前路减压Z-plate内固定治疗胸腰段爆裂性骨折伴不全性截瘫

目的 探讨胸腰段爆裂性骨折伴不全瘫前路减压内固定优越性以及Z-plate系统的优点。方法 采用前路减压Z-plate内固定治疗胸腰段爆裂性骨折伴不全瘫25例。结果 全部病例均获随访，随访时间6～24个月，平均17个月。按Frankel分级评定有1～3级恢复，随访期间无后凸加重及内固定松动，植骨融合。结论 前路减压Z-plate内固定是治疗胸腰段爆裂性骨折的较好方法。     

胸腰椎骨折脱位157例临床分析

本文报告157例胸腰椎骨折脱位病人,非手术治疗36例,手术治疗116例。作者对临床治疗中的有关问题进行了讨论。     

以循证医学的理念观察颈椎综合征的MRI图像

目的鉴于MRI对组织的高分辨性能,利用该图像观察颈椎综合征患者的椎管外组织的病理状况.方法54例患者,其中男30例,女24例,分为2组.观察组44例颈椎综合征患者,对照组10例颈部外伤和三叉神经痛患者.通过常规的MRI矢状位及横轴位颈椎图像,比较两组软组织增生情况.结果与结论在颈椎综合征MRI的颈椎及上段胸椎棘突后侧,均可观察到不同程度的慢性纤维性变化,与对照组比较,有可比性.提示临床上颈椎综合征多与颈肩区筋膜炎、棘突炎相关,属于无菌性炎症,其慢性阶段,局部发生了纤维增生性改变.建议在观察分析此种病症的颈椎骨质及椎间盘改变的同时,宜重视棘突后侧的纤维性变化,有利于病理病因的研究.     

“High spinal” dysrhaphism

Summary High spinal (cervical and upper thoracic) dysrhaphism usually involves either a meningocele or a dermal sinus tract. These high spinal lesions can have a complex intradural anatomy at the level of the lesion (as this case reports) and are associated with an increased incidence of lower spinal occult dysrhaphic anomalies. It is therefore recommended that patients with high spinal dysrhaphism undergo radiological evaluation of the entire spine to identify those patients with intradural anomalies, define the anatomy for surgery, and investigate the lower spine for associated occult anomalies.     

挑刺阳性反应点治疗腰椎骨质增生38例

试用三棱针挑刺腰部阳性反应点,治疗腰椎骨质增生38例,结果有效率100%,具有疗效好,费用低,疗程短,应用方便的特点.     

脊柱椎弓根螺钉入路及手术方法的临床应用

目的：探讨椎弓根螺钉最佳入路及手术步骤。方法：对104例胸腰椎骨折脱位患者，分两组采用不同方法、步骤钻入椎弓根螺钉，并对其进行疗效比较。结果：经过技术改进后的方法较传统方法对骨折脱位的复位效果无明显差异，而两者在X线曝光次数、手术时间、出血量及并发症等方面存在显著性差异。结论：技术改进后的椎弓根螺钉进钉方法简单、安全、创伤小、疗效优良。     

Full-Endoscopic versus Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ObjectiveAlthough full-endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF) has been tried as the latest alternative technique to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interobody fusion (MIS-TLIF) since mid-2010, the evidence is still lacking. We compared the clinical outcome and safety of Endo-LIF to MIS-TLIF for lumbar degenerative disease. MethodsWe systematically searched electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library to find literature comparing Endo-LIF to MIS-TLIF. The results retrieved were last updated on December 11, 2020. The perioperative outcome included the operation time, blood loss, complication, and hospital stay. The clinical outcomes included Visual analog scale (VAS) of low back pain and leg pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the radiological outcome included pseudoarthosis rate with 12-month minimum follow-up. ResultsFour retrospective observational studies and one prospective observational study comprising 423 patients (183 Endo-LIF and 241 MIS-TLIF) were included, and the pooled data analysis revealed low heterogeneity between studies in our review. Baseline characteristics including age and sex were not different between the two groups. Operation time was significantly longer in Endo-LIF (mean difference [MD], 23.220 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.669–35.771; p=0.001). However, Endo-LIF resulted in less perioperative blood loss (MD, -144.710 mL; 95% CI, 247.941–41.478; p=0.023). Although VAS back pain at final (MD, -0.120; p=0.586), leg pain within 2 weeks (MD, 0.005; p=0.293), VAS leg pain at final (MD, 0.099; p=0.099), ODI at final (MD, 0.141; p=0.093) were not different, VAS back pain within 2 weeks was more favorable in the Endo-LIF (MD, -1.538; 95% CI, -2.044 to -1.032; p<0.001). On the other hand, no statistically significant group difference in complication rate (relative risk [RR], 0.709; p=0.774), hospital stay (MD, -2.399; p=0.151), and pseudoarthrosis rate (RR, 1.284; p=0.736) were found. ConclusionRelative to MIS-TLIF, immediate outcomes were favorable in Endo-LIF in terms of blood loss and immediate VAS back pain, although complication rate, mid-term clinical outcomes, and fusion rate were not different. However, the challenges for Endo-LIF include longer operation time which means a difficult learning curve and limited surgical indication which means patient selection bias. Larger-scale, well-designed study with long-term follow-up and randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm and update the results of this systematic review.     

