保留椎体后壁的前路技术治疗胸腰椎爆裂骨折

目的 探讨保留椎体后壁的前路技术治疗胸腰椎爆裂骨折的临床疗效.方法2005年5月-2010年5月,采用保留椎体后壁的前路技术治疗胸腰椎爆裂骨折68例.测量术前、术后及随访时胸胺椎骨折节段的Cobb角、椎管狭窄率,采用Frankel分级法评价脊髓功能恢复状况.结果所有患者均顺利完成手术,无瘫痪症状加重、脑脊液漏及切口感染,气胸3例经对症处理治愈.骨折椎体开槽后行螺钉撑开椎问高度及后凸畸形恢复68例;因骨块粉碎严重,骨碎块松脱行骨块取出致硬膜囊部分裸露19例.其中3例出现脑脊液漏用安可胶封堵;术中C形臂X线机透视怀疑骨折块复位不全采用腰椎管逆行造影8例,有3例因椎管造影仍有梗阻改为椎体后壁切除,其中骨折椎体撑开不足2例,后纵韧带后方骨块翻转取出1例.椎体后壁保留95%(65/68).52例患者获得3个月～4.5年(平均2.2年)随访,无腰背部后凸畸形,腰背部酸胀疼痛5例.脊髓功能(Frankel分级)除5例A级无恢复外,均有1～3级的改善.术前68例胸腰椎Cobb 角平均18.2°,末次随访时52例Cobb角平均9.7°;术前椎管狭窄率平均42%,末次随访时CT扫描17例椎管狭窄率9%.未见钉板或钉棒系统断裂,钢板螺钉松动下沉4例.结论胸腰椎爆裂骨折采用前路技术治疗大部分患者可保留椎体后壁.

Abstract：

Objective To evaluate the clinical result and feasibility of anterior approach with posterior vertebral wall preserved in the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fracture with or without paraplegia. Methods From 2005 to 2010, 68 patients with thoracolumbar burst fracture were treated by corpectomy, strut graft and instrumentation with preserved posterior vertebral wall. There were 49 males and 19 females at average age of 39.8 years (16-62 years). Kyphotic Cobb' s angle and spinal stenotic rate was measured preoperatively and postoperatively. The neurological status was evaluated with Frankel impairment scale. Results All patients were successfully managed with this technique, with no neurological deteriorations, cerebrospinal fluid leakage or incision infections except for the pneumothorax in three patients who were then cured through expectant treatment. Screw distraction was performed for restoration of the disc height and kyphosis in 68 patients. After the fractured fragment became loose and was removed, the dura matter was exposed in 19 patients including the eerebrospinal fluid leakage in three patients. Retrograde lumbar myelography was applied in eight patients, of whom there found the blocked spinal canal in three patients and excision of the posterior vertebral wall was performed. Lack of vertebral distraction was found in two patients and extraction of the reversed bone fracture behind the posterior longitudinal ligament was performed in one. The preservation rate of the posterior vertebral wall was 95% (65/68). Fifty-two patients were followed up for mean 2.2 years (from 3 months to 4.5 years) ,which showed no lower back kyphosis. There showed 1-3 Frankel grades of improvement in spinal cord function except for five patients at Frankel grade A. The Cobb angle was average 18.2° in 68 patients preoperatively and was corrected to 9.7°in 52 patients at last follow-up. CT scan showed that the stenotic rate was 42% preoperatively and 9% at final follow up in 68 patients,with no breakage of the screw and plate. Conclusion In the management of thoracolumbar burst fractures,anterior approach is helpful for preservation of the posterior vertebral wall.     

