经单、双侧椎弓根入路椎体成形术渗漏比较研究

The bone cement leakage of unipedicular versus bipedicular vertebroplasty

目的:对离体椎体经单侧和双侧椎弓根入路的两种椎体成形方法引发的椎体外骨水泥渗漏进行比较研究。方法:采集尸体的腰椎(L1-L5)共40个,在前屈压缩载荷下造成椎体骨折。然后随机分成两组,A组经单侧椎弓根注入椎体4ml PMMA;B组经双侧椎弓根灌注4ml PMMA(每侧2ml)。注射过程中观察有无骨水泥渗漏发生,按部位计数渗漏的椎体并计算渗漏率。结果:A组有11个椎体发生渗漏,经终板渗漏11个、椎体前侧缘4个、椎体后缘3个、穿刺道渗漏6个、混合渗漏6个(2例椎体前侧缘+穿刺通道,4例终板+椎体前侧缘),渗漏率为41.25%。B组有12个椎体发生渗漏,经终板3个、椎体前侧缘4个、椎体后缘3个、经穿刺道渗漏12个、混合渗漏4个(2例终板+穿刺道,2例椎体前侧缘+穿刺通道),渗漏率为27.5%。两组渗漏率差异有统计学意义。结论:双侧椎弓根入路椎体成形骨水泥渗漏少于单侧,有统计学意义。

Objective： To compare vitodynamics effects of unipedicular versus bipedicular vertebroplasty. Method： 40 specimens consisting of lumbar vertebrae were obtained from 10 cadavers. After flexional compression fractures were created, specimens were divided into two groups randomly. The vertebral bodies were then stabilized by unipedicular injection of 4ml PMMA, and bipedicular injection of 4ml PMMA （2ml Per pedicle） respectively. During the process of injection, whether bone cement leakages occurred or not should be observed intimately and then incidences of leakage should be determined. Result： As a result of the test, the incidence of u- nipedicular injection group is 41.25%, and bipedicular injection group is 27.5%.Conclusion： As the incidence of bone cement leakage is considered, unipedicular is a little more than bipedicular injection group ,but it has statistical significance.