOf the 262 screws, 14 (5.3%) were considered to be violated (10 medial violations and 4 lateral violations). All violations of S1 and L5 were in the medial direction. In contrast, entire violations of L4 were always lateral and of the 2 violations of L3, one was lateral and the other was medial. There were no cases of superior or inferior violation. The mean pedicle convergence angle (CA) was significantly higher in the violation group (mean ± standard deviation, 27.0° ± 6.2°) than in the correct group (21.7° ± 5.4°). There were no significant differences according to vertebral rotational angle, body mass index, bone mineral density, and surgical timing (learning curve) between the two groups. Logistic regression analyses demonstrated that a high CA was a significant risk factor for pedicle wall violation (p = 0.002). There were no significant differences in clinical or radiographic results between the two groups in 60 patients who were followed up for more than 1 year and in 40 patients who were followed up for more than 5 years. There were 2 patients who required reoperation to replace a screw due to leg pain.ConclusionsWith PPS insertion during MI-TLIF, the rate of pedicle violation was 5.3% (14/262). An understanding of the anatomical characteristics of each vertebra and the unique structures of the patient is essential to prevent pedicle violations. Even in the violation group, PPS fixation was found to be a safe and useful procedure with successful long-term radiographic and clinical outcomes.     

经椎间孔入路腰椎体间融合术治疗腰椎不稳症

目的探讨经腰椎间孔入路行腰椎椎体间植骨融合术治疗腰椎不稳症的手术适应证、技术要点及应用价值。方法自2002年2月~2005年3月,对腰椎不稳56例行腰椎后正中入路,经单侧腰椎间孔行椎体间植骨融合,腰椎后方上下椎板间、棘突间、关节突间植骨,以及相应节段椎弓根钉内固定术。结果56例手术切口均一期愈合,无神经损伤、椎间隙感染和脑脊液漏等并发症。52例经6~37个月随访,平均16个月,未发生内置物断裂、松动移位和椎间隙高度丧失,骨融合率为90·38%。依据日本JOA疗效评定标准,优29例,良16例,可3例,差4例,总优良率为86·5%。结论经腰椎间孔入路椎间植骨融合术(TLIF)治疗腰椎不稳症,不但技术操作可行,而且能明显降低因侵入椎管而带来的各种可能发生的并发症,是治疗退变性腰椎不稳症的有效手术方式。     

Robot‐Assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy between robot‐assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF) and traditional open TLIF surgery in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.MethodsAccording to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 48 cases with lumbar spondylolisthesis who received surgical treatment from June 2016 to December 2017 in the spinal surgery department of Beijing Jishuitan Hospital were analyzed in this study, including 23 patients who received robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF and 25 patients who received traditional open TLIF surgery. The two groups were compared in terms of pedicle screw accuracy evaluated by Gertzbein‐Robbins classification on postoperative computed tomography (CT), operation time, blood loss, postoperative drainage, hospitalization, time to independent ambulation, low back pain evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS), lumbar function evaluated by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), paraspinal muscles atrophy on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and complications.ResultsPostoperative CT showed that the rate of Grade A screws in the robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF group was significantly more than that in the open surgery group (χ ² = 4.698, P = 0.025). Compared with the open surgery group, the robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF group had significantly less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative drainage, shorter hospitalization, shorter time to independent ambulation, and lower VAS at 3 days post‐operation (P < 0.05). However, the duration of surgery was longer. The VAS of the robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF group decreased from 6.9 ± 1.8 at pre‐operation to 2.1 ± 0.8 at post‐operation, 1.8 ± 0.7 at 6‐month follow‐up and 1.6 ± 0.5 at 2‐year follow‐up. The VAS of the open surgery group decreased from 6.5 ± 1.7 at pre‐operation to 3.7 ± 2.1 at post‐operation, 2.1 ± 0.6 at 6‐month follow‐up and 1.9 ± 0.5 at 2‐year follow‐up. The ODI of the robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF group decreased from 57.8% ± 8.9% at pre‐operation to 18.6% ± 4.7% at post‐operation, 15.7% ± 3.9% at 6‐month follow‐up and 14.6% ± 3.7% at 2‐year follow‐up. The ODI of the open surgery group decreased from 56.9% ± 8.8% at pre‐operation to 20.8% ± 5.1% at post‐operation, 17.3% ± 4.2% at 6‐month follow‐up and 16.5% ± 3.8% at 2‐year follow‐up. Paraspinal muscle cross‐sectional area in 2‐year follow‐up in patients of the open surgery group decreased significantly compared to patients of robotic‐assisted MIS‐TLIF group (P = 0.016).ConclusionIn the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis, robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF may lead to more precise pedicle screw placement, less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative drainage, less postoperative pain, quicker recovery, and less paraspinal muscle atrophy than traditional open surgery.     

单侧经椎间孔椎体间融合术治疗腰椎退变性疾病

目的探讨单侧经椎间孔椎体间融合术治疗腰椎退变性疾病的临床效果。方法 2003年1月至2005年12月,应用经椎间孔椎体间融合术治疗36例腰椎退变性疾病。男22例,女14例;年龄43～66岁,平均55岁。术前诊断：腰椎间盘突出症合并椎管狭窄12例,腰椎间盘切除术后复发4例,腰椎退变性滑脱症8例,腰椎管狭窄症12例。单融合节段：L3～43例,L4～515例,L5S18例;双融合节段：L3～4和L4～54例,L4～5和L5S16例。内植物：椎弓根钉＋钛网26例,椎弓根钉＋椎间融合器10例。临床疗效应用日本骨科学会下腰痛评分系统（JOA评分）对手术前和末次随访时进行评价。根据JOA评分计算改善率。结果 36例患者均获得随访,随访时间1年8个月至4年9个月,平均3年5个月。术前JOA评分为（6.2±1.3）分,术后JOA评分为（12.6±2.2）分。手术前后JOA评分比较有显著性差异（P〈0.05）,术后平均改善率为72.7%,临床疗效满意。随访时正侧位X线片显示：40个椎间植骨融合;6个椎间植骨可能融合。并发症1例术中神经根牵拉伤未完全恢复,且术后2年出现伤口深部感染,X线片显示椎体间融合,经清创、取出椎弓根内固定、置管冲洗后治愈。结论单侧经椎间孔椎体间融合术治疗退变性腰椎疾病的临床疗效满意,创伤小,融合率高。