胸腰段骨折并脊髓损伤再手术疗效分析

目的 探讨胸腰段骨折合并脊髓损伤患者I期前路/后路手术后Ⅱ期再手术的疗效.方法 回顾性分析2005年1月-2009年3月胸腰段骨折合并脊髓损伤单纯前/后路手术后残存后凸畸形伴神经功能恢复不全或未做Ⅱ期手术疗效患者12例.男9例,女3例;年龄19～57岁,平均34.6岁.根据Dems分型,爆裂型5例,压缩型5例,骨折脱位2例.I期前路手术5例,I期后路手术7例.I期手术后均存在不同程度的神经症状,对I期前路手术5例患者行Ⅱ期后路手术.I期后路手术7例者行Ⅱ期前路手术.I期手术至Ⅱ期手术最长18个月,最短12个月,平均时间13.4个月.通过影像学、神经功能及社会功能综合评估疗效,包括测量Cobb角、Frankel分级和日本骨科学会(JOA)评分.结果 术后切口均I期愈合.所有患者均获得随访,随访时间12～48个月,平均25个月.伤椎前、后缘高度压缩率术前平均42.6%、70.5%,术后平均恢复至92.5%、95,7%,至末次随访时为87.3%、92.2%;脊髓不完全损伤的患者神经功能均有Frankel 2级以上的改善.所有患者Ⅱ期术后胸腰椎生理弧度良好.Cobb角术前平均36.3°,术后矫正至5.8.,末次随访时为5.9°.JOA评分标准术后改善率,本组优9例,良2例,可1例,差0例.结论 对胸腰段骨折合并脊髓损伤患者I期前路/后路手术1年后残存神经或马尾临床症状患者行Ⅱ期手术减压后取得理想疗效,可获得满意的后凸畸形矫正和神经减压,神经功能均有不同程度恢复.

Abstract：

Objective To evaluate the outcome of reoperation(after I stage anterior/posterior operation)for thoracolumbar fractures combined with kyphosis and spinal cord injury. Methods A retrospective study was done on the medical records of 12 patients who underwent two-stage decompression with kyphosis and neurologic deficit due to single-stage approach(anterior or posterior) operation of thoracolumbar fractures combined with spinal cord injury between January 2005 and April 2009.There were 9 males and 3 females,at mean age of 34.6 years(range,19-57 years).According to the Denis classification,there were five patients with burst fractures,five with compression fractures and two with fracture dislocation.All the patients had couns medullaris injury.Of all the patients,five underwent one stage anterior approach surgery and the others underwent posterior approach operation.All the patients had vailous degrees of neurological symptoms.The patients treated with one stage anterior surgery were treated with two stage posterior surgery and the patients treated with one stage posterior surgery were treated with the two stage anterior operation.The mean interval from one stage operation to two stage decompression was 13.4 months(range,12-18 months).The radiologic,neurologic and functional outcomes were assessed through observation of the Cobb angle,Frankel spinal cord injury grading and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scores(JOA). Results AIl the patients were followed up for mean 25 months (12-48months),which showed primary healing of the incisions in all the patients.The average anterior and posterior heisht of the vertebrae wers corrected from preoperative 42.6%and 70.5%to postoperative 92.5%and 95.7%and to 87.3%and 92.2%at the final follow-up respectively.Neurologic status was improved at least one Frankel grade in the patients who had preoperative incomplete paraplegia.The Cobb angle was corrected from preoperative 36.3°to postoperative 5.8°and to 5.9°at the final follow-up(P<0.05).No patient had any notable loss of correction between discharge and final follow-up.According to JOA coring,the results were excellent in nine patients,good in two and fair in one,with excellence rate of 92%. Conclusions Two stage decompression for epiconus and cauda equina syndrome resulted from one stage approach(anterior or posterior)operation of thoracolumbar fractures combined with spinal cord injury call attain satisfactory correction of the kyphosis and nerve decompression as well as various degrees of nerve function recovery.     

Abdominal crush injury in the Sichuan earthquake evaluated by multidetector computed tomography

AIM:To investigate the features of abdominal crush injuries resulting from an earthquake using multidetector computed tomography(MDCT). METHODS:Fifty-one survivors with abdominal crush injuries due to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake underwent emergency non-enhanced scans with 16-row MDCT. Data were reviewed focusing on anatomic regions including lumbar vertebrae,abdominal wall soft tissue, retroperitoneum and intraperitoneal space;and types of traumatic lesions. RESULTS:Fractures of lumbar vertebrae and abdominal wall soft tissue injuries were more common than retro-and intraperitoneal injuries(P<0.05).With regard to the 49 lumbar vertebral fractures in 24 patients,these occurred predominantly in the transverse process(P<0.05),and 66.67%of patients(16/24) had fractures of multiple vertebrae,predominantly two vertebrae in 62.5%of patients(10/16),mainly in L1-3 vertebrae in 81.63%of the vertebrae(40/49). Retroperitoneal injuries occurred more frequently than intraperitoneal injuries(P<0.05),and renal and liver injuries were most often seen in the retroperitoneum and in the intraperitoneal space,respectively(all P< 0.05). CONCLUSION:Transverse process fractures in two vertebrae among L1-3 vertebrae,injury of abdominal wall soft tissue,and renal injury might be features of earthquake-related crush abdominal injury.     

