期刊文献+

微创通道结合经皮椎弓根螺钉固定治疗腰椎退变的个体化方案选择 被引量:7

Individualized options of minimally invasive decompression and fusion under extendable retractor combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的探讨应用微创通道减压融合结合经皮椎弓根螺钉固定治疗腰椎退行性疾病的初步临床效果及手术方案选择。方法收集2009年8月至2011年7月第四军医大学唐都医院运用微创通道减压融合结合经皮椎弓根螺钉固定治疗并获得随访的64例腰椎退变患者的临床资料。采用Quadrant、Pipeline或Luxor通道系统,经椎间孔腰椎间融合(TLIF)或后路TLIF(PTLIF)入路,行髓核摘除或椎间处理并植入椎间融合器,通道内行椎弓根螺钉固定并安装连接棒。于对侧相应椎体处行椎弓根经皮植入Sextant、vipor或Mantis螺钉固定。微创策略的选择:(1)单侧通道下减压椎间植骨融合,常规椎弓螺钉内固定;(2)一侧通道下减压植骨融合通用螺钉固定 + 对侧通道下通用螺钉固定;(3)一侧通道下减压植骨融合通用螺钉固定 + 对侧经皮螺钉固定;(4)一侧通道下减压椎间植骨融合+双侧经皮螺钉固定。融合方式包括单节段融合、双节段融合和跨节段融合。观察患者术中出血量、手术时间、术后下床活动时间、住院天数、内固定位置以及术后症状改善情况。结果随访3~22 个月(平均 16 个月)。术中出血量 70~230 mL(平均 90 mL)、手术时间 70~210 min(平均 100 min)、下床活动时间为术后3~10 d(平均5 d)、住院天数5~15 d(平均7 d)。腰痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)和腿痛VAS分别由术前的(9.2 ± 1.4)分和(7.4 ± 1.2)分减少到末次随访的(2.6 ± 0.5)分和(2.2 ± 0.6)分,Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)由术前的(57.4 ± 6.4)%降至末次随访的(25.8 ± 4.3)%,差异均有统计学意义(P <0.05)。术中、术后X线片和/或 CT 检查显示内固定及融合器位置良好。结论一侧采用微创通道 TLIF 或 PTLIF 入路行单节段或双节段椎间处理融合,或在此基础上行对侧通道下通用螺钉/经皮椎弓根螺钉固定或双侧经皮螺钉固定等个体化方案治疗腰椎退行性疾病,术中出血少,手术时间短,术后可早期下床进行功能锻炼,初步临床效果优良。 Objective To investigate preliminary outcomes and surgical options of minimally invasivedecompression and fusion under extendable retractor,combined with percutaneous pedicle screws fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases.Methods Clinical follow-up results of 64 patients who suffered from lumbar degenerative diseases and then treated by minimally invasive decompression and fusion combined with percutaneous pedicle screws fixation were collected at Tangdu Orthopaedic Hospital of the Fourth Military Medical University from August 2009 to July 2011.The Quadrant,Pipeline or Luxor retractor system was applied through transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(TLIF) or posterior TLIF(PTLIF) approach,and then the discectomy or interbody cage fusion was performed,vertebral pedicle screws were implanted and connecting rod was installed through the same channel.Sextant,Vipor or Mantis percutaneous screws were implanted in the corresponding contralateral vertebral pedicle for fixation.Minimally invasive strategy options were as follows:(1) unilateral channel decompression and interbody fusion followed by conventional pedicle screws fixation;(2) one side channel decompression and interbody fusion with common screws fixation followed by contralateral channel common screws fixation;(3) one side channel decompression and interbody fusion with common screws followed by contralateral channel percutaneous screws fixation;(4) one side channel decompression and interbody fusion followed by bilateral percutaneous screws fixation.Fusion methods included single segment,double segments and cross-segments fusion.Intraoperative estimate blood loss volume,operative time,hospital stay days,as well as postoperative ambulation time,fixation position and sysmptom improvement were observed.Results All of the 64 patients were followed up from 3 to 22 months,with the average of 16 months.The average intraoperative estimate blood loss volume was 90 mL(70-230 mL),the mean operative time was 100 min(70-210 min),the average postoperative ambulation time was 5 d(3-10 d),and the mean hospital stay was 7 d(5-15 d).Visual analogue score(VAS) of low back pain and leg pain decreased respectively,from preoperative(9.2 ± 1.4) and(7.4 ± 1.2) to(2.6 ± 0.5) and(2.2 ± 0.6) at the last follow-up.Oswestry disability index(ODI) decreased from(57.4 ± 6.4)% at preoperation to(25.8 ± 4.3)% at the last follow-up,the differences had statistical significance(P 0.05).X-ray and/or CT radiographs showed internal fixation and fusion in good position during and after the surgery.Conclusion For patients with lumbar degenerative diseases,individulized options of one side minimally invasive channel through TLIF or PTLIF approach for decompression and interbody fusion,or combined with common screws or percutaneous pedicle screws for contralateral fixation,or combined with double sides percutaneous pedicle screw fixation can receive good preliminary clinical results because of less blood loss,shorter operative time and earlier ambulation.
出处 《中国骨科临床与基础研究杂志》 2012年第5期325-331,共7页 Chinese Orthopaedic Journal of Clinical and Basic Research
关键词 椎间盘退化 外科手术 微创性 脊柱融合术 椎弓根螺钉 Intervertebral disk degeneration Surgical procedures minimally invasive Spinal fusion Pedicle screws
  • 相关文献

