The R-zero line: a new kinematic concept of the lumbar spine

Summary A new kinematic concept is described that relates to the notion that the lumbar spine behaves as a complete structure. This concept is called the R-zero line and represents kinematically the neutral position of the lumbar spine between anteflexion and retroflexion. The clinical significance of this parameter is evaluated in normal individuals and in patients with a symptomatic herniated disc at L4–5, with a symptomatic herniated disc at L5–S1, and with spondylolysis/spondylolisthesis. The results of this study show that the R-zero line has a characteristic configuration in all four test groups.     

腰骶移行椎类型与腰椎间盘突出、椎管狭窄及滑脱节段关系的临床研究

目的探讨不同类型的腰骶移行椎与腰椎间盘突出症、腰椎管狭窄症及滑脱节段的关系,为临床诊治提供参考。方法2004～2008年临床资料、影像资料完整腰骶移行椎91例,男46例,女45例;年龄男48．3±12．5（28～85）岁,女48．4±10．6（21～68）岁。按Castellvi分类进行分析。结果91例共发现病变217处。腰椎间盘突出症共51例占56％,其中L3／4,2例占2．2％,均为Ⅱ型移行椎;L4／5,41例占46．2％（Ⅰ型4例,Ⅱ型9例,Ⅲ型25例,Ⅳ型3例）;L5／S1,8例占8．8％,均为Ⅰ型移行椎。腰椎管狭窄症31例占34．1％,其中L3／4,9例占9．8％（Ⅱ型5例,Ⅲ型3例,Ⅳ型1例）;L4／5,11例占12．1％（Ⅰ型1例,Ⅱ型3例,Ⅲ型5例,Ⅳ型2例）;L5／S1,9例占9．8％（Ⅰ型3例,Ⅱ型6例）。腰椎滑脱节段：L4滑脱25例占27．5％（Ⅰ型4例,Ⅱ型9例,Ⅲ型10例,Ⅳ型2例）;L3滑脱3例占3．3％（Ⅱ型1例,Ⅲ型2例）;L2滑脱4例占4．4％（Ⅱ型2例,Ⅲ型2例）;L1滑脱1例;各型均无L5滑脱病例。结论Ⅰ型移行椎L4／5、L5／S1节段均可发生腰椎间盘突出症,Ⅱ型、Ⅲ型、Ⅳ型则只发生在L4／5节段和L3／4节段,L5／S1节段没有突出。Ⅰ型和Ⅱ移行椎以L5／S1节段狭窄及退变多见,L4／5次之;而Ⅲ型和Ⅳ型移行椎时腰椎管狭窄症于L4／5节段最多,L3／4次之,L5／S1节段没有狭窄,所有移行椎病例没有L5滑脱及峡部裂发生,L4滑脱最多,以Ⅱ型、Ⅲ型占主要,其次为L2、L3滑脱。     

经皮椎弓根钉内固定治疗高龄患者腰椎退变性滑脱所致腰痛的临床研究

目的观察经皮椎弓根钉治疗高龄老人腰椎退变性滑脱所致腰痛的临床疗效。方法201O年4月～2013年8月28例腰椎退变性滑脱所致腰痛的高龄老人,采用经皮椎弓根钉内固定实施治疗,对比术前、术后1周、术后6个月视觉模拟评分（VAS）和功能障碍指数（ODI）,记录手术时间及术中出血量,评价临床疗效。结果本组28例患者,术前视觉模拟评分（VAS）为（7．61±1．22）分,功能障碍指数（OO!）为（53．12±3．32）分：采用经皮椎弓根钉内固定治疗,术后1周内均带护腰支具下地活动,下地后术前腰痛症状消失或明显缓解,术后2周伤口甲级愈合并拆线。术后1周VAS为（2．30±0．98）分,0DI为（7．64±1．23）分;平均手术时间130分钟,平均出血量110ml。所有患者均获得随访,随访时间6个月,随访时VAS为（2．12±1．33）分,ODI为（8．46±2．20）分。结论经皮椎弓根钉内固定治疗高龄老人腰椎退变性滑脱所致腰痛疗效确切。     

