后路椎体间植入物固定植骨融合治疗腰椎滑脱症

目的：对后方入路椎体间植入物固定植骨治疗腰椎滑脱症的临床应用进行初步报告,探讨此项技术的手术要点和早期临床效果。方法：自１９９６年１月至１９９８年３月,对２１例腰椎滑脱患者行后方入路椎体间植入物固定植骨融合、椎弓根螺钉内固定。随访１０个月～３年１个月,平均２年３个月。结合临床症状改善程度、工作能力和Ｘ线片上植骨融合程度综合进行疗效评定。结果：疗效优１６例,良３例,可２例,优良率９０．４％。结论：从一个切口入路行椎体间植入物固定植骨融合、椎弓根螺钉内固定术,能对前柱和后柱同时起稳定作用,有利于滑脱的复位和维持正常的腰椎前凸,符合腰椎的生物力学要求。     

DRFS联合侧后方椎体间植骨治疗腰椎滑脱症

近年来,随着脊柱生物力学研究的迅速深入,新型脊柱内固定器的发展和广泛应用,对滑脱节段获得复位的必要性和可能性有了新认识,大多主张行后路经椎弓根螺钉技术内固定,椎板切除或扩大开窗神经根减压加外侧横突间植骨或椎体间植骨融合。这样可恢复椎体高度,防止再滑脱,扩大椎间孔     

PLIF加椎弓根内固定治疗腰椎滑脱症

目的探讨后路腰椎间植骨融合加椎弓根螺钉复位内固定治疗腰椎滑脱的临床应用。方法自2004年11月至2008年3月对31例腰椎滑脱采用后路腰椎间融合加椎弓根螺钉复位内固定治疗,分析手术疗效、滑脱椎体复位率及椎体间植骨融合率。结果后路腰椎间融合加椎弓根螺钉内固定确切,复位率为96.8%,椎体间植骨融合率为96.8%,椎间隙高度维持良好,滑脱椎体复位无丢失,总体疗效优良率为90.3%。结论腰椎间融合加椎弓根螺钉复位内固定治疗腰椎滑脱症具有复位满意、固定牢靠、植骨融合率高、减压彻底、临床疗效满意等优点。     

后路椎体间植骨器械在腰椎滑脱症手术中的应用

我院自2002年4月～2004年6月采用后路椎体间植骨（posterior lumbar interbody graft．PLIG）器械．在处理椎间隙的同时一并矫正脊柱滑脱及行椎间植骨融合、经椎弓根钉棒系统加压内同定治疗Ⅱ度以内腰椎滑脱症患者23例。获得满意效果，报告如下。     

老年腰椎滑脱症手术治疗临床分析

目的探讨椎弓根螺钉内固定加椎间融合术治疗老年人腰椎滑脱的方法和疗效。方法选择症状较为典型的老年人腰椎滑脱病例40例,采用椎弓根螺钉内固定及后路椎间植骨融合技术治疗腰椎滑脱。结果本组40例患者全部获得随访,随访时间10～36个月,平均24个月,滑脱复位率90.0%（36/40）,椎间融合率100%,无再滑脱现象。所有患者症状均有缓解,无严重并发症发生。按侯树勋等提出的标准进行疗效评价,优36例,良3例,可1例,差0例,优良率97.5%。结论椎弓根螺钉内固定加椎间植骨融合术可直接复位滑脱椎体,即刻稳定病变节段,增加椎间孔截面积以及直接后路开窗减压或全椎板切除减压扩大侧隐窝而缓解对神经根的卡压,明显地提高症状改善率。     

退行性腰椎滑脱后路手术临床分析

目的 探讨退行性腰椎滑脱的后路手术治疗,比较后路腰椎管减压内固定并后外侧植骨及椎体间联合后外侧植骨术的临床疗效.方法 37例退行性腰椎滑脱患者采用后路减压、后外侧植骨内固定(A组21例)和椎体间联合后外侧植骨内固定(B组16例)手术,对两组术后植骨融合率及临床症状改善情况进行分析比较.根据术前、术后X线片和JOA评分评价植骨融合率及临床症状改善程度.结果 平均随访42个月.A组骨融合率为86%,B组为94%,两组无显著性差异.A组JOA评分优良率为90%,B组为94%,两组无显著性差异.结论 后路后外侧植骨内固定和椎间联合后外侧植骨内固定术均是有效的手术方法,但椎间联合后外侧植骨融合术的骨融合率较高.     

