椎弓根螺钉复位固定加不同融合方式治疗腰椎滑脱症疗效比较

目的对比分析椎弓根螺钉复位固定后后外侧融合（PLF）与后路椎间融合（PLIF）治疗腰椎滑脱症的临床疗效,评价两种融合方式的优劣。方法54例腰椎滑脱症患者中复位固定后行PLF（PLF组）26例,复位固定后行PLIF（PLIF组）28例。比较两组的临床疗效（ODI评分）、X线检查结果（包括滑脱矫正、滑脱节段椎间隙高度改变、滑脱节段前突角改变及植骨融合情况）及并发症。结果患者均获随访,时间2—6（3．5±0．4）年。术后即刻X线检查结果两组差异无显著性（P〉0,05）;术后2年随访时,两组间临床疗效、植骨融合率、滑脱节段前突角改变情况及并发症发生率差异均无显著性（P〉0．05）,但在滑脱矫正及滑脱节段椎间隙高度的维持上PLIF组优于PLF组（P〈0．05）,且内固定失败率亦低于PLF组。结论椎弓根螺钉复位固定后PLF或PLIF均为治疗腰椎滑脱症的有效方法,但PLIF在对腰椎滑脱矫正的维持及结构的稳定上较PLF具有更好的力学性能。     

PLIF与PLF技术治疗腰椎滑脱症的疗效比较

目的 回顾性比较后路椎间融合术（PLIF）和椎体后外侧融合术（PLF）治疗腰椎滑脱症的临床疗效。方法 自2007-06-2013-02在后路减压复位、椎弓根系统内固定的基础上行融合术治疗腰椎滑脱症42例：PLIF组13例,PLF组29例。结果 术后所有滑脱椎体均获得不同程度的复位。PLIF组与PLF组术中平均出血量分别为（816.6±69.3）ml、（355.2±45.8）ml;2组术后椎间隙后高均较术前增加（P〈0.05）,而末次随访PLIF组椎间后高优于PLF组（P〈0.05）。PLIF组术后翻修1例,余均获得融合,融合率92.3%,术中硬脊膜撕裂2例,未遗留神经症状;PLF组术后26例获得融合,融合率为89.7%,3例融合失败,随访椎间隙高度丢失,出现腰臀部疼痛复发,该组未出现神经损伤。术后PLIF组与PLF组ODI评分均较术前明显改善（P〈0.05）。结论 PLIF与PLF技术均为治疗腰椎滑脱症有效的融合方式,前者具有良好的椎间撑开作用,适合术前椎间高度丢失较多的患者;而后者手术出血少、术中并发症少,较适合体弱、高龄、椎间高度丢失不显著的患者。     

椎间隙撑开在腰椎滑脱症复位和融合中的应用价值

目的评估应用先撑开椎间隙行椎体间融合,后椎弓根钉杆系统复位固定的后路腰椎椎体间融合术(posteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion,PLIF)治疗腰椎滑脱症的价值。方法应用全椎板减压,撑开椎间隙置入插入型融合器,再进行椎弓根钉杆系统复位和固定治疗腰椎滑脱症46例,男25例,女21例;年龄35～59岁,平均48.2岁。对所有病例进行定期随访和影像学检查,并对滑脱程度、滑脱角、椎间隙后高及临床Oswestry功能障碍评分进行测量及评估。对其中5例患者进行术后融合节段的螺旋CT矢状位和冠状位的跟踪扫描重建,以观察椎间融合情况。结果术后所有患者滑脱均有不同程度复位,椎间隙后高由术前(3.9±1.2)mm增加至术后(9.7±1.3)mm,滑脱角由术前25.6°±11.5°改善至术后15.0°±6.9°,生理曲度恢复。随访12￣73个月,平均36个月。术后至末次随访,矫正程度无明显丢失。螺旋CT扫描重建发现满意的椎间融合大约在术后1年后获得。临床Oswestry功能障碍评分由术前的平均(33.6±6.4)分降至术后的平均(17.6±5.5)分,结果优良。结论椎间隙撑开不仅能使滑脱椎体复位,还利于术中选择合适的融合器和恢复腰椎的生理曲度。     