撬拨复位结合Ilizarov技术治疗跟骨关节内骨折

目的 介绍撬拨复位结合Ilizarov技术治疗足跟皮肤软组织条件不良的跟骨关节内骨折的方法.方法 自2007年9月至2009年9月,应用该方法治疗足跟皮肤软组织条件不良的跟骨关节内骨折11例,男10例,女1例;年龄21～50岁,平均33.6岁.左4例,右7例.骨折采用Sanders分型:Ⅱ型7例,Ⅲ型3例,Ⅳ型1例.软组织损伤采用AO闭合软组织损伤分型:IC2型3例,IC3型6例,IC5型1例及皮肤开放撕脱伤1例.术前B(o)hler角0°～12°,平均8°;Gissane角70°～95°,平均80°.手术方法:跟骨结节外侧插入骨圆针撬拨复位后关节面骨块,再利用打入的橄榄针的拉张纠正跟骨内、外侧骨块的移位,并用llizarov环形支架同定.结果 11例患者全部获得随访,时间6～20个月,平均13.3个月.骨折全部愈合,愈合时问7～10周,平均8.1周.术后B(o)hler角20°～45°,平均33°;Gissane角100°～118°,平均107°.对按Maryland足部评分系统评价术后功能,优7例,良3例,可1例,优良率为91%.结论 撬拨复位结合Ilizarov技术可以恢复并维持跟骨正常的解剖形态,减少伤口感染等术后并发症的发生;尤其适用于Sanders II、III型伴软组织损伤严重的闭合骨折或开放骨折;掌握好手术适应证及操作要点可以取得满意的临床疗效.

Abstract：

Objective To introduce the treatment of intraarticular calcaneal fractures with poor soft tissue using poking reduction combined with Ilizarov methods. Methods From September 2007 to September 2009,11 patients with the intraarticular calcaneal fractures were treated with poking reduction combined with Ilizarov methods,including 10 males and 1 female at average age of 33.6 years(range,21-50 years).Four patients had the left calcaneal fractures and seven with the right ones.According to Sander classification,there were seven patients with type II fractures,three with type III fractures and one with type IV fracture.The various extents of heel soft tissue injury were emerged in all the patients.Before operation,B(o)hler angle was 0°-12°(average 8°)and Gissane angle 70°-95°(average 80°).According to AO classification of close soft tissue injury,there were three patients with type IC2,six with type IC3,one with type IC5 and one with open soft tissue injury.The collapse of the articular surface was recovered by Steinmann pin which passed through the lateral calcaneal tubercle.The medial and lateral fracture fragments were corrected by using the tensed olive wires.The heighat and width were maintained by using the Ilizarov external fixation. Results The mean duration of follow-up was 13.3 months (range,6-20 months).All fractures were healed after mean duration for 8.1 weeks(range,7-10weeks).The postoperative B(o)hler angle was 20°-45°(average 33°)and Gissane angle 100°-118°(average 107°).According to Maryland Foot Score system,the result of postoperative function was excellent in seven patients,good in three and fair in one,with excellence rate of 91%. Conclusions For the intraarticular calcaneal fractures,the poking reduction combined with Ilizarov method is able to recover and maintain the normal calcaneal height and width and reduce postoperative wound infections and many other complications.specially for Sanders II or III with severe soft tissue injury in the open or closed calcaneal fractures.Master of surgical indications and operating poims can attain satisfactory clinical efficacy.     