应用RF-Ⅱ型椎弓根螺钉系统整复椎间植骨治疗腰椎滑脱症

随着对腰椎滑脱认识的不断提高和椎弓根螺钉内固定技术的发展，腰椎滑脱症的手术疗效有了很大提高。我院自2000年1月～2005年12月应用RF-Ⅱ型椎弓根螺钉系统复位加自体骨椎体间植骨融合治疗腰椎滑脱症患者21例，疗效满意，报告如下。     

不同手术方式治疗腰椎滑脱症的比较

目的：比较采用不同内固定及植骨融合方式治疗腰椎滑脱症的手术疗效及适应证。方法：应用后路椎弓根螺钉复位内固定后．分别采用后外侧植骨融合术、后路椎体间植骨融合术及前路椎体间植骨融合术治疗不同类型及合并症的腰椎滑脱症患者67例，比较不同术式的手术时间与出血量、手术疗效与并发症、滑脱椎体复位率与复位丢失率以及椎间隙高度。结果：后路椎弓根钉固定加椎体间植骨融合术手术时间最长、出血量最多。手术总体优良率为88．71％，三种术式间无差异。所有椎体间植骨组植骨融合良好，椎间隙高度维持良好，滑脱椎体复位无丢失；12例后外侧植骨者平均复位丢失率为11．24％，2例椎弓根螺钉松动，2枚椎弓根螺钉断裂。结论：退变性腰椎滑脱者宜选用后路椎弓根钉固定加后外侧植骨融合术；峡部裂性腰椎滑脱者宜选用后路椎弓根钉固定加椎体间植骨融合术；腰椎滑脱翻修者宜选用后路椎弓根钉固定加前路椎体间植骨融合术     

两种植骨方式及材料治疗腰椎滑脱的疗效比较

目的：比较采用两种植骨方式及材料进行植骨融合治疗的腰椎滑脱患者的手术疗效。方法：对326腰椎滑脱患者行后路切复植骨融合内固定术,其中获得2年随访的268例,根据植骨方式及材料分为4组,A1组：PLIF（椎间cage）;A2组：PLIF（椎间自体骨）;B1组：PCF（椎间cage）;B2组：PCF（椎间自体骨）。比较手术时间、融合率,复位丢失率,椎间隙高度及临床症状改善情况。结果：根据术前、术后JOA评分显示,四组均可以明显改善临床症状,各组间手术时间,出血量之间差异有显著性意义。植骨后6个月随访,环形植骨（椎间自体骨）组的植骨融合率显著高于其他各组（P〈0．05）,12个月随访各组植骨融合率差异无显著性意义（P〉0．05）。环形植骨融合组的复位丢失率小于椎问植骨融合组,而椎间融合器组的椎间隙高度丢失较小。结论：各组方法均是治疗腰椎滑脱的有效术式,环形融合（椎间自体骨）短期内可取得较高的植骨融合率,长期观察复位丢失率较低。     

前后路联合手术治疗腰椎滑脱症

目的 探讨应用后路椎弓根内固定系统联合前路椎体间植骨治疗重度腰椎滑脱症的临床疗效。方法 应用后路SOCON提拉复位内固定系统复位并固定滑脱椎体，结合前路经腹膜外途径椎体间镭骨植骨治疗重度腰椎滑脱症20例。结果 术后18例Ⅱ度椎体滑脱获得解剖复位，2例Ⅲ度脱位复位至I度滑脱。经4—18个月随访，滑脱椎体复位无丢失，椎弓根螺钉无松动，椎体间骨融合牢固，椎间隙高度维持良好。结论 SOCON提拉复位内固定系统可提供滑脱椎体满意的复位内固定作用，前路椎体问植骨融合率高，术后复位丢失率低。     

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。     

Surgical outcomes of additional posterior lumbar interbody fusion for adjacent segment disease after single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion

Purpose

Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is an increasing problematic complication following lumbar fusion surgeries. ASD requires appropriate treatment, although there are only few reports on surgery for ASD. This study aimed to clarify surgical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for ASD.

Methods

Medical charts of 18 patients who underwent the second (repeat) PLIF for ASD were retrospectively investigated (average follow-up, 40 [27–66] months). Modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and Whitecloud classification were used as outcome measures.

