摘要
目的对比研究后外侧融合(posterolateral fusion,PLF)与后路椎间融合(posterior lumbar interbody fusion,PLIF)治疗Ⅰ～Ⅱ度峡部裂性腰椎滑脱的疗效。方法76例采取植骨融合附加椎弓根内固定的手术方法,33例采用后外侧融合,其余采用椎间融合,比较两种植骨方式术后植骨融合率和临床症状改善情况。结果临床优良率分别为81．82％和88．37％,两者无显著性差异(P>0．05);骨融合率分别为75．76％和90．7％,两者有显著性差异(P<0．05)。结论后外侧融合与椎间融合治疗Ⅰ～Ⅱ度峡部裂性腰椎滑脱的疗效相似,无明显差别。
Objective To evaluate the outcome of posterolateral fusion （PLF） with pedicle screw system and posterior lumbar interbody fusion （PLIF） with pedicle screw system for treatment of grade Ⅰ and Ⅱ isthmic spondylolysis. Methods Seventy- six patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis operated by the same surgeon underwent decompression and posterior lumbar fusion with a pedicle screw system）. One group （33 patients） underwent PLF while patients in the other group underwent PLIF. The clinical outcome and fusion rate in these two groups were compared. Results The excellent and good rate was 81.82% for patients with PLF and 88.37% with PLIF （P 〉 0.05）. The fusion rate was 75.76 % with PLF and 90.7 % with PLIF （P〈 0.05）. Conclusion The clinical outcome of PLF is similar with PLIF in the treatment of grade Ⅰ and Ⅱ isthmic spondylolysis.
出处
《中国骨与关节损伤杂志》
2006年第7期508-510,共3页
Chinese Journal of Bone and Joint Injury
关键词
后外侧融合
椎间融合
腰椎滑脱
Posterolateral fusion
Posterior interbody fusion
Spondylolisthesis