桡骨小头骨折的治疗

Objective To treat radial head fractures with open reduction and internal fixation, removal of the radial head and artificial joint replacement based on different fracture types to discuss the outcome of these methods and summarize optimal strategy for treatment of radial head fractures. Meth-ods A retrospective study was done on data of 47 patients with 48 radial head fractures treated in our de-partment from November 1999 to May 2008. Among them, nine patients were treated conservatively (all type Mason Ⅰ fractures), 28 treated with open reduction and internal fixation (one patient with type Ma-son Ⅰ fracture, 14 with type Mason Ⅱ and 13 with type Mason Ⅲ), eight with removal of radial head (three patients with type Mason Ⅲ fractures and five with type Ⅳ) and three with artificial joint replace-ment (all type Mason Ⅳ fractures). Results All patients were followed up for average 2.8 years (1-4.4 years). Two patients treated with artificial joint replacement were followed up for six months and three months respectively. According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, the excellence rate was 8/9 in conservative treatment, 82% (23/28) in open reduction and internal fixation, 6/8 in removal of the radial head and 3/3 in artificial joint replacement respectively. Conclusions The radial head fracture should be given anatomical reduction for early functional exercise. Conservative treatment can be used for type Mason Ⅰ fractures, open reduction and internal fixation for type Mason Ⅱ , type Mason Ⅲ fractures and part of type Mason Ⅳ fractures. The removal of radial head or mental prosthesis replacement are al-ternative for parte of type Mason Ⅳ fractures that can not attain stable fixation through open reduction and internal fixation.     

桡骨小头骨折的治疗

Objective To treat radial head fractures with open reduction and internal fixation, removal of the radial head and artificial joint replacement based on different fracture types to discuss the outcome of these methods and summarize optimal strategy for treatment of radial head fractures. Meth-ods A retrospective study was done on data of 47 patients with 48 radial head fractures treated in our de-partment from November 1999 to May 2008. Among them, nine patients were treated conservatively (all type Mason Ⅰ fractures), 28 treated with open reduction and internal fixation (one patient with type Ma-son Ⅰ fracture, 14 with type Mason Ⅱ and 13 with type Mason Ⅲ), eight with removal of radial head (three patients with type Mason Ⅲ fractures and five with type Ⅳ) and three with artificial joint replace-ment (all type Mason Ⅳ fractures). Results All patients were followed up for average 2.8 years (1-4.4 years). Two patients treated with artificial joint replacement were followed up for six months and three months respectively. According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, the excellence rate was 8/9 in conservative treatment, 82% (23/28) in open reduction and internal fixation, 6/8 in removal of the radial head and 3/3 in artificial joint replacement respectively. Conclusions The radial head fracture should be given anatomical reduction for early functional exercise. Conservative treatment can be used for type Mason Ⅰ fractures, open reduction and internal fixation for type Mason Ⅱ , type Mason Ⅲ fractures and part of type Mason Ⅳ fractures. The removal of radial head or mental prosthesis replacement are al-ternative for parte of type Mason Ⅳ fractures that can not attain stable fixation through open reduction and internal fixation.     

桡骨小头骨折的治疗

Objective To treat radial head fractures with open reduction and internal fixation, removal of the radial head and artificial joint replacement based on different fracture types to discuss the outcome of these methods and summarize optimal strategy for treatment of radial head fractures. Meth-ods A retrospective study was done on data of 47 patients with 48 radial head fractures treated in our de-partment from November 1999 to May 2008. Among them, nine patients were treated conservatively (all type Mason Ⅰ fractures), 28 treated with open reduction and internal fixation (one patient with type Ma-son Ⅰ fracture, 14 with type Mason Ⅱ and 13 with type Mason Ⅲ), eight with removal of radial head (three patients with type Mason Ⅲ fractures and five with type Ⅳ) and three with artificial joint replace-ment (all type Mason Ⅳ fractures). Results All patients were followed up for average 2.8 years (1-4.4 years). Two patients treated with artificial joint replacement were followed up for six months and three months respectively. According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, the excellence rate was 8/9 in conservative treatment, 82% (23/28) in open reduction and internal fixation, 6/8 in removal of the radial head and 3/3 in artificial joint replacement respectively. Conclusions The radial head fracture should be given anatomical reduction for early functional exercise. Conservative treatment can be used for type Mason Ⅰ fractures, open reduction and internal fixation for type Mason Ⅱ , type Mason Ⅲ fractures and part of type Mason Ⅳ fractures. The removal of radial head or mental prosthesis replacement are al-ternative for parte of type Mason Ⅳ fractures that can not attain stable fixation through open reduction and internal fixation.     

