关节突关节形态与退变性腰椎滑脱的关系

目的 探讨关节突关节形态与退变性腰椎滑脱的方法。方法 首先对41例60岁以下（平均年龄55岁）有L4－5退变性滑脱的患者和32例（平均年龄53岁）正常人进行对照检查。用CT轴向扫描关节突关节，测量L3－4，L4－5，L5－S1关节突关节的角度，关节横向，关节面的深度和观察关节面形态。第二部分研究分别测量40例40岁以下和40例60岁以肯要痛患者的关节突关节角度，观察其关节。结果 退变笥滑脱患者与对照组相比，L4－5节段关节角度方向明显偏向矢状面，关节角度不对称和关节面深度比也有显著差异。第二部分2组下腰痛患者的关节突关节角度无统计学差异。结论 60岁以下的退变性腰椎滑脱患者存在着关节突关节形态异常，L4－5节段关节或矢状排列和／或同时伴有关节角不对称是腰椎早期滑脱的危险因素。     

Disc displacement without reduction: a retrospective study of a clinical diagnostic sign

Objective: The purpose of this retrospective study is to evaluate a clinical diagnostic sign for disc displacement without reduction (DDWR), the absence of additional condylar translation during opening compared with protrusion.

Method: Thirty-eight electronic axiographic and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations of the TMJ were analyzed in order to compare the opening/protrusion ratio of condylar translation between non-painful DDWR and non-DDWR.

Result: According to the Mann-Whitney U test, the opening/protrusion ratio in non-painful DDWR differs significantly from non-DDWR (p < 0.0001).

Discussion: Among non-painful DDWR, there is no additional condylar translation during opening in comparison with protrusion, and this is probably also the case for DDWR without limited opening, which is a subtype that has not been validated by the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD). Comparative condylar palpation can analyze this sign, and therefore, further comparative investigations between MRI and clinical examination are needed to validate the corresponding clinical test.     

Does TGF-β play a role in degenerative temporomandibular joint diseases? A systematic review

Objectives: The objective of this review was to assess the literature for evidence investigating the role of TGF-β in temporomandibular joint disease with osteoarthritis.

Method: An electronic and manual search was carried out on the databases, MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web Of Science, and EMBASE, from 1975 to December 2015 by two independent evaluators to identify clinical and laboratory trials in English.

Results: The search produced 693 records. Following a process of selection based on certain criteria, eight articles were included.

Discussion: This systematic review suggests that TGF-β administration alone does not result in joint regeneration; other factors may be involved, such as TGF-β receptor expression ,and TGF-β receptor mutations that do not allow a correct transduction, resulting in TGF-β deficiency. The anabolism induced by this growth factor is also able to neutralize the catabolic processes that are elevated in osteoarthritis. Therefore, further studies are essential to determine how the concentration of TGF-β in the temporomandibular joints acts as a potential marker for the development of degenerative conditions.     

MIS-TLIF术中混合固定与传统双侧固定治疗单节段腰椎退行性疾病的临床效果比较

目的对比分析MIS-TLIF手术中单侧椎弓根螺钉联合对侧椎板关节突螺钉(混合固定)与双侧椎弓根螺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2013年1月至2015年10月间于我院因单节段腰椎退行性疾病行MIS-TLIF术的79例患者。其中行混合固定MIS-TLIF术(混合固定组)患者37例;行双侧内固定MIS-TLIF术(双侧固定组)患者42例。记录手术时间、术中失血量、住院时间及并发症发生率;在术前和术后随访时进行VAS腰痛及下肢痛评分、ODI评分及影像学检查,评估椎体间融合情况并测量手术节段Cobb角。结果混合固定组平均随访时间为(14.8±6.6)个月,手术时间为(119.0±22.4)min,术中失血量(231.7±31.2)mL,住院天数(4.3±1.9)天,术后6月融合率为94.6%,术后随访VAS评分、ODI评分与节段Cobb角与术前均明显改善;双侧固定组平均随访时间为(17.9±10.1)个月,手术时间为(153.8±31.3)min,术中失血量(243.5±24.9)mL,住院天数(6.1±2.7)天,术后6月融合率为92.9%,术后随访VAS评分、ODI评分与节段Cobb角与术前均明显改善。两组间各时间点的VAS评分、ODI评分与Cobb角的差异无统计学意义,但混合固定组手术时间及住院时间明显优于双侧组。结论 MIS-TLIF术联合混合内固定治疗单节段腰椎退行性疾病的临床效果与传统双侧内固定相似,同时混合固定的手术时间短、术后康复更快。     