手术治疗老年性椎管狭窄症的临床研究

目的:探讨老年性腰椎管狭窄症的临床特点及治疗效果.方法: 对2002年1月至2006年1月收治的35例腰椎管狭窄症患者进行前瞻性研究,并进行追踪随访.结果:随访1～4.0年,随访率为100%,优良率91.43%.本组术后共出现并发症7例(20.00%),其中切口感染1例,延迟愈合2例,肺部感染1例,泌尿系感染1例,消化系统功能紊乱2例,经过对症处理后均好转;无腰椎滑脱和椎管再狭窄发生.结论:在积极控制共存疾病的基础上,严格掌握手术指征,把握手术时机,手术减压治疗对老年腰椎管狭窄症神经功能的恢复具有重要作用.     

开窗腰椎间盘切除再手术的远期疗效

目的探讨开窗腰椎间盘切除再手术治疗初次开窗髓核摘除术失败患者的远期疗效和影响因素。方法回顾性研究51例行第二次开窗腰椎间盘切除术的患者临床资料,随访时间120~203个月,平均随访146.8个月。按MacNab分类和JOA评分标准评价满意度和远期功能。对放射学资料完整的患者进行手术前后椎间隙高度对比研究。结果51例患者中,结果优良率70.6%,失败率15.7%,患者总体满意率78.4%。除了8例失败患者,远期随访的43例患者JOA评分平均提高(64.6±18.2)%,术后行走能力明显改善。对手术节段椎间隙高度测量发现术后椎间隙高度明显下降,但不影响远期功能结果。吸烟、是否有外伤等发病诱因、合并纤维化和初次术后症状未缓解期对远期结果有影响。心理社会因素与预后可能存在一定关系。结论开窗腰椎间盘切除再手术治疗初次开窗髓核摘除术失败患者疗效满意,但手术复杂性高,明确术前诊断和严格手术指征非常重要。JOA评分被证明为易于患者和医师实施,量化主观数据的评估法。     

胸椎旁路法植入椎弓根螺钉的力学实验研究

目的：研究在胸椎节段应用椎弓根旁路法植入椎弓根螺钉的力学可行性。方法：5副成人新鲜尸体胸椎（T1-8）, 分解为40个单一椎体标本,每一标本左右两侧分别使用经椎弓根入路法（n=40）和旁路法（n=40）植入螺钉,并进行螺钉沿椎体矢状轴拔出强度的力学测量,比较两种方法的拔出强度。结果：旁路法植入螺钉后出现两种情况A和B,A：19个椎体（47.5%）,为螺钉经横突后沿椎弓根外壁固定至椎体;B：21个椎体（52.5%）,为螺钉经椎弓根外侧皮质至椎体。旁路法中A植入螺钉的拔出强度为（827.01±260.00）N,旁路法中B植入螺钉的拔出强度为（954.25±254.00）N。结合A、B两种情况,旁路法中植入螺钉的平均拔出强度为（890.63±342.00）N,胸椎经椎弓根入路螺钉的拔出强度为（1 001.23±220.00）N,二者比较,旁路法螺钉的平均拔出强度较经椎弓根入路法螺钉的拔出强度降低11.04%,但差异无显著性（P>0.05）。结论：胸椎椎弓根旁路法植入椎弓根螺钉在力学上是可行的。