桡骨小头骨折的治疗

Objective To treat radial head fractures with open reduction and internal fixation, removal of the radial head and artificial joint replacement based on different fracture types to discuss the outcome of these methods and summarize optimal strategy for treatment of radial head fractures. Meth-ods A retrospective study was done on data of 47 patients with 48 radial head fractures treated in our de-partment from November 1999 to May 2008. Among them, nine patients were treated conservatively (all type Mason Ⅰ fractures), 28 treated with open reduction and internal fixation (one patient with type Ma-son Ⅰ fracture, 14 with type Mason Ⅱ and 13 with type Mason Ⅲ), eight with removal of radial head (three patients with type Mason Ⅲ fractures and five with type Ⅳ) and three with artificial joint replace-ment (all type Mason Ⅳ fractures). Results All patients were followed up for average 2.8 years (1-4.4 years). Two patients treated with artificial joint replacement were followed up for six months and three months respectively. According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, the excellence rate was 8/9 in conservative treatment, 82% (23/28) in open reduction and internal fixation, 6/8 in removal of the radial head and 3/3 in artificial joint replacement respectively. Conclusions The radial head fracture should be given anatomical reduction for early functional exercise. Conservative treatment can be used for type Mason Ⅰ fractures, open reduction and internal fixation for type Mason Ⅱ , type Mason Ⅲ fractures and part of type Mason Ⅳ fractures. The removal of radial head or mental prosthesis replacement are al-ternative for parte of type Mason Ⅳ fractures that can not attain stable fixation through open reduction and internal fixation.     

桡骨小头骨折的治疗

Objective To treat radial head fractures with open reduction and internal fixation, removal of the radial head and artificial joint replacement based on different fracture types to discuss the outcome of these methods and summarize optimal strategy for treatment of radial head fractures. Meth-ods A retrospective study was done on data of 47 patients with 48 radial head fractures treated in our de-partment from November 1999 to May 2008. Among them, nine patients were treated conservatively (all type Mason Ⅰ fractures), 28 treated with open reduction and internal fixation (one patient with type Ma-son Ⅰ fracture, 14 with type Mason Ⅱ and 13 with type Mason Ⅲ), eight with removal of radial head (three patients with type Mason Ⅲ fractures and five with type Ⅳ) and three with artificial joint replace-ment (all type Mason Ⅳ fractures). Results All patients were followed up for average 2.8 years (1-4.4 years). Two patients treated with artificial joint replacement were followed up for six months and three months respectively. According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, the excellence rate was 8/9 in conservative treatment, 82% (23/28) in open reduction and internal fixation, 6/8 in removal of the radial head and 3/3 in artificial joint replacement respectively. Conclusions The radial head fracture should be given anatomical reduction for early functional exercise. Conservative treatment can be used for type Mason Ⅰ fractures, open reduction and internal fixation for type Mason Ⅱ , type Mason Ⅲ fractures and part of type Mason Ⅳ fractures. The removal of radial head or mental prosthesis replacement are al-ternative for parte of type Mason Ⅳ fractures that can not attain stable fixation through open reduction and internal fixation.     

桡骨小头骨折的治疗

Objective To treat radial head fractures with open reduction and internal fixation, removal of the radial head and artificial joint replacement based on different fracture types to discuss the outcome of these methods and summarize optimal strategy for treatment of radial head fractures. Meth-ods A retrospective study was done on data of 47 patients with 48 radial head fractures treated in our de-partment from November 1999 to May 2008. Among them, nine patients were treated conservatively (all type Mason Ⅰ fractures), 28 treated with open reduction and internal fixation (one patient with type Ma-son Ⅰ fracture, 14 with type Mason Ⅱ and 13 with type Mason Ⅲ), eight with removal of radial head (three patients with type Mason Ⅲ fractures and five with type Ⅳ) and three with artificial joint replace-ment (all type Mason Ⅳ fractures). Results All patients were followed up for average 2.8 years (1-4.4 years). Two patients treated with artificial joint replacement were followed up for six months and three months respectively. According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, the excellence rate was 8/9 in conservative treatment, 82% (23/28) in open reduction and internal fixation, 6/8 in removal of the radial head and 3/3 in artificial joint replacement respectively. Conclusions The radial head fracture should be given anatomical reduction for early functional exercise. Conservative treatment can be used for type Mason Ⅰ fractures, open reduction and internal fixation for type Mason Ⅱ , type Mason Ⅲ fractures and part of type Mason Ⅳ fractures. The removal of radial head or mental prosthesis replacement are al-ternative for parte of type Mason Ⅳ fractures that can not attain stable fixation through open reduction and internal fixation.     