Results

Mean modified JOA score improved from 7.7 just before repeat PLIF to 11.4 at maximum recovery and declined to 10.2 at final follow-up. Mean recovery rate of modified JOA score was 52.9 % at maximum recovery and 31.6 % at final follow-up. According to Whitecloud classification, 17 patients (94 %) were excellent or good and only 1 was fair at maximum recovery, whereas 10 (56 %) were excellent or good, 6 were fair, and 2 were poor at final follow-up. Eight patients (44 %) deteriorated again because of recurrent ASD. Two poor patients underwent a third PLIF.

Conclusion

PLIF is effective for ASD after PLIF in the short term, although it tends to lead to a high incidence of recurrent ASD.     

TLIF与PLIF治疗腰椎退行性疾病疗效的Meta分析

目的:对TLIF与PLIF治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效及并发症进行Meta分析.方法:检索Medline、Ovid、中国生物医学文献数据库系统(CBM)、中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)、中文科技期刊全文数据库(VIP)等数据库,检索时间至2012年5月.本研究提取的评价指标包括手术时间、手术失血量、住院时间、视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)、Oswestry功能残障指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)等指标和并发症例数.应用Review Manager 5.1软件进行数据分析.结果:纳入文献9篇,其中随机对照研究1篇,队列研究8篇.共981例,TLIF组457例,PLIF组524例.两组间比较,手术失血量(P=0.002)及住院时间(P=0.02)TLIF组少于PLIF组,而优良例数(P＝0.27)、手术时间(P=0.07)、VAS评分(P＝0.61)和ODI评分(P＝0.24)两组间无差异;总并发症两组间差异显著(P＜0.0001),其中神经损伤(P=0.001)、硬膜损伤(P=0.04)TLIF组较少,而脑脊液漏(P=0.25)、螺钉松动(P=0.14)、内固定失败(P=0.86)、未融合例数(P=0.41)和感染(P=0.51)两组间无显著性差异.结论:两者临床总疗效优良率相当,但TLIF手术在手术失血量、住院时间及术后并发症方面,尤其是对神经和硬膜的损伤,较PLIF明显减少.TLIF手术是一种更安全有效地治疗腰椎退行性疾病的方法.     

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.     

Influence of bone mineral density on pedicle screw fixation : a study of pedicle screw fixation augmenting posterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Some biomechanical studies have demonstrated that bone mineral density of the lumbar spine (BMD) affects the stability of pedicle screws in vitro. PURPOSE: To investigate influence of BMD on loosening and related failure of pedicle screws in vivo. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A clinical study of 52 patients who underwent pedicle screw fixation augmenting posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). PATIENT SAMPLE: There were 13 men and 39 women, with an average age of 63 years (range, 45-76 years) at the time of operation. The mean follow-up period was 2.8 years (range, 2-6 years). OUTCOME MEASURES: Relationship between BMD, screw loosening, and its related failures were statistically analyzed. METHODS: BMD was measured by the dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) method. Radiographic assessments were done by the first author and independently by another orthopedist who was not informed of the values of BMD. RESULTS: The mean BMD of all patients was 0.879 +/- 0.215 (mean +/- S.D.) g/cm2. The mean BMD in patients with and without screw loosening was 0.720 +/- 0.078 g/cm2 (n=11) and 0.922 +/- 0.221 g/cm2 (n=41). There was a significant difference between the mean BMD of patients with and without screw loosening (P<.01). The mean BMD of patients with "union," "nonunion" and "undetermined union" was 0.934 +/- 0.210 g/cm2 (n=40), 0.674 +/- 0.104 g/cm2 (n=4) and 0.710 +/- 0.116 g/cm2 (n=8), respectively. The mean BMD of patients with "union" was significantly greater than those with "nonunion" and "undetermined union" (P<.05). CONCLUSION: It could be concluded that BMD has a close relation with the stability of pedicle screws in vivo, and BMD value below 0.674 +/- 0.104 g/cm2 suggests a potential increased risk of "nonunion" when pedicle screw fixation is performed in conjunction with PLIF.     

