单节段腰椎退变不稳并神经根管狭窄手术治疗的初步报告

目的 探讨应用腰椎侧后方斜向单枚ＢＡＫ椎间融合器椎间融合及小关节螺钉固定术治疗单节段腰椎退变不稳并神经根和狭窄的治疗效果。方法 采用后路腰椎侧后方对神经根管彻底减压,由侧后方斜向植入单枚ＢＡＫ椎间植骨融合器,再经棘突根部向对侧未减压的小关节植入１枚小关节螺钉固定的方法,治疗单节段腰椎退变不稳并神经根管狭窄患者３０例,男３０例,女１７例,平均年龄４６．５岁;其中融合节段为Ｌ３～４者４例,Ｌ４－５者１     

经椎间孔入路治疗退变性腰椎疾病

[目的]探讨经椎间孔后入路腰椎间融合结合内固定治疗退变性腰椎疾病的临床疗效.[方法]本组采用经椎间孔后路椎间融合与椎弓根钉棒脊柱内固定系统治疗退变性腰椎疾病27例,74个节段,其中腰椎退行性滑脱10例,节段不稳伴椎管狭窄7例,节段不稳伴椎间盘突出8例,高位椎间盘突出2例.[结果]所有病人术后经15～33个月,平均26.8个月的随访,2～3个月融合节段可见模糊骨痂生长,4～6个月达骨性愈合,依据日本JOA疗效评定标准,优21例,良4例,中2例,差0例,总优良率为94.8%.无固定螺钉松动、断裂,无椎问高度及复位丢失,无神经根及马尾神经损伤,无硬脊膜破裂.[结论]经椎间孔腰椎间融合术与后路椎弓根螺钉系统联合应用,可使腰椎获得即刻稳定,恢复脊柱序列及椎间高度,维持腰椎牛理弧度,促进植骨融合,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,是治疗退变性腰椎疾病的有效手术方式.     

单侧经椎间孔腰椎间融合治疗腰椎节段性不稳

目的探讨单侧经椎间孔后路腰椎间融合与内固定治疗腰椎不稳的临床疗效。方法本组采用单侧经椎间孔后路椎间融合与TENOR脊柱内固定系统治疗腰椎节段性不稳32例,49个节段,其中腰椎退行性滑脱7例,节段不稳伴椎管狭窄16例,节段不稳伴椎间盘突出9例。结果经6~22个月,平均12个月的随访,2个月融合节段可见模糊骨痂生长,4~6个月达骨性愈合,术后症状消失25例,显著改善5例,优良率为93%。无固定螺钉松动、断裂,无椎间高度及复位丢失情况,钛网融合器除1例放置偏后并有2 mm下沉外,其余均正常。结论单侧经椎间孔腰椎间融合术是新近发展应用的技术,与后路椎弓根螺钉系统联合应用,可使腰椎获得即刻稳定,恢复脊柱序列及椎间高度,维持腰椎生理弧度,促进植骨融合。     

腰椎融合联合邻近节段K-Rod动态固定治疗腰椎退行性疾病

[目的]观察单节段腰椎后路椎间融合联合邻近节段K-Rod动态固定术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效。[方法]回顾性分析2010年6月~2012年9月手术治疗的50例腰椎退行性疾病患者的临床资料,根据手术方式不同分为2组:单节段腰椎后路融合联合邻近节段K-Rod动态固定术组(A组)和单节段腰椎后路融合术组(B组),其中A组男14例,女11例;平均年龄(41.2±5.6)岁;B组男12例,女13例;平均年龄(47.4±5.2)岁。评估两组患者的神经改善情况、腰椎总活动度、近端邻近节段活动度及椎间隙高度情况。[结果]随访时间12~25个月,平均16.7个月。无不可逆性神经症状加重、内置物失败等并发症,临床疗效满意。在末次随访时,两组患者术后VAS及ODI评分均获得显著改善(P<0.05);A组动态固定节段的活动度术前(8.50±0.76)°,末次随访(3.45±0.49)°,存在统计学差异(P<0.05);A组动态固定节段的近端临近节段的活动度术前(7.62±0.50)°,末次随访(7.87±0.62)°,无统计学差异;B组近端临近节段活动度术前(8.20±1.13)°,末次随访(8.90±1.03)°,存在统计学差异(P<0.05);在末次随访时,两组腰椎总活动度及椎间隙高度均无统计学差异(p>0.05)。[结论]腰椎后路融合联合邻近节段K-Rod动态固定术治疗腰椎退行性疾病早期疗效明确,能够维持一定的脊柱生物学功能,并能避免相邻节段退变的进展,但远期疗效有待进一步观察。     

