经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术的微创技术改良

【】 目的: 探讨采用一个切口单侧减压加对侧肌间隙入路的微创经椎间孔椎体间融合术(Mis-TLIF)治疗下腰椎疾患的临床疗效 方法: 自2010年5月至2015年3月,89例下腰椎退变疾病患者接受TLIF手术,53 例采用单侧减压加对侧肌间隙入路方法(Mis-TILF),其中男24 例,女 29 例,年龄41～77 岁,平均 56.3±10.1 岁;36例采用传统开放手术方法(Con-TLIF),其中男16 例,女20 例,年龄39～69 岁,平均55.7±11.3 岁。分析比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、术中术后并发症、术前和术后1天肌酸激酶值、术前和末次随访时疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale, VAS)及Oswestry 功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index, ODI),采用 X线及 CT 三维重建比较两组末次随访时椎间植骨融合率。结果：89例患者均顺利完成手术并获得随访,随访时间4~45个月,平均15.7个月。Mis-TLIF组平均手术时间和术中出血量分别为131.5±21.0 min、330.6±57.6 ml;Con-TLIF组为150.3±30.3 min、450.1±116.4 ml,Mis-TLIF组显著优于Con-TLIF组(P＜0.05)。 并发症方面, Mis-TLIF组术中硬膜破裂2例,术后切口感染1例,并发症发生率0.06%(3/53),切口感染率0.02% (1/53);Con-TLIF组术中硬膜破裂1例,神经根损伤1例,术后切口感染4例,融合器移位1例,内固定螺丝松动1例,术后并发症发生率22.2%(8/36),感染率11.1%(4/36),Mis-TLIF组显著优于Con-TLIF组(P＜0.05)。但两组在术前和术后1天CPK值、术前和末次随访VAS评分及ODI评分方面差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05)。末次随访时行X线及CT 三维重建判定椎间融合率,Mis-TLIF 组椎间融合率100%(53/53),Con- TLIF 组椎间融合率为97.2%(35/36),两组间无统计学差异(P＞0.05)。 结论：应用单侧减压加对侧肌间隙入路的改良TLIF手术治疗腰椎退变性疾病,具有微创、出血少、手术时间短、并发症低、医患辐射少、无需特殊器械等优点,是一种安全有效的微创术式。     

改良经椎间孔椎体融合术治疗腰椎疾患19例

目的探讨经肌间隙入路的微创椎体融合术治疗腰椎疾患的临床疗效。方法对10例腰椎滑脱、5例腰椎间盘突出伴腰椎不稳、4例腰椎间盘突出复发患者行经肌间隙入路的微创TLIF手术（包括椎弓根螺钉复位固定、椎管减压、椎间植骨融合术治疗）,并随访6个月以上观察疗效。结果19例手术均获成功。无神经根损害等并发症发生,切口均一期愈合,2例失访,17例获12个月以上的随访,均骨性融合。术后3个月、6个月及术后12个月腰腿痛VAS及ODI评分与术前比较均有显著差异（P〈0.01）。根据Nakai分级,优11例（64.7%）,良5例（29.4%）,可1例（5.9%）。结论改良微创椎体融合术具有切口小、出血少、骶棘肌剥离范围小、术后恢复快、手术设备较简单等优点。     

微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术在腰椎间盘突出症患者中的应用效果

目的研究微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(MIS-TLIF)治疗腰椎间盘突出症的效果。方法选取2013年2月至2016年11月于灵宝市第二人民医院就诊的78例腰椎间盘突出症患者,按随机数表法分为PLIF组[39例,后路腰椎椎间融合术(PLIF)]、MIS-TLIF组(39例,MIS-TLIF)。比较两组手术前后疼痛程度、腰椎功能及并发症发生情况。结果术后2周、术后3个月、术后1 a,MIS-TLIF组VAS、ODI评分低于PLIF组(P<0.05)。PLIF组和MIS-TLIF组术后并发症发生率分别为20.51%(8/39)、5.13%(2/39),MIS-TLIF组术后并发症发生率低于PLIF组(P<0.05)。结论采用MIS-TLIF治疗腰椎间盘突出症,可有效减轻患者术后疼痛,促进腰椎功能改善,减少术后并发症。     