显微镜下MI-TLIF与传统PLIF治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效比较

目的探讨显微镜下经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合、经皮椎弓根钉内固定治疗单节段腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2012-01—2013-09诊治的59例腰椎退行性疾病,采用显微镜下椎管减压、经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合联合经皮椎弓根内固定28例(MI-TLIF组),采用传统后路椎间融合内固定31例(PLIF组)。比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、术后1 d肌酸激酶水平,以及术后1年ODI指数、JOA评分及改良Macnab分级。结果所有患者术后均获得平均13(12~14)个月随访。与PLIF组相比,MI-TLIF组术中出血量、术后引流量更少,术后1 d肌酸激酶水平更低,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后1年2组JOA评分、ODI指数比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后1年2组JOA评分改善率(χ~2=1.140,P=0.293)及Macnab优良率(χ~2=1.020,P=0.437)差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论显微镜下椎管减压、经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合、经皮椎弓根钉内固定是治疗单节段腰椎腰椎退行性疾病既安全有效又可达到微创的手术方式。该术式具有手术创伤小、出血量少、近期疗效满意的优点。     

腰椎后路椎体间融合及内固定治疗低度腰椎滑脱

[目的]阐述、探讨腰椎后路椎体间融合（posterior lumbar interbody fusion，PLIF）及椎弓根内固定治疗低度腰椎滑脱的疗效及临床体会：[方法]回顾性分析2004年1月～2005年9月收治的53例行腰椎后路减压椎间融合及椎弓根内固定治疗的低度腰椎滑脱患者。分析手术前后的Boxall滑脱率、滑脱角及椎间高度的变化。分析临床疗效及融合率、手术方式、并发症之关系，阐述临床治疗新体会。[结果]53例患者均获得随访，平均随访16个月（9～21个月），49例（92，5％）病人获得椎体间骨性融合。术前与术后的Boxall指数、滑脱角及椎间高度均有显著差异（P〈0．01）。并发症：1例患者发生融合器后移；1例患者发生椎间隙低毒性感染；2例患者发生神经根牵拉伤；1例发生融合器下沉。[结论]腰椎滑脱通过腰椎后路一次完成减压、椎间植骨融合及椎弓根内固定，疗效显著。并发症发生与围手术期密切相关，手术过程因人而异，并发症的发生与手术操作技巧、协调性关系尤为密切。     

PLF与PLIF手术治疗腰椎滑脱症的疗效比较

目的:对比研究后外侧融合(PLF)与经后路椎体间融合(PLIF)治疗Ⅰ度和Ⅱ度腰椎滑脱症的疗效。方法:67例腰椎滑脱症患者分为PLF组32例,PLIF组35例。两组年龄、病程、术前临床表现及影像学资料相近似。PLF组JOA评分16.3±7.8分,PLIF组14.5±6.5分。两组均进行了后路椎板减压,短节段经椎弓根钉系统复位与固定。结果:PLF组手术时间平均187min,出血量平均680ml;PLIF组手术时间248min,出血量平均945ml。PLIF组慢性下腰痛改善明显高于PLF组(P=0.042),而临床疗效JOA评分两组间无显著性差异。骨融合率PLF组74.8%,PLIF组94.3%(P=0.011),经随访PLF组矫正率丢失30.9%,而PLIF组为9.8%(P<0.05)。PLF组各种并发症19例,PLIF组11例。结论:PLF与PLIF手术均是治疗腰椎滑脱症的有效术式,PLIF手术时间较长,创伤大,但骨融合率高,内固定失败率低,滑脱矫正率丢失少,晚期慢性下腰痛发生率低。     

后路腰椎间融合治疗腰椎管狭窄症患者腰痛的疗效分析

[目的]分析腰椎管狭窄症患者腰痛的原因,探讨后路腰椎间融合术对腰椎管狭窄症腰痛的治疗效果.[方法]比较腰痛明显的腰椎管狭窄症患者和典型间歇性跛行症状的腰椎管狭窄症患者的年龄、术前腰椎失稳、生理前凸消失和退变性侧弯的发生率;分析后路腰椎间融合 (posterior lumbar interbody fusion, PLIF) 治疗腰椎管狭窄症患者下腰痛的随访结果.[结果]腰痛明显组的腰椎管狭窄症患者的平均年龄、腰椎节段性失稳率、腰椎前凸消失和退变性侧弯的比率高于间歇性跛行组的腰椎管狭窄症患者.PLIF术后腰痛症状明显减轻,JOA评分改善,退变性侧弯程度减轻,腰椎前凸恢复,椎间均达到骨性融合.[结论]PLIF可消除腰椎管狭窄症的多种腰痛病因,是治疗腰椎管狭窄症下腰痛的较好术式选择.