膨胀式椎弓根螺钉与普通椎弓根螺钉治疗骨质疏松性胸腰段爆裂骨折的疗效分析

目的评价膨胀式椎弓根螺钉系统与普通椎弓根螺钉系统在治疗合并骨质疏松症的胸腰段爆裂性骨折的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2009年1月—2011年12月行后路椎弓根钉固定术的51例合并骨质疏松症的胸腰段爆裂性骨折患者,其中应用膨胀钉25例(膨胀钉组),应用普通钉26例(普通钉组)。术后随访并对比观察椎体前后缘高度改善情况、伤椎Cobb角、术前及术后VAS评分、椎弓根螺钉稳定性及脊柱融合情况。结果 51例患者获得术后平均26.5个月的随访,普通钉组中2例患者出现螺钉松动,膨胀钉组未发生螺钉松动。两组患者骨融合良好,两组患者术后椎体前后缘高度、Cobb角矫正、VAS评分均较术前明显改善(P0.05),且远期随访发现普通钉组椎体高度再丢失高于膨胀钉组(P0.05)。结论经后路膨胀式椎弓根钉固定治疗合并骨质疏松症的胸腰段爆裂性骨折在促进骨折愈合、改善疼痛及减少术后后凸畸形方面均具有良好的临床疗效,且较之普通椎弓根螺钉固定在骨质疏松椎体中具有更好的稳定性,更能维持骨折椎体高度及脊柱后凸Cobb角。     

经伤椎椎弓根固定不植骨治疗不稳定型胸腰椎骨折

目的：探讨经伤椎椎弓根复位固定不植骨融合治疗无神经损伤的不稳定型胸腰椎骨折的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2008年7月～2011年6月间收治的44例无神经损伤的不稳定型胸腰椎骨折,男性28例,女性16例;年龄22～57岁,平均36.8岁。采用急诊全麻下先行双踝悬吊法手法复位,再经后正中入路经伤椎短节段椎弓根螺钉内固定（6钉2棒1横联）,术中不需要植骨融合。术后6周内卧床功能锻炼,3个月内戴支具下床活动,术后10～12个月拆除内固定装置。观察手术时间、出血量、并发症情况、Cobb角、伤椎前缘高度比值及视觉模拟评分（ VAS）。结果44例术后获得10～16个月（平均12.4个月）随访。手术时间50～105min,平均70min;术中出血量为100～400mL,平均200mL;术中及术后均未出现神经损伤、伤口感染等并发症; Cobb角术前26.3°±4.7°,术后4.3°±1.4°,拆除内固定时5.2°±1.2°;椎体前缘高度比值术前43.3％±14.7％,术后97.3％±4.4％,拆除内固定时96.3％±3.4％; VAS疼痛评分术前7.6±0.5,拆除内固定时1.2±0.4。所有患者均无内固定物松动断裂。结论经伤椎椎弓根复位固定不植骨融合治疗无神经损伤的不稳定型胸腰椎骨折,手术创伤小,固定牢固,能够很好地矫正后凸畸形,恢复并维持伤椎高度;伤椎愈合后即可恢复脊柱的稳定性无需植骨融合,及时拆除内固定物可以避免其松动断裂。     

经伤椎与不经伤椎椎弓根螺钉复位固定治疗胸腰椎骨折的临床对比研究

目的 比较经伤椎与不经伤椎椎弓根螺钉复位固定治疗胸腰椎骨折的临床效果.方法 回顾性研究2006年3月-2008年2月收治的胸腰椎单一椎体骨折患者27例,其中12例采用骨折椎加用椎弓根螺钉固定(A组),15例采用传统双平面固定(B组).A组男9例,女3例,平均年龄43岁(25～56岁);B组男10例,女5例,平均年龄42岁(23～61岁).所有患者均为新鲜骨折并且骨折椎一侧或双侧椎弓根完整.所有患者均于麻醉状态下行体位复位,B组行后路常规伤椎上下椎体椎弓根螺钉置入复位固定;A组在B组方法 基础上加用伤椎椎弓根螺钉置入复位固定.观测患者后凸畸形(Cobb角)及伤椎高度恢复情况. 结果 术后随访5～22个月,平均9个月.经伤椎椎弓根螺钉使骨折椎向腹侧移动复位,术后Cobb角及前柱高度恢复较佳.手术前后骨折椎前移复位程度的变化:A组为0.089±0.036,B组为0.023±0.048(P<0.001);两组Cobb角的变化:A组为(9.88±7.69)°,B组为(5.19±3.24)°(P<0.05);伤椎前柱高度的变化:A组为(39.3±5.2)%,B组为(20.6±6.5)%(P<0.05).骨折椎加用椎弓根螺钉在前柱撑开的同时可有效控制正常椎间盘高度的撑开. 结论对胸腰椎单一椎体骨折有条件地应用伤椎椎弓根螺钉有利于矫正后凸畸形和恢复伤椎前缘高度,并且增强胸腰椎骨折后路短节段内固定系统的牢固性和维持矫正效果.     