椎旁肌间隙入路微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术治疗腰椎滑脱的临床效果

目的探讨椎旁肌间隙入路微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术治疗腰椎滑脱的临床效果。方法回顾性分析2016年4月至2019年4月在驻马店盘龙山医院接受微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术治疗的80例腰椎滑脱患者的临床资料,根据其入路方式分为观察组(椎旁肌间隙入路,41例)和对照组(传统后正中入路,39例)。对比分析两组腰椎Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)、手术相关指标及并发症发生情况。结果术后,观察组ODI指数低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组术中出血量及术后引流量少于对照组,手术时间短于对照组,差异有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。观察组并发症发生率为2.44%(1/41),低于对照组的25.81%(8/31),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论经椎旁肌间隙入路方式进行微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术治疗腰椎滑脱,可有效改善患者腰椎功能,减少手术创伤及并发症的发生。     

微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术治疗腰椎疾病的临床研究

目的：探讨微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术治疗腰椎疾病临床效果。方法给予研究组微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术,给予对照组传统开放经椎间孔椎体融合术。记录两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、并发症发生情况及随访情况等,并进行统计学分析。结果研究组手术时间显著多于对照组,但研究组术中出血量、术后住院时间均显著少于对照组;研究组并发症发生率仅为20.00％,显著低于对照组并发症发生率45.00％;随访6个月两组视觉模拟评分（ VAS）较治疗前显著减少,而日本骨科协会评估治疗分数（ JOA）则较治疗前显著增加,与治疗前对比结果具有统计学意义（ P＜0.05）,但两组对比P＞0.05,提示组间比较无统计学意义。结论对腰椎疾病患者给予微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术治疗后可获得满意疗效及预后,利于患者尽快恢复健康,提高生活质量。     

腰椎后路椎间融合术后融合器脱出危险因素的研究进展

随着融合器（Cage）在腰椎后路融合术中得到广泛应用,临床上因Cage脱出而导致的严重并发症越来越多。Cage脱出的危险因素有患者、Cage、手术技术、其他等因素,本文针对Cage脱出危险因素的相关研究进展进行综述。     

微创腰椎椎间融合术

腰椎椎体间融合作为治疗需要稳定的腰椎疾病的方法,已经被广泛用于腰椎体创伤、椎间盘退变及腰椎滑脱等.传统的腰椎椎体间融合手术需要广泛剥离肌肉及长时间的牵引,易致软组织损伤.椎旁肌肉的病理改变是腰椎手术后腰部力量减弱及慢性腰痛发生的原因[1].微创下的腰椎椎间融合手术可避免椎旁软组织的损伤,术中出血少,可减少术后疼痛,缩短住院时间,患者易接受.目前微创腰椎椎间融合术无论从观念还是技术上均有了很大的发展.     

直视下微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术的并发症分析

目的总结直视下微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术（MIS-TLIF）的并发症并探讨其发生原因和相关对策。方法对我院2008年1月-2011年7月间行MIS-TLIF术的连续105例下腰椎退变性疾病患者进行回顾分析,记录患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后下地时间、各种并发症情况,并进行影像学和术后疗效评价。结果随访12-30个月,平均16个月。7人次（6.67%）出现并发症：硬膜囊破裂3例（2.86%）,为减压和髓核摘除时造成的撕裂;神经损伤1例（0.95%）,为术中牵拉性损伤;切口感染1例（0.95%）,为浅部感染;椎间融合器下沉2例（1.90%）,因骨质疏松造成。结论微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术并发症的发生主要与微创手术的特点、学习曲线和适应证的选择有关。     