成人腰椎滑脱症手术治疗进展

腰椎滑脱症是临床上的常见病和多发病,主要症状为下腰部疼痛,可有间歇性跛行及神经根性痛等下肢神经症状,越来越多的患者正饱受其困扰。随着医学技术的不断发展,本病的手术治疗也在不断发展和完善,但其临床表现复杂,目前对其治疗方式的选择尚未达成统一的认识,其手术治疗方式的选择仍在争论和探索。本文对近年手术治疗腰椎滑脱症的相关文献资料进行回顾与总结。     

退行性腰椎滑脱症患者多裂肌退行性变与临床症状的相关性

目的探讨退行性腰椎滑脱症患者多裂肌退行性变程度与腰椎前凸角、腰腿痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分以及Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)的相关性。方法回顾性分析51例退行性腰椎滑脱症患者的腰痛VAS评分、下肢痛VAS评分和ODI等临床资料。通过腰椎X线片判断滑脱严重程度并测量腰椎前凸角,其中Ⅰ度滑脱30例(L_4/L_5 20例、L_5/S_1 10例),Ⅱ度滑脱21例(L_4/L_5 15例、L_5/S_1 6例)。通过腰椎MRI测量患者L_4/L_5、L_5/S_1水平双侧多裂肌平均横截面积和脂肪浸润率,用Pearson相关分析评估多裂肌横截面积、脂肪浸润率与腰椎前凸角、腰痛VAS评分、下肢痛VAS评分和ODI的相关性。结果不同滑脱程度患者腰椎前凸角、腰痛VAS评分、下肢痛VAS评分、ODI差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。在相同节段,不同滑脱程度患者多裂肌横截面积差异无统计学意义(P0.05);Ⅰ度滑脱者多裂肌脂肪浸润率均低于Ⅱ度滑脱者,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。多裂肌横截面积、脂肪浸润率与腰椎前凸角、腰痛VAS评分、下肢痛VAS评分和ODI均无相关性。结论不同严重程度退行性腰椎滑脱症患者多裂肌的退行性变程度存在差异,多裂肌退行性变可能参与了退行性腰椎滑脱的进程,但尚不能证明多裂肌退行性变程度与临床症状存在相关性。     

滑脱腰椎椎体间接触面积变化规律在临床应用中的价值

背景：腰椎滑脱直接导致滑脱椎体与下位椎体间接触面积的减少，滑脱椎体间接触面积是决定椎间应力和腰椎退变的重要因素。腰椎椎体截面是不规则的肾形，没有成熟的数学公式可以直接计算出椎体间接触面积的变化规律。 目的：观察腰椎滑脱时椎体间接触面积的变化规律，并分析其临床意义。 方法：采集25套L4椎体下表面和L5椎体上表面的图像，在二维平面上均分为14步模拟腰椎滑脱过程，Image-ProPlus软件计算每一滑脱点(n)椎体间重叠面积Sn，取平均值后再换算成百分面积，Sn%=Sn/S×100%，观察0~100%滑移时椎体间接触面积的变化规律。根据此规律提出新的腰椎滑脱临床分期，并应用其指导治疗56例腰椎滑脱患者。 结果与结论：腰椎滑脱过程中，Sn%的变化是一个双曲线：滑脱率0~23%阶段，Sn%降低较缓慢；23%~44%阶段，Sn%的变化明显加快；44%~100%阶段，Sn%的变化再次变缓，拐点分别出现在一维滑脱率的(23±2)%和(44±2)%处。48例腰椎滑脱患者获得随访，临床疗效按Staufee标准优良率达90%左右。提示腰椎滑脱时椎体间接触面积的变化是非线性的，有助于腰椎稳定性评估并指导腰椎滑脱的临床治疗。     

Comparison of minimally invasive fusion and instrumentation versus open surgery for severe stenotic spondylolisthesis with high-grade facet joint osteoarthritis

Purpose

The object of this study was to compare minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with open surgery in a severely affected subgroup of degenerative spondylolisthetic patients with severe stenosis (SDS) and high-grade facet osteoarthritis (FJO).