后路经椎弓根截骨术治疗陈旧性胸腰椎骨折伴后凸畸形

目的 回顾性分析后路经椎弓根截骨术治疗胸腰椎陈旧骨折伴后凸畸形的临床疗效. 方法陈旧性胸腰椎骨折伴后凸畸形19例,其中男11例,女8例;年龄29～61岁,平均42岁.后凸畸形Cobb角31°～63°,平均47°;病史8～63个月,平均29个月.根据后凸角度大小、椎管狭窄程度和压迫来源采用经椎弓根椎体闭合楔形截骨术. 结果患者获得平均40.2°的矫正,平均矫正率85.8%.并发症包括脑脊液漏2例,切口浅表感染1例.无重大手术并发症.随访时间平均15个月(6～41个月),末次随访时临床症状和神经功能获得明显改善,无明显矫正丢失和内固定物失败并发症,X线片和动态X线片显示骨性融合,融合率100%. 结论对于胸腰椎骨折迟发性后凸畸形,Ⅰ期后路经椎弓根截骨术是理想选择,单节段截骨控制在55°内是安全的.     

胸腰椎骨折术后矫正度丢失与伤椎形态量表的相关性研究

目的探讨胸腰椎骨折术后伤椎矫正度丢失与伤椎形态量表的相关性。方法选取2011年6月~2013年6月后路短节段固定治疗的胸腰椎骨折患者52例,测量患者术前、术后3d及取出内固定3d后的矢状位Cobb角、伤椎压缩率及伤椎上下椎间隙高度,计算矫正度丢失率,并在术前按自制伤椎形态量表对所有伤椎进行评分并分组,对量表评分和矫正度丢失率进行相关性分析。结果所有患者随访13~19个月,平均15.5个月,自制形态量表评分和矫正度丢失率存在明显相关性。三组患者矫正度丢失具有明显差异(P0.05),轻度组Cobb角丢失0.5°,压缩率丢失0.6%;中度组Cobb角丢失2.7°,压缩率丢失4.4%;重度组Cobb角丢失4.1°,压缩率丢失8.4%,说明伤椎量表评分等级高的患者在术后伤椎矫正度丢失越明显,重度组有断钉等并发症。结论自制伤椎形态量表与术后矫正度丢失存在相关性,该量表对胸腰椎骨折的处理有一定的指导意义。     

经椎弓根椎体支柱块置入治疗胸腰椎骨折的短期疗效观察

目的 研究经椎弓根置入椎体支柱块并植骨治疗胸腰椎骨折的方法和疗效. 方法收集2008年3月-2009年7月采用经椎弓根椎体支柱块并植骨治疗胸腰椎骨折患者共23例(25个椎体,共用47枚椎体支柱块),T11骨折2例,T12骨折9例,L1骨折7例,L2骨折5例,其中4例采用椎板间开窗减压椎弓根固定联合椎体支柱块治疗.观察手术操作过程、手术用时、术中出血量、术后及随访期间摄X线片,测定伤椎前缘高度与正常高度的比值、Cobb角的矫正程度及术后早期恢复情况. 结果 23例患者均获7～16个月[(12.5±0.4)个月]随访,术后椎体高度丢失少,术后伤椎前缘压缩率及Cobb角均较术前明显改善(P＜0.05). 结论椎体支柱块治疗胸腰椎骨折可有效恢复椎体力学性能,减少椎体高度再丢失、后凸畸形重现等并发症,具有手术时间短、出血少、恢复快、更符合生物学固定等优点,是治疗胸腰椎骨折较理想的方法.     