椎弓根螺钉加椎间植骨融合器治疗腰椎滑脱症的远期疗效分析

目的:探讨椎弓根螺钉系统加椎间植骨融合器(cage)治疗峡部不连性腰椎滑脱症的远期疗效。方法:1996年10月～2002年1月收治的峡部不连性腰椎滑脱症患者中资料齐全的82例,均在椎弓根螺钉系统作滑脱复位后加cage行椎间融合固定。58例为1枚cage从后斜向前呈45°置入,24例为2枚cage从后向前垂直置入。随访时观察固定节段的椎体间有无位移、滑脱有否复发,测量术前、术后2周及随访时固定椎间隙的高度与近心端第二椎间隙高度比值的变化。结果:随访24～86个月,平均36个月。根据Nakai评分标准,优良率为79.3%。19例Ⅰ度腰椎滑脱患者术后全部解剖复位;47例Ⅱ度滑脱患者5例留有Ⅰ度滑脱;16例Ⅲ度滑脱患者4例留有Ⅰ度滑脱。至随访时,使用1枚cage或2枚cage所固定的椎间隙高度与近心端第二椎间隙高度的比值较术后2周时的比值减低,但统计学上无显著性差异,滑脱无复发。结论:使用椎弓根螺钉加cage治疗腰椎滑脱症可减少术后折钉和滑脱复发的问题,是治疗腰椎滑脱症比较理想的手术方式。1枚cage即可以达到稳定椎间的作用。     

Posterolateral versus interbody fusion in isthmic spondylolisthesis: functional results in 52 cases with a minimum follow-up of 6 years

Posterolateral fusion has long been considered the "gold standard" technique for surgical treatment of adult spondylolisthesis. Superior results have subsequently been reported with interbody fusion with cages and posterior instrumentation. The goal of this prospective study was to compare the two techniques regarding their clinical outcomes and fusion rates. Fifty-two patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis were operated by the same surgeon. One group (25 patients) had decompression and posterolateral fusion (PLF) with a pedicle screw system ; patients in the other group were treated by decompression, posterior interbody fusion (PLIF) and a pedicle screw system. The two groups were similar with respect to grade of slipping, age, and activity. Seventy-seven percent of the patients had a good or very good result with PLIF and 68% with posterolateral fusion. However, there was no statistical difference in cases with low grade slipping, whereas the difference was significant for cases with high grade slipping. The fusion rate was 93% with PLIF and 68% with PLF, but without any significant incidence on the functional outcome. Based on these findings, we now use posterior interbody fusion for high grade spondylolisthesis which requires reduction or if the disc space is still high. When the slip grade is low, or the disc space is narrow, we prefer posterolateral fusion.     

短节段椎弓根螺钉后路椎间植骨治疗重症峡部裂型腰椎滑脱症

[目的]探讨应用短节段椎弓根螺钉系统内固定并后路椎间植骨融合治疗重症峡部裂型腰椎滑脱症的疗效和手术技巧.[方法]2005年1月～2007年1月,对51例重症峡部裂型腰椎滑脱患者行短节段椎弓根螺钉后路椎间植骨融合术,年龄25～67岁,平均41岁;术前滑脱程度按Meyerding分级标准均大于33%,平均为42%,均有不同程度的神经根受损症状.通过术前、术后脊柱正、侧位X线片和Beaujon functional score(BFS)评分,分析临床疗效,评价治疗效果.[结果]51例患者均获随访,随访时间为2～3年10个月,平均2年8个月.术后平均滑脱复位率92%;椎间隙高度由术前平均4.9 mm恢复至术后的10.3 mm;植骨融合率100%,平均融合时间4个月;BFS评分由术前平均8.1分升至术后2年的17.9分,疗效优良率为91%.随访期间滑脱复位率、椎间隙高度无明显丢失.[结论]短节段椎弓根螺钉系统内固定后路椎间植骨融合术可以用于治疗重症峡部裂型腰椎滑脱症,能保留更多的腰椎运动单元.     

后路椎体间植骨同时椎弓根内固定治疗峡部裂腰椎滑脱

[目的]探讨后路椎体间自体植骨同时椎弓根内固定治疗Ⅰ～Ⅱ度峡部裂腰椎滑脱的疗效。[方法]采用腰椎后侧入路椎管减压、椎体间自体植骨融合同时椎弓根内固定，术后腰围固定3个月。[结果]43例患者术后随访6～30个月，椎体间骨性融合率为90．7％，临床疗效优良率为88．37％。[结论]椎体间自体植骨同时椎弓根内固定是治疗Ⅰ～Ⅱ度峡部裂腰椎滑脱症的理想手术方法。     

Single segment of posterior lumbar interbody fusion for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: reduction or fusion in situ

Objective

We prospectively compared surgical reduction or fusion in situ with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis in terms of surgical invasiveness, clinical and radiographical outcomes, and complications.