微创B-Twin椎间融合器治疗腰椎不稳的疗效分析

[目的]探讨后路小切口B-Twin椎间融合术治疗退行性腰椎不稳症的手术特点和临床疗效.[方法]收治退行性腰椎不稳症患者13例13间隙,其中L4、5节段不稳11例,L5S1节段不稳2例.患者均行后路小切口开放手术B-Twin椎间融合术,疗效评价采用日本矫形外科协会(JOA)下腰痛评分标准.[结果]所有患者术后均无感染、神经功能损伤及融合器脱落等并发症.随访时间 12～23个月(平均16.2 个月),13例患者术前JOA 评分平均4.2分, 随访结束时JOA 评分平均14.4分,JOA评分术后改善率:优11例, 良1例, 可1例, 差0 例, 优良率92.3%.13例患者椎间植骨均获得融合,平均植骨融合时间为19.8 周.随访过程B-twin椎间融合器位置良好,椎间隙高度除有2例丢失外(<10%),其余的无明显改变.[结论]对于合并有轻度退行性腰椎不稳的腰椎间盘源性疾病患者使用后路小切口B-Twin可膨胀性椎间融合器联合大量自体颗粒骨植骨融合手术治疗具有创伤小、安全性高、植骨融合率高,且临床疗效可靠的优点,值得进一步探讨.     

双BAK椎间植骨融合术在治疗腰椎不稳症中的应用

目的：评价BAK椎间盘植骨融合对腰椎不稳症的治疗效果。方法：对38例腰椎不稳症患者采用前或后路BAK置入椎间单或多节段植骨融合，滑脱病例同时使用椎弓根钉复位固定，并经后路行椎管和神经根管减压。结果：36例随访8－32个月，平均15．8个月。滑脱复位率94．4％（34／36）；BAK融合率91．7％（33／36）。按0－9评分系统标准评定疗效；优11例，良21例，可4例，优良率88．9％，4例分别出现了伤口不愈合，窦道形成，滑脱复位不完全；假关节形成。结论：BAK能够提供节段稳定性及为椎间骨融合创造良好的生物力学环境，但在临床应用中必须严格掌握手术适应证及术中操作技巧。     

后路椎间盘镜显微治疗腰椎椎管狭窄症

目的 报道显微后路椎间盘镜治疗退行性腰椎椎管狭窄症的临床效果。方法 选取退行性腰椎管狭窄症病例，椎板间隙入路椎间盘镜下行椎管减压，单侧单节段开窗减压23例，双侧单节段开窗减压12例，单侧双节段开窗减压9例，单侧双节段半椎板切除减压4例。结果 除1例术中硬膜破裂改常规手术外，其余病例均在手术显微镜下完成腰椎管减压术。所有病例获得5～18个月随访，平均8．3个月，优良率92％。结论 显微后路椎间盘镜治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症具有手术创伤小、神经根减压彻底、术后恢复快的特点；单纯腰椎间盘膨出或突出、黄韧带肥厚和小关节增生引起的退行性腰椎管狭窄症是其适应证。     

腰椎后路减压融合内固定术后邻近节段退行性疾病的手术疗效分析

目的 观察不同手术方法治疗腰椎后路减压融合内固定术后邻近节段退行性疾病的临床疗效,通过相关文献分析邻近节段退行性疾病发生原因及手术方式选择。方法 回顾性分析自2013-02—2020-01手术治疗的28例腰椎后路减压融合内固定术后邻近节段腰椎退行性疾病,5例行后路腰椎间融合术,9例行经椎间孔腰椎间融合术,6例行侧路腰椎间融合术,8例行经皮脊柱内镜椎间盘切除术。结果 28例均获得随访,随访时间平均22.5(12～48)个月。随访期间未出现假关节形成、融合器移位或沉降、螺钉断裂、螺钉松动,融合节段均获得骨性融合。术后第3天腰痛VAS评分、腿痛VAS评分、ODI指数较术前降低,术后12个月上述指标较术后第3天降低,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。末次随访时骨盆倾斜角、骨盆入射角、骶骨倾斜角与术前比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）,而腰椎前凸角较术前增加,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。开放手术20例末次随访时改良MacNab标准评定结果：优14例,良5例,可1例。微创手术8例末次随访时改良MacNab标准评定结果：优4例,良3例,差1例。结论 腰椎后路减压融合内固定术...     