脊索细胞培养基促进BMSCs增殖分化的研究

目的为研究椎间盘组织工程种子细胞,观察脊索细胞培养基对BMSCs增殖分化的影响。方法取4周龄日本大耳白兔胸腰段椎间盘分离培养脊索细胞,取双侧股骨分离培养BMSCs,用含15%FBS的DMEM/F12培养基培养脊索细胞,5 d后制备脊索细胞培养基。实验分为两组,实验组BMSCs中加入脊索细胞培养基培养,对照组BMSCs中加入含15%FBS的DMEM/F12培养基培养。使用细胞活力细胞毒性检测检测细胞增殖情况,采用免疫荧光及实时荧光定量PCR检测BMSCs蛋白多糖及Ⅱ型胶原表达情况。结果成功分离脊索细胞及BMSCs。细胞增殖检测示,培养5、7、9、14 d,实验组细胞数量明显多于对照组(P<0.05)。免疫荧光检测示对照组培养7、14 d细胞内均无或者有较少Ⅱ型胶原及蛋白多糖表达,实验组二者均有较多表达,且培养14 d时表达明显多于7 d。实时荧光定量PCR检测示,培养7、14 d实验组蛋白多糖和Ⅱ型胶原mRNA表达均显著高于对照组(P<0.05);实验组14 d蛋白多糖和Ⅱ型胶原mRNA表达显著高于7 d(P<0.05)。结论脊索细胞培养基可促进BMSCs增殖,并诱导BMSCs向类软骨细胞分化,为脊索细胞和BMSCs作为种子细胞治疗椎间盘退变提供了依据。     

Comparative study of spinopelvic sagittal alignment between patients with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis

Introduction

To date, few studies have focused on spinopelvic sagittal alignment as a predisposing factor for the development of degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). The objectives of this study were to compare differences in spinopelvic sagittal alignment between patients with or without DS and to elucidate factors related to spinopelvic sagittal alignment.

Materials and methods

A total of 100 patients with or without DS who underwent surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis were assessed in this study. Fifty patients with DS (DS group) and 50 age- and gender-matched patients without DS (non-DS group) were enrolled. Spinopelvic parameters including pelvic incidence (PI), sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT), L4 slope, L5 slope, thoracic kyphosis (TK), lumbar lordosis (LL) and sagittal balance were compared between the two groups. In the DS group, the percentage of vertebral slip (% slip) was also measured.

Results

Several spinopelvic parameters, PI, SS, L4 slope, L5 slope, TK and LL, in the DS group were significantly greater than those in the non-DS group, and PI had positive correlation with % slip (r = 0.35, p < 0.05). Degrees of correlations among spinopelvic parameters differed between the two groups. In the DS group, PI was more strongly correlated with SS (r = 0.82, p < 0.001) than with PT (r = 0.41, p < 0.01). In the non-DS group, PI was more strongly correlated with PT (r = 0.73, p < 0.001) than with SS (r = 0.38, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Greater PI may lead to the development and the progression of vertebral slip. Different compensatory mechanisms may contribute to the maintenance of spinopelvic sagittal alignment in DS and non-DS patients.     

Wallis棘突间动态稳定装置治疗腰椎退行性疾病

目的:评价Wallis装置治疗腰椎退行性疾病的初步临床疗效。方法:对2007年8月至2010年6月接受Wallis棘突间动态稳定装置治疗的48例腰椎退行性疾病患者进行回顾性分析,男30例,女18例;年龄40～68岁,平均54.2岁。单节段病变44例,双节段病变4例;其中L3,44例,L4,540例,L3,4和L4,5双节段4例。采用JOA、Oswestry评分标准进行疼痛及功能评价,采用Odom方法进行疗效评估,并摄X线片进行影像学评估。结果:48例均获随访,时间12～24个月,平均18个月。采用Odom评估标准:优20例,良24例,可4例。JOA评分由术前的(12.4±2.7)分增加到术后12个月的(26.1±2.0)分(P<0.01);Oswestry疼痛功能障碍指数由术前的(14.1±2.9)分降至术后12个月的(5.5±1.8)分(P<0.01)。腰椎侧位X线片显示神经根管高度和椎间隙后高度术前与术后12个月比较均有统计学差异(P<0.01)。结论:Wallis棘突间动态稳定装置可较好地维持相应节段的动态稳定,扩大椎管容积,安全可行,近期疗效满意。     