微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术研究进展

腰椎退变性疾病(腰椎滑脱、退变性腰椎失稳、椎间盘源性疾病等)常须行腰椎椎间融合术,近年来经椎间孔入路的腰椎间融合术(TLIF)得到了充分的发展,与传统的后路腰椎间融合手术相比,TLIF对神经根及硬模囊的干扰较少,从而减少了相关并发症的发生。随着微创脊柱外科的进步,微创TLIF也越来越广泛地应用于临床。该文对微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术的适应证与禁忌证、手术方式、优势与不足、问题与展望等方面的研究现状予以综述。     

MIS TLIF与Open TLIF治疗单节段腰椎滑脱疾病疗效的Meta分析

目的:对微创经椎间孔椎体间融合(MIS TLIF)与开放经椎间孔椎体间融合(Open TLIF)技术治疗单节段腰椎滑脱疾病进行Meta分析,以判断2种手术方法的术后效果及临床价值?方法:通过对PubMed?Embase?Cochrane library?中国期刊全文数据库?中国生物医学数据库?中文科技期刊全文数据库等进行系统检索;检索发表于2014年3月以前,以单节段腰椎滑脱疾病为研究对象,采用RevMan5.2对微创与开放经椎间孔椎间融合手术临床疗效的研究并进行系统分析?分析指标包括:手术持续时间?术中出血量?术中及术后早期并发症?末次随访时融合率?结果:通过初次筛选?二次筛选及再次筛选,本系统分析共纳入8项研究,其中随机对照研究2项,队列研究6项?所纳入的研究患者共866例,其中微创手术组417例,开放手术组449例?与开放经椎间孔椎间融合手术相比,微创手术持续时间?术中及术后早期并发症?末次随访时融合率以及术前的VAS?ODI评分的差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05),但是术中出血量?住院天数及末次随访时视觉模拟评分(VAS)?Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评分的差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.05)?结论:与Open TLIF相比,MIS TLIF并不会增加手术时间?术中及术后的早期并发症,也不会影响远期的融合率;此外,MIS TLIF在减少患者术中出血量和住院时间的同时可早期缓解术后疼痛与功能恢复,表明MIS TLIF是治疗单节段腰椎滑脱疾病比较理想的手术方式?     

峡部裂腰椎滑移单纯前路与后路植骨融合术的比较

目的比较峡部裂腰椎滑移单纯前路与后路植骨融合术的疗效,评估单纯前路植骨融合术的临床应用价值.方法对36例行单纯后路植骨融合术与29例单纯前路植骨融合术的峡部裂腰椎滑移患者进行随访,比较两组植骨融合时间、融合率和并发症发生率,并采用Zdeblick疗效评价标准确定临床满意率.结果两组间融合时间、融合率和并发症发生率的差别无显著性意义(均P＞0.05),但前路组临床满意率高于后路组(P＜0.05).结论前路椎间植骨融合术治疗峡部裂腰椎滑移的临床疗效优于后路植骨融合术.     

Comparing minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a meta-analysis

Background Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion （TLIF） through a minimally invasive approach （mTLIF） was introduced to reduce soft tissue injury and speed recovery. Studies with small numbers of patients have been carried out, comparing mTLIF with traditional open TLIF （oTLIF）, but inconsistent outcomes were reported.     

TLIF与PLIF治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症的对比研究

目的探讨和对比经腰椎间孔人路腰椎椎间植骨融合术（TLIF）与后路腰椎椎体间植骨融合术（PLIF）治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床效果。方法选取黑龙江省大庆市龙南医院骨科80例腰椎间盘突出症复发的患者,将其分为TLIF组和PLIF组,每组各40例。TLIF组给予TLIF术治疗,PLIF组给予PLIF术治疗。观察和比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、卧床时间、椎体间融合率、融合时间、VAS和ODI评分、临床疗效及并发症等情况。结果TLIF组手术时间与术巾出血量均少于PLIF组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。两组治疗后VAS、ODI评分与治疗前比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）;治疗后TLIF组VAS、ODI评分与改善率与PLIF组比较,差异均有统计学意义（均P〈0．05）。TLIF组总有效率为90．0％,PLIF组总有效率为87．5％,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论TLIF治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症与PLIF相比更有效、更安全,值得临床推广应用。     