腰椎板减压和扩大减压术后腰椎不稳的临床观察

目的:观察下腰椎椎板减压术后腰椎不稳的出现机率和症状出现机率。观察Ⅰ期TFC植入椎间融合的中期临术疗效。方法:1986年以来收治腰椎间盘突出和间盘突出合并侧隐窝。神经根管狭窄神经嵌压症356例,行全椎板减压间盘摘除295例。1998年5月以来对18例患者Ⅰ期行TFC植入椎间融合术。或AE协和钢板共43例。结果:全椎板减压患者2年以上随诊210例。X线显示节段不稳30例,占14％:其中有过腰椎症状者6例,不足30％。结论:手术方式的合理应首先考虑彻底解除病理改变和临床症状,本组资料显示腰椎板减压(必要时部分切除小关节突)是一种安全、低合并症的手术方式。螺旋型椎间融合器(TFC)经后路椎间植骨融合及短节段A-F,协和式钢板内固定的应用为预防和治疗椎板减压术后下腰椎不稳提供了新的方法。     

后路钉棒固定椎间融合治疗腰椎退行性不稳并椎管狭窄

目的探讨后路全椎板切除减压、椎弓根钉棒固定椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性不稳并椎管狭窄的特点及疗效。方法采用经后路全椎板切除减压、椎弓根钉棒固定椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性不稳并椎管狭窄23例。结果本组均获得随访,随访时间为4~56个月,平均13个月。按JOA疗效评分标准和SUK等植骨融合标准进行评价,本组优19例,良3例,差1例。结论经后路全椎板切除减压、椎弓根钉棒固定椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性不稳并椎管狭窄是值得推荐的疗效可靠的手术方法。     

下腰椎手术失败原因分析及再手术治疗

目的：探讨下腰椎手术失败的主要原因及再手术的可能性。方法：42例因各种下腰椎退行性变疾患手术治疗后失败的患者，包括椎间盘突出症15例，单节段退变性神经根管狭窄症16例，腰椎滑脱症9例，多节段退行性神经根管狭窄症2例，其中34例为1次手术失败，5例为2次手术失败，2例为3次手术失败，1例为5次手术失败，经术前仔细影像学及临床周密检查，均再次手术，主要采用根管减压、侧后方腰椎间植骨融合内固定术。结果：手术失败原因可归结为定性定位错误、解剖不清、螺钉误置以及单纯依靠内固定而忽视融合等。经再次手术治疗后临床疗效优29例，良10例，可2例，1例根性瘫痪。42例患者下腰椎均重获正常解剖序列，滑脱患者全部获得满意解剖复位，随访半年以上均获得椎间融合。结论：下腰椎手术失败后，应认真分析原因，有针对性地再次行手术治疗，可使患者获得满意疗效。     

Retroperitoneal approach for lumbar interbody fusion with anterolateral instrumentation for treatment of spondylolisthesis and degenerative foraminal stenosis

BACKGROUND: An alternative approach for the treatment of the degenerative or unstable lumbar spine using retroperitoneal lateral LIF with anterolateral screw-plate or screw-rod fixation is introduced. Special attention is given to application of this procedure in patients who have undergone prior lumbar surgery. METHODS: Between 1998 and 2001, 14 patients underwent lateral LIF with anterolateral instrumentation to treat degenerative foraminal stenosis or spondylolisthesis. Eleven patients (79%) had undergone prior posterior lumbar surgery, 7 of whom were also fused at that time. All patients first presented with mechanical back pain, radicular pain, or both. The mean follow-up was 21 months (range, 8 to 36 months). RESULTS: Radicular pain and mechanical back pain significantly improved in 71% and 54% of patients, respectively. Of the 9 patients with preoperative neurological deficits, 7 were intact or had improved at their follow-up examination. One patient developed postoperative radiculopathy contralateral to his original symptoms. Radiography confirmed good positioning of the hardware and evidence of fusion in all 14 patients. No major complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Retroperitoneal lateral LIF with anterolateral instrumentation is an attractive alternative for the treatment of the degenerative or unstable lumbar spine in the absence of significant spinal stenosis. This approach is particularly useful for treating spondylolisthesis or degenerative foraminal stenosis in the postoperative lumbar spine.     