后路短节段钉棒系统结合伤椎椎弓根钉固定治疗胸腰椎骨折

目的 探讨后路短节段钉棒系统结合伤椎椎弓根钉固定治疗胸腰椎骨折的价值.方法本组患者33例,伤椎部位:T_(11)3例,T_(12)11例,L_110例,L_29例.其中单纯压缩骨折3例,爆裂骨折30例.合并截瘫33例.对单纯压缩骨折行后路短节段钉棒系统结合伤椎椎弓根钉内固定术.对合并截瘫椎管占位明显者固定后行后路椎板减压、椎管开大术,并行小关节突及横突间植骨融合.用Frankel分级评估神经功能.结果 术后33例均获随访,平均随访时间14.5个月.术后X线片示椎弓根钉位置好,伤椎复位外形好.随访期内固定无松动或断裂,无慢性腰痛,伤椎高度无丢失.33例合并不全瘫.术前Frankel级:A级1例,B级7例,C级16例,D级9例;术后Frankel分级:A级1例,B级1例,C级5例,D级10例,E级16例.结论 对于胸腰椎骨折尤其是胸腰椎爆裂骨折,后路短节段钉棒系统结合伤椎椎弓根钉固定术是一种疗效可靠的内固定方法.     

胸腰段脊柱爆裂骨折前路与后路手术疗效对比观察

目的 对胸腰椎爆裂骨折行前路手术和后路手术的患者进行回顾性研究,客观评价不同手术入路治疗后的影像学结果,为胸腰椎爆裂骨折的外科治疗提供可靠的参考.方法 筛选2003年1月-2005年12月收治的41例胸腰椎爆裂骨折患者作为研究对象,随访24～48个月,平均38个月.按照手术人路分为前路手术和后路手术两组.根据随访X线侧位片测量Cobb角作为效果评价标准,并进行统计学分析.结果 前路手术组共19例,人院时平均Cobb角为27.3°,术后为3.1°,随访结束时为4.6°;后路手术组共22例,入院时平均Cobb角为26.1°,术后为3.0°,随访结束时为12.5°.两组患者术前和术后即刻Cobb角差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但随访结束时两者差异有统计学意义(P<0.01).结论 前路手术对于改善和维持胸腰椎爆裂骨折后凸角度优于后路手术.     

不减压非融合在手术治疗不稳定AOA型胸腰段骨折中的作用

目的 探讨对于轻度神经损伤的不稳定AO A型胸腰段骨折,不进行减压及融合,单纯行短节段椎弓根螺钉固定手术的疗效. 方法对比分析我院2004年2月-2008年2月手术治疗的AO A型胸腰段骨折(T11～L2)患者42例,分为A组(未植骨组,21例),予单纯短节段椎弓根螺钉固定,而未行椎板切除减压及植骨;B组(植骨组,15例),予椎弓根螺钉固定,不进行椎板切除减压但植骨.对两组术前及术后后凸角、椎体压缩高度进行比较分析. 结果 A组术前局部后凸角平均19.1°(15.4°～29.8°),椎体压缩高度平均46%(30%～63%);术后局部后凸角5.00(0.3°～10.3°),椎体压缩高度10%(0～28%),后凸矫正率79%.平均随访21.2(12～46)个月,随访超过12个月患者21例,末次随访后凸角平均7.0°(1.8°～10.7°),椎体压缩高度10%(2%～22%).B组术前局部后凸角平均25.8°(15.9°～34.5°),椎体压缩高度平均55%(30%～76%);术后局部后凸角7.1°(1.5°～19.1°),椎体压缩高度15%(0～28%),后凸矫正率74%.平均随访17.9(12～31)个月,随访超过12个月患者15例,末次随访后凸角平均8.3°(0.7°～19.2°),椎体压缩高度15%(1%～26%),植骨全部愈合,所有患者末次随访时均无明显腰痛症状,无内固定断裂或椎弓根螺钉拔出.后凸角和椎体压缩高度两组间差异无统计学意义.结论 对于一些神经损伤较轻的AO A型胸腰段骨折,在选择椎弓根螺钉固定时,可考虑不进行椎板切除减压,也不行后外侧植骨融合.     

伤椎固定结合硫酸钙椎体成形与单纯伤椎固定治疗胸腰椎爆裂骨折的对比研究

目的 对比伤椎固定结合硫酸钙椎体成形术与单纯伤椎固定治疗胸腰椎爆裂骨折的临床疗效. 方法 2005年1月- 2008年10月对61例胸腰椎爆裂骨折患者分别采用伤椎固定结合硫酸钙椎体成形(A组)与单纯伤椎固定(B组)进行治疗.A组32例,其中男22例,女10例;年龄21～ 65岁,平均36.8岁.术后随访13 ～27个月...