腰椎后外侧融合术和腰椎后路椎体间融合术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的比较研究

目的比较腰椎后外侧融合术和腰椎后路椎体间融合术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床效果。方法选择河北大学附属医院2009年9月～2011年8月收治的腰椎间盘突出症患者106例作为研究对象,按照不同手术方案分为两组,采用腰椎后外侧融合术治疗的52例作为A组,采用腰椎后路椎体间融合术治疗的54例作为B组．比较两种手术方案的治疗情况。结果A组的总有效率为84．6％,明显低于B组的98．1％,组间差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）：两组平均手术时间、术中出血量以及平均住院时间比较,差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）;B组的椎间高度、节段角度恢复情况均明显优于A组,组间差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．05）;A组的并发症发生率为3．8％,B组为3．7％,组间差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论腰椎后路椎体间融合术治疗腰椎间盘突出症能够获得更佳的临床效果且安全性可靠,能更有效地改善椎体间融合情况,有利于患者的康复。     

Clinical outcomes and complications of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of one- or two-level degenerative disc disease of lumbar spine for patients older than 65 years of age

Abstract Objectives: To investigate the clinical outcomes of MIS-TLIF in the treatment of degenerative disc disease of lumbar spine of the patients older than 65 years, with an emphasis on perioperative complications compared to the younger patients. Methods: 151 consecutive cases of one- or two-level degenerative disc disease of lumbar spine treated with MIS-TLIF were reviewed for the radiological and clinical outcomes. They were divided to elderly group (age≥65 y.o.) and younger group (age < 65 y.o.), and were followed for at least 6 months. Radiographs were obtained before and after surgery, 3 months postoperatively, and at the final follow-up to determine the presence of fusion, hardware-related problems. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) before and after surgery, and at the final follow-up. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score of neck and radicular pain were evaluated as well. The intra-operative data and peri-operative complications were recorded. Results: The mean age of these patients at operation was 57.7±14.2 years (range 26-82 years). Of 151 patients, 62 were 65 years or older. The elderly patients had more comorbidities and more porportion of lumbar canal stenosis. The overall fusion rate was 88.4% at the final follow-up, with no significant difference between younger and elderly patients. The ODI, the VAS of back pain and radicular pain of both young and elderly group were significantly improved after surgery and at the final follow-up, without significant difference between two groups. There were 16 complications with an incidence of 10.6%, including 7 major complications and 9 minor complications. There was no significant difference of the incidence of complications between two groups. The incidence of dura tear was significantly related to bilateral deompression. CONCLUSION: The clinical and radiological outcomes of MIS-TLIF in the treatment of one- or two-level degenerative disc diseases of lumbar spine in the elderly patients were satisfactory. Though there are more pre-operative comorbidities, with proper patient selection, the elderly patients are not at increased risk of perioperative complications compared to younger patients. Screw malposition and dura tear, which are the most frequent complication, were more related to the surgical technique and should be avoided.     

腰椎后外侧融合术与腰椎后路椎体间融合术治疗腰椎椎间盘突出症的疗效观察

目的 观察腰椎后外侧融合术（PLF）与腰椎后路椎体间融合术（PLIF）治疗腰椎椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法 按照手术方式将105例腰椎间盘突出症患者进行分组,PLF组52例行PLF术治疗,PLIF组53例行PLIF术治疗,对比术后手术效果。结果 两组在手术时间、术中出血量和住院时间方面比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;PLIF组术后总有效率94.34%高于PLF组80.77%,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;两组均能够提高椎间高度和增加节段角度,但PLIF组提高椎间高度和增加节段角度幅度明显高于PLF组,差异有高度统计学意义（P〈0.01）;PLIF组手术并发症发生率7.55%与PLF组15.38%比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论 PLIF术治疗椎间盘突出较大或节段不稳的腰椎间盘突出症患者效果确切,能够快速恢复腰椎前柱支撑功能和重建腰椎生理曲度,符合腰椎生物力学原理,在促进患者腰椎功能早期恢复和提高生存质量方面具有重要意义。     