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a common technique for treating a variety of lumbar spine disorders. Although used predominantly to obtain fusion, it is also excellent for restoring lumbar lordosis and can be used for indirect decompression, especially in the setting of foraminal stenosis.⁴ The technique is used predominantly at L4-5 and L5-S1, but can be used at L3-4 and even L2-3. ALIF provides an excellent biomechanical environment for arthrodesis. The anterior longitudinal ligament resection allows for excellent restoration of lordosis. ALIF can be performed as an isolated procedure or combined with posterior approaches. Although there are major risks associated with the required abdominal approach, ALIF has reached popularity for its reliability and versatility. With good knowledge of anatomical hazards, the properly indicated patient has much to gain with an ALIF surgery.     

Radiculopathy caused by osteoporotic vertebral fractures in the lumbar spine

The clinical features of radiculopathy caused by osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) in the lumbar spine were investigated in 66 patients treated for pain caused by OVFs from January 2006 to December 2009. Ten of the patients complained of persistent radiculopathy. The cause of radiculopathy was initially diagnosed as lumbar canal stenosis (LCS) in seven patients, lumbar foraminal stenosis (LFS) in two, and both in one. One patient with LFS had reduced pain with conservative treatment, and the other nine needed surgical treatments. LCS was treated with posterior decompression, and LFS complicated with LCS at the same spinal level was treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Vertebroplasty was performed for one patient with LFS to attain indirect nerve root decompression achieved as a result of vertebral reconstruction and stabilization. Four of the patients treated with posterior decompression for LCS suffered from residual radiculopathy postoperatively, which was caused by LFS at the same level or the level below the treated level. Two patients underwent second operative procedure (PLIF) for recurrent radiculopathy. The Japanese Orthopedic Association and Visual Analogue Scale scores of the pain improved after operations, but the scores of the patients treated without spinal fusion gradually worsened during the follow-up period, whereas the scores of the patients treated with PLIF remained stable at various levels. Seven of the ten patients developed LFS following OVF, suggesting that radiculopathy following OVF involves LFS with high frequency.     

同体位斜向椎体间融合与单侧椎弓钉固定技术

[目的]介绍同体位斜向椎体间融合与单侧椎弓钉固定的手术技术和初步临床效果.[方法] 2018年7月-2019年6月应用同体位下经斜外侧腰椎椎间融合术联合单侧椎弓根螺钉固定治疗腰椎退行性疾病患者43例.患者侧取右侧卧位,左腹部外侧行4 cm斜切口,分离腹肌至腹膜后间隙.暴露椎间隙,切除椎间盘,置入填有同种异体骨的融合笼架...     

Surgical treatment of adjacent instability after lumbar spine fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: This study is a retrospective review of 39 patients with previous instrumented lumbar fusion who underwent secondary spine surgery for lumbar adjacent instability. To the authors' knowledge, this is the largest study of surgical treatment of lumbar adjacent instability in the literature to date. OBJECT: This study evaluated the feasibility of adjacent instability treated with medial facetectomy, fusion with autologous bone grafting, and pedicle screw instrumentation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The surgical treatment of adjacent instability has seldom been discussed. Revision spine fusions are challenged by high pseudarthrosis rates. METHODS: Thirty-nine patients with previous lumbar fusion underwent second lumbar spine surgery for adjacent instability. All were treated with autogenous posterolateral arthrodesis and transpedicle screw fixation in addition to decompressive laminectomy. Medical records, radiographs, and pain scores were obtained. RESULTS: The clinical results were excellent or good in 76.9% of patients, and the radiographic fusion was successful in 37 (94.9%) of patients. Flat back was noted in 8 (20.5%) of patients. In 5 patients (12.8%), neighboring segment breakdown again developed, and 2 of those patients underwent a third lumbar fusion. Dural tear during operation occurred in 2 patients. One patient experienced cauda equina syndrome but recovered bladder function 1 month later. CONCLUSION: Autogenous posterolateral arthrodesis combined with pedicle screw fixation led to successful radiologic and clinical outcome in patients with lumbar adjacent instability. Adequate decompression of the adjacent stenosis requires medial facetectomy, thus preventing aggressive nerve root manipulation and reducing the incidence of dural tear.     