Methods

From January 2006 to June 2008, 88 adult patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis who underwent surgical treatment in our unit were randomized to reduced group (group 1, n = 45) and in situ group (group 2, n = 43), and followed up for average 32.5 months (range 24–54 months). The clinical and radiographical outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results

The average operative time and blood loss during surgery showed insignificant difference (p > 0.05) between two groups. The radiological outcomes were significantly better in group 1, but there was no significant difference between two groups of clinical outcomes, depicting as VAS, ODI, JOA and patients’ satisfaction surveys. Incident rate of surgical complications was similar in two groups, but in group 1 the complication seemed more severe because of two patients with neurological symptoms.

Conclusions

For the adult isthmic spondylolisthesis without degenerative disease in adjacent level, single segment of PLIF with pedicle screw fixation is an effective and safe surgical procedure regardless of whether additional reduction had been conducted or not. Better radiological outcome does not mean better clinical outcome.     

后路单双枚Cage椎间融合治疗腰椎滑脱临床疗效比较

目的 比较分析经后路单、双枚Cage椎间融合术治疗腰椎滑脱的临床疗效.方法 2004-03-2008-02我院对100例椎弓峡部裂性腰椎滑脱患者进行前瞻性研究,其中9例失去随访.所有患者均行后路椎管减压、椎弓根钉系统内固定和Cage椎间植骨融合术.将患者分为A、B两组,A组47例,为单Cage组;B组44例,为双Cage组.比较两组患者的术后VAS疼痛评分、Oswestry功能障碍评分、Kirkaldy-Willis综合临床疗效、椎间融合率、手术时间、术中出血量和并发症发生率.结果 A、B两组患者VAS疼痛评分、Oswestry功能障碍评分、Kirkaldy-Willis综合临床疗效、椎间融合率、手术时间、术中出血量和并发症发生率比较无显著差异.结论 单枚或者双枚Cage腰椎间融合联合椎弓根螺钉内固定术治疗腰椎滑脱,具有相同的融合率和临床疗效,并发症发生率相似.     

两种融合手术治疗腰椎滑脱症的影像学及临床疗效比较

目的 比较腰椎后路椎体间融合术(posterior lumbar interbody fusion,PLIF)和腰椎后外侧融合术(posterolateral lumbar fusion,PLF)治疗腰椎滑脱症患者手术前后及随访时影像学指标及临床疗效间的差异.方法 对2004年6月至2006年12月分别行上述两种手术治疗的113例腰椎滑脱症患者进行回顾性分析,PLIF组60例,PLF组53例.术前在腰椎侧佗X线片上测量椎间高度、滑脱率、节段角度、椎间孔面积等影像学指标,并采用Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)、视觉模拟标尺(visual analogue scale,VAS)评分以及临床疗效主观评价表等指标对患者进行症状评分;术后即刻对卜述指标进行重复测量.并坚持随访,分别计算两组滑脱复位率和融合率.结果 两组平均手术时间及术中出血量分别为PLIF:(194.3±54.7)min.(402.2±123.9)ml;PLF:(179.3±45.7)min,(367.2±102.3)ml,差异均无统计学意义;术后PLIF组椎间高度、滑脱率、节段角度、椎间孔面积等影像学指标的恢复与维持均优于PLF组,末次随访时两组融合率分别为96.7%、88.6%(P=0.099);两组患者术后即刻及术后1年腰痛、腿痛VAS评分和Odl评分均较术前明显改善,临床疗效主观评价优秀率分别为56.7%(PLIF)与37.7%(PLF).结论 与PLF相比,PLIF对腰椎滑脱的矫正、椎间高度的维持、生理曲度的恢复以及椎间孔面积的扩大等指标均有显著的优越性,其临床疗效主观评价优秀率亦高于PLF组.     

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.     

Minimal access bilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis

Purpose

Minimally invasive or “minimal access surgery” (MAS) is being utilized with increasing frequency to reduce approach-related morbidity in the lumbar spine. This paper describes our minimal access technique for posterior bilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and spinal instrumentation in a patient with high-grade spondylolisthesis grade (Myerding Grade III) with 5-year follow-up.

Methods

A 24-year-old lady presented with mechanical back pain and left leg L5 radiculopathy. On examination, she was a thin lady with an obvious step deformity in the lower lumbar spine and otherwise, a normal neurological examination. Imaging showed a grade III isthmic L5–S1 spondylolisthesis with foraminal stenosis and focal kyphotic alignment of 20° [slip angle (SA) = 70°]. Conservative measures had failed, and a decision was made to proceed with a MAS-TLIF approach.