单纯减压与减压融合内固定术治疗伴I度退行性滑脱的腰椎管狭窄症的疗效比较

目的:比较单纯减压术与减压融合内固定术治疗伴Ⅰ度退行性滑脱的腰椎管狭窄症的疗效。方法:1993年1月~2007年6月收治的61例伴Ⅰ度退行性滑脱的腰椎管狭窄症患者,按手术方法分为单纯减压组(A组)和减压加融合内固定组(B组),A组28例,B组33例。两组年龄、性别、病程及术前JOA评分、腰腿痛VAS评分、椎体滑脱程度及椎间隙高度无统计学差异(P>0.05)。A组单纯行椎板开窗、椎管潜行扩大术,B组行椎板扩大开窗、后外侧或加椎间融合、椎弓根螺钉内固定术。均获2年以上随访,其中A组25例随访4~12年,平均6.8±4.7年;B组31例随访4~11年,平均6.5±4.1年;两组随访时间无统计学差异(P>0.05)。比较两组术后2年及末次随访时的JOA评分、腰痛及腿痛VAS评分、滑脱节段的椎间隙高度及滑脱程度变化。结果:B组手术时间、术中出血量均明显大于A组(P<0.05)。A组并发症3例,其中术中硬脊膜撕裂2例,神经根损伤1例;B组并发症6例,其中术中硬脊膜撕裂3例,术后根性疼痛1例,术后切口感染1例,全麻术后认知功能障碍1例。A组再手术3例,其中2例因腰痛加重伴影像学滑脱加重至Ⅱ度分别于术后5年和6年行内固定融合术,再手术后腰痛缓解;1例因腰痛改善不满意于术后3年行内固定融合术,再手术后症状缓解;B组无再手术病例。术后2年A、B组JOA评分优良率分别为89.8%和90.9%,末次随访时分别为76%和87.1%,两组比较均无统计学差异(P>0.05)。两组腰痛VAS评分术后2年和末次随访时较术前明显降低(P<0.05),A组末次随访时较术后2年增加(P<0.05),B组末次随访时与术后2年比较无统计学差异(P>0.05),术后2年和末次随访时B组腰痛VAS评分明显低于A组(P<0.05)。两组腿痛VAS评分术后2年及末次随访时较术前明显降低(P<0.05),组间比较无统计学差异(P>0.05)。A组术后滑脱节段椎间高度较术前降低,末次随访时低于术后2年(P<0.05),滑脱程度术后2年时较术前无加重但末次随访时较术后2年时增加(P<0.05);B组术后椎间隙高度维持,滑脱部分复位,术后2年及末次随访时无丢失(P>0.05)。结论:单纯开窗减压与减压融合内固定术治疗伴Ⅰ度退行性滑脱的腰椎管狭窄症早期疗效相当,前者损伤小、并发症少但中远期效果下降,而后者能更好维持中远期疗效。     

Thirty-day readmissions after elective spine surgery for degenerative conditions among US Medicare beneficiaries

Background context

Readmissions within 30 days of hospital discharge are undesirable and costly. Little is known about reasons for and predictors of readmissions after elective spine surgery to help plan preventative strategies.

Purpose

To examine readmissions within 30 days of hospital discharge, reasons for readmission, and predictors of readmission among patients undergoing elective cervical and lumbar spine surgery for degenerative conditions.

Study design

Retrospective cohort study.

Patient sample

Patient sample includes 343,068 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent cervical and lumbar spine surgery for degenerative conditions from 2003 to 2007.

Outcome measures

Readmissions within 30 days of discharge, excluding readmissions for rehabilitation.

Methods

Patients were identified in Medicare claims data using validated algorithms. Reasons for readmission were classified into clinically meaningful categories using a standardized coding system (Clinical Classification Software).

Results

Thirty-day readmissions were 7.9% after cervical surgery and 7.3% after lumbar surgery. There was no dominant reason for readmissions. The most common reasons for readmissions were complications of surgery (26%–33%) and musculoskeletal conditions in the same area of the operation (15%). Significant predictors of readmission for both operations included older age, greater comorbidity, dual eligibility for Medicare/Medicaid, and greater number of fused levels. For cervical spine readmissions, additional risk factors were male sex, a diagnosis of myelopathy, and a posterior or combined anterior/posterior surgical approach; for lumbar spine readmissions, additional risk factors were black race, Middle Atlantic geographic region, fusion surgery, and an anterior surgical approach. Our model explained more than 60% of the variability in readmissions.

Conclusions

Among Medicare beneficiaries, 30-day readmissions after elective spine surgery for degenerative conditions represent a target for improvement. Both patient factors and operative techniques are associated with readmissions. Interventions to minimize readmissions should be specific to surgical site and focus on high-risk subgroups where clinical trials of interventions may be of greatest benefit.     

A systematic review to determine the optimal type and dosage of land-based exercises for treating knee osteoarthritis

Background: Exercise has been acknowledged as an effective non-pharmacological intervention for osteoarthritis. Consensus regarding the type of exercise i.e., aerobic or resistance, weight bearing or non-weight bearing, and dosage i.e., frequency, loading, duration, or intensity, is yet to be reached.

Objective: The purpose of this review was to address two questions: (1) is there a difference in clinical outcomes between different exercise programmes; and (2) what is the optimal dosage of exercises for people with knee osteoarthritis.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted. A study of published (AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library) and unpublished literature (WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, current controlled trials and the United States National Institute of Health Trials Registry, and Open Grey) was undertaken in January 2013. Studies assessing the clinical outcomes of different types and dosages of exercise for people with osteoarthritis of the knee were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) randomized controlled trial (RCT) appraisal tool.

Results: Ten studies assessing 958 knees from 916 participants were included. Exercise significantly improved pain and function for people with knee osteoarthritis. There was no significant difference in outcomes for different types of exercise i.e., aerobic versus resistance, weight bearing versus non-weight bearing. There was no significant difference in respect to the intensity of exercise i.e., high- versus lower-intensity resistance or aerobic exercises. The quality of the literature was moderate to high.

Conclusions: While exercise appears to improve symptoms and optimize function for people with knee osteoarthritis, the optimal form and dosage of exercise remains unknown.

Funding: None.

PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42012002811.