Methods

From January 2009 to February 2010, 49 patients with severe SDS and high-grade FJO were treated using either MIS or open TLIF. Intraoperative and diagnostic data, including perioperative complications and length of hospital stay (LOS), were collected, using retrospective chart review. Surgical short- and long-term outcomes were assessed according to the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain.

Results

Comparing MIS and open surgery, the MIS group had lesser blood loss, significantly lesser need for transfusion (p = 0.02), more rapid improvement of postoperative back pain in the first 6 weeks of follow-up and a shorter LOS. On the other hand, we experienced in the MIS group a longer operative time. The distribution on the postoperative ODI (p = 0.841), VAS leg (p = 0.943) and back pain (p = 0.735) scores after a mean follow-up of 2 years were similar. The overall proportion of complications showed no significant difference between the groups (29 % in the MIS group vs. 28 % in the open group, p = 0.999).

Conclusion

Minimally invasive surgery for severe SDS leads to adequate and safe decompression of lumbar stenosis and results in a faster recovery of symptoms and disability in the early postoperative period.     

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.     

Radiographic evaluation of ventral instability in lumbar spondylolisthesis: do we need extension radiographs in routine exams?

Purpose

To determine the usefulness of acquiring extension radiographs for the evaluation of the degree of spondylolisthesis.

Methods

Routine radiographs of the lumbar spine were retrospectively evaluated in 87 patients (mean-age 63, range 32–86) by two independent radiologists. All patients received radiographs in standing neutral, flexion and extension position. Vertebral body depth, sagittal translational displacement and lordosis angle were measured and slip percentage (SP) was calculated on standing neutral, flexion and extension radiographs. Statistical analysis was performed with a two-sided t test. Inter- and intraobserver reliability was assessed using the kappa-coefficient.

Results

There was no statistically significant SP-difference between neutral standing and extension images. Ventral instability was diagnosed in 25–34 % (cut-off >8 % SP-difference) for neutral versus flexion comparison. The detection rate of flexion–extension radiographs representing the extremes of motion was lower with 15–22 %. Inter- and intraobserver reliability was good to excellent.

Conclusion

Slip percentage in routine standing extension radiography ultimately does not differ from that obtained in a static neutral standing view. Extension radiography may therefore be omitted in a routine work-up of ventral instability in lumbar spondylolisthesis.     

老年退变性腰椎滑脱症患者脊柱骨盆矢状面参数研究

目的分析比较≥65岁老年退变性腰椎滑脱症（degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis,DLS）患者与同年龄段无滑脱人群的脊柱骨盆矢状面参数。方法选择2004年1月~2014年1月间于本院就诊,影像学资料完整,无峡部裂、椎体肿瘤,椎体结核、椎体压缩性骨折等疾病,且无腰椎手术史的≥65岁的DLS患者50例为滑脱组。以相同纳入标准选择50例年龄性别匹配的无腰椎滑脱的老年人为对照组。测量滑脱组患者腰椎滑脱椎间盘角和滑脱率均值,再测量并比较2组患者的腰椎前凸角（lumbar lordosis,LL）、骨盆入射角（pelvic incidence,PI）、骨盆倾斜角（pelvic tilt,PT）和骶骨倾斜角（sacral slope,SS）。滑脱组内再按性别分组比较各参数,并分别计算2组患者各参数间的相关性。结果滑脱组患者滑脱椎间盘角为7.4°±5.2°,滑脱率为（22.5±9.5）%。滑脱组患者的LL、PI、PT、SS均明显高于对照组。滑脱组内分性别比较时,滑脱参数和腰椎矢状面参数差异均无统计学意义。结论老年DLS患者较同龄无腰椎滑脱人群有着更大的LL、PI、PT、SS。性别因素可能对老年DLS患者的滑脱参数和主要脊柱骨盆矢状面参数无显著影响。