Microscopic anterior foraminal decompression combined with anterior lumbar interbody fusion

Background context

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPF) provides successful surgical outcomes to isthmic spondylolisthesis patients with indirect decompression through foraminal volume expansion. However, indirect decompression through ALIF followed by PPF may not obtain a successful surgical outcome in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis accompanied by foraminal stenosis caused by a posterior osteophyte or foraminal sequestrated disc herniation. Thus far, there has been no report of foraminal decompression through anterior direct access in the lumbar spine.

Purpose

This study aims to describe the new surgical technique of microscopic anterior foraminal decompression and to analyze the clinical outcomes and radiologic results of the microscopic anterior decompression during ALIF followed by PPF.

Study design/Setting

We conducted a multisurgeon, retrospective, clinical series from a single institution.

Patient sample

This study was carried out from March 2007 to July 2010 and included 40 consecutive patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis accompanied by foraminal stenosis caused by posterior osteophyte or foraminal sequestrated disc herniation undergoing microscopic anterior foraminal decompression during ALIF followed by PPF.

Outcome measures

The visual analog scales (VAS) of back and leg pain and the Oswestry disability index were measured preoperatively and at the last follow-up.

Methods

Postoperative computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging measured whether decompression of neural structure had been made and morphometric change of the foramen and the amount of resected bone. Moreover, segmental lordosis, whole lumbar lordosis, disc height, and degree of listhesis were measured through X-ray examination before the operation and at the last follow-up; we also verified whether fusion had been achieved.

Results

Successful decompression was confirmed in both patients with foraminal stenosis caused by posterior osteophyte and those with foraminal sequestrated disc herniation. Clinically, compared with before the surgery, the VAS (leg and back) and the Oswestry disability index significantly decreased at the last follow-up (p=.000). With regard to radiology, at the last follow-up all patients had bone fusion on X-ray examination, and an increase in disc height, a reduction in the degree of listhesis, an increase in segmental lordosis, and an increase in whole lumbar lordosis were significant in both groups (p=.000) compared with before the surgery. Foraminal volume, foraminal width, and foraminal height also significantly increased postoperatively compared with before the operation (p=.000). The height, width, and dimension of resected body were 4.61±1.05 mm, 7.92±1.42 mm, 17.15±4.96 mm², respectively, in patients with foraminal stenosis caused by a posterior osteophyte, and 3.88±0.92 mm, 6.8±1.29 mm, and 13.12±2.25 mm², respectively, in patients with foraminal sequestrated disc.

Conclusions

The microscopic anterior foraminal approach provides successful foraminal decompression. Combined with ALIF and PPF, this approach shows a good surgical outcome in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis accompanied by foraminal stenosis caused by a posterior osteophyte or those with foraminal sequestrated disc herniation.     

两种手术方式治疗退变性腰椎滑脱症的疗效比较

[目的]对比椎弓根钉内固定联合单枚Cage斜形放置椎间植骨融合与椎弓根钉内固定后外侧融合治疗退变性腰椎滑脱的临床疗效。[方法]单节段退变性腰椎滑脱患者44例,按手术方式分为:Ⅰ组23例,行椎弓根器械复位固定后单枚Cage斜形放置的椎体间融合;Ⅱ组21例,行椎弓根器械复位固定后外侧融合。对两组术后JOA评分,腰腿痛VAS评分,影像学进行随访。[结果]随访15~36个月,两组间JOA评分、骨融合率无显著性差异(P>0.05);Ⅰ组在下腰痛缓解的VAS评分、Taillard指数、相对椎间隙高度的维持方面优于Ⅱ组(P<0.05)。[结论]单枚融合器附加椎弓根钉的椎间植骨融合是治疗退变性腰椎滑脱更为理想的方法。     

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.