后路腰椎融合术在成人腰椎滑脱中的临床研究

目的:比较腰椎后路椎间植骨和后外侧植骨两种植骨方式在成人腰椎滑脱中的骨融合率和临床疗效.方珐:对100例腰椎滑脱患者根据病情分别采取后路腰椎椎间植骨内固定(56例)和后外侧植骨融合内固定(44例)两种植骨方式.对比分析两组患者的临床资料,比较两种植骨方式的骨融合率、临床疗效、手术时间及出血量.结果:后路椎间植骨的手术时...     

微创经椎间孔椎体间融合术与开放手术治疗腰椎滑脱症临床疗效观察

目的探讨微创经椎间孔椎体间融合术与开放手术治疗腰椎滑脱症的临床疗效。方法选取本院2008年1月至2011年6月收治的腰椎滑脱症患者86例,随机分为两组,采用传统开放手术治疗的患者43例为对照组,采用微创经椎间孔椎体间融合术治疗的患者43例为观察组。从术中出血量、术后引流量、手术时间、住院时间、术中术后异体血回输量、腰痛视觉模拟疼痛评分、日本矫形外科协会下腰痛评分、术后并发症、术后疗效等方面进行比较。结果观察组术中出血量、术后引流量、术中术后异体血回输量、住院时间均明显少于对照组,而观察组手术时间明显多于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗后观察组和对照组腰痛视觉模拟疼痛评分均明显下降,治疗后观察组和对照组日本矫形外科协会下腰痛评分均明显上升,治疗后观察组腰痛视觉模拟疼痛评分明显低于对照组,而治疗后观察组日本矫形外科协会下腰痛评分明显高于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组并发症发生率低于对照组,观察组总有效率和融合率均高于对照组,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论采用微创经椎间孔椎体间融合术治疗腰椎滑脱症是安全有效的,具有手术操作简便、创伤反应小、术中出血量少、术后并发症少、术后疼痛轻、恢复快、住院时间短等优点,值得临床推广使用。     

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion aided with computer-assisted spinal navigation system combined with electromyography monitoring

Background  Minimally invasive techniques are gaining wide-spread application in lumbar fusion surgery, because they may have advantage over conventional open surgery in approach-related morbidity. This research was aimed to evaluate the safety and accuracy of the techniques of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by using a computer-assisted spinal navigation system combined with electromyography monitoring.

Methods  Sixteen patients underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. A computer-assisted spinal navigation system and electromyography were used for guiding pedicle screw placement. The operative duration, blood loss, complications, and fluoroscopic time were recorded. Clinical outcome was assessed by Visual Analog Scale and Oswestry Disability Index. Radiographic images were obtained to evaluate the accuracy of pedicle screw placement and fusion rates.

Results  The Visual Analog Scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores were vastly improved postoperatively. A total of 64 pedicle screws were implanted and three were regarded as misplacement by post-operative CT scan. Three screw trajectories were adjusted according to intra-operative stimulus-evoked electromyography monitoring. The average fluoroscopy time in each patient was 31.8 seconds, which equals to 7.9 seconds per pedicle screw. No patients had instrument related neurological complications, infection, implant failure or revision. Successful fusion was found in all patients.

Conclusions  The combination of navigation system and real-time electromyography monitoring can make the minimally invasive operation more safe and accurate while decreasing radiation exposure time of the medical staff and patient and minimizing the chance and the degree of the pedicle screw misplacement.