Results

The estimated blood loss was less than 100 ml, operating time 150 min, and post-operative hospital stay was 4 days. Post-operatively the patient had significant improvement of back and radicular pain. Improvement in ODI was substantial and sustained at 5 years. A solid fusion was achieved at 8 months. The slip percentage improved from 68 % (pre-op) to 28 % (post-op) and the focal alignment to 20° lordosis (SA = 110°).

Conclusions

A MAS approach for selected patients with a mobile high-grade spondylolisthesis is feasible, safe and clinically effective, with the added benefit of reduced soft-tissue disruption. Our result of this technique suggests that the ability to correct focal deformity, and achieve excellent radiographic and clinical outcome is similar to the open procedure.     

PLIF手术在腰椎滑脱中的应用探讨

目的: 探讨比较几种形式的PLIF手术治疗腰椎滑脱症的疗效。方法: 63例患者根据融合方式分成A (椎弓根固定 后外侧植骨)、B (椎弓根固定 后路椎体间自体植骨)、C (椎弓根固定 后路椎体间融合 Cage) 三组, 使用ODI评分方法对患者术前术后的情况进行评估, 使用VAS评分标准对患者术前和术后疼痛的程度进行评估, 使用SUK标准对术前术后的正侧位片及Bending片进行融合的评估。结果: 三组病例42例获得随访, 随访1~2年。B、C两组在腰椎稳定性及临床疗效方面均优于A组, C组在椎间高度、生理曲度维持方面均优于A、B两组。结论: 后路椎弓根螺钉内固定加椎体间Cage融合术是治疗腰椎滑脱的理想术式。     

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疗效比较

 目的 对比分析微创经椎间孔椎体间融合术 (mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, mini-TLIF)与常规开放手术治疗腰椎滑脱症的疗效。方法 回顾性分析 2008年 3月至 2010年 8月手术治疗的 49例腰椎滑脱症患者, 开放手术组 26例, mini-TLIF手术组 23例。分别统计两组的手术时间、术中出血量、透视时间、手术前后疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale, VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index, ODI)。根据 Macnab标准观察临床疗效, 测量两组手术前后的各放射学参数并进行对比分析。结果 患者随访 9~22个月, 平均 11个月。手术出血量、术后 2天与 3个月 VAS、患者再次手术意愿等指标 mini-TLIF手术组均优于开放手术组, 且差异有统计学意义(P﹤0.05);开放手术组 ODI由术前的 31.2%±8.2%降至术后末次随访时的 16.1%±6.8%, 差值为 17.8%±4.2%;微创手术组 ODI由术前的 34.4%±11.7%降至末次随访时的 15.3%±4.3%, 差值为 19.7%±3.8%, 两组的手术前后 ODI差值差异无统计学意义(t=0.673, P=0.412);两组手术时间、透视时间, 微创手术组均明显长于开放手术组, 且差异有统计学意义(P﹤0.05)。结论 与常规开放手术相比较, mini-TLIF治疗腰椎滑脱症术中出血较少, 术后疼痛轻, 但需要较长时间的手术及术者接受较多的放射线暴露。     

后路椎间融合术和经椎间孔入路融合术治疗腰椎滑脱症的临床比较

目的比较研究经椎间孔入路和后路椎间融合术治疗腰椎滑脱症的临床疗效、植骨融合率及术后并发症。方法 31例腰椎滑脱症的患者行椎间融合术附加双侧椎弓根螺钉固定术,PLIF组16例,TLIF组15例,比较两组的手术时间、术后并发症、临床疗效满意率和植骨融合率等。结果所有患者伤口均一期愈合。术后神经根痛加剧:PLIF组有3例,TLIF组1例。术中硬膜囊撕裂:PLIF组1例,TLIF组未出现该并发症。PLIF组临床疗效优良率为85.1%,而TLIF组优良率为90.2%,两者无显著性差异(P0.05)。植骨融合率:PLIF组植骨融合率为93.4%,TLIF组植骨融合率94.1%,两者无显著性差异(P0.05)。结论 PLIF和TLIF是治疗腰椎滑脱症的有效方法,两者在临床疗效满意率和植骨融合率方面没有显著性差异,但是在手术时间、创伤、并发症等方面,TLIF组明显优于PLIF。