参考文献16

  • 1周跃.微创脊柱外科发展方向与展望(一)[J].解剖与临床,2011,16(1):3-7. 被引量:1
  • 2周跃.微创脊柱外科发展方向与展望(二)[J].解剖与临床,2011,16(2):91-93. 被引量:1
  • 3Majani G, Tiengo M, Giardini A, et al. Relationship between MPQ and VAS in 962 patients: a rationale for their use [J]. Minerva Anestesiol, 2003, 69(1-2): 67-73.
  • 4Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry disability index [J]. Spine, 2000, 25(22): 2940-2952.
  • 5Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV. Clinical and radio- graphic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up [J]. J Neurosurg Spine, 2008, 9(6): 560-565.
  • 6Boonstra AM, Preuper HRS, Reneman MF, et al. Reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale for disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain [J]. Inter J RehabilRes, 2008, 31(2):165-169.
  • 7McGergor AH, Hughes SPF. The evaluation of the surgical management of nerve root compression in patients with low back pain [J]. Spine, 2002, 25(13): 1465-1470.
  • 8Huang TJ, Hsu RW, Li YY, et al. Less systemic cytokine response in patients following microendoscopic versus open lumbar discectomy[J]. J Orthop Res, 2005, 23(2): 406-411.
  • 9Suk KS, Lee HM, Kim NH, et al. Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal fusion [J]. Spine, 2000, 25(14): 1843-1847.
  • 10Tuttle J, Shakir A, Choudhri HF. Paramedian approach for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation: technical note and preliminary report on 47 cases [J]. Neurosurg Focus, 2006, 20(3): ES.

二级参考文献81

  • 1吴占勇,魏运动,孔建军,吴华荣,郁来报,赵贵群,彭祥平.腰椎间盘突出症手术治疗中腰椎后路扩视器的应用[J].中华骨科杂志,2006,26(6):427-428. 被引量:1
  • 2郭世绂 陈仲欣 等.腰神经通道与腰腿痛的关系[J].中华骨科杂志,1987,7(4):241-245.
  • 3Beglaibter N, Zamir O, Milgrum M, et al. Laparoseopic anterior lumbar interbody spinal fusion [J].Harefuah, 2003,142(5):326
  • 4Gazzeri R, Tamorri M, Galarza M, et al. Balloon-assisted endoscopic retroperitoneal gasless approach (BERG) for lumbar interbody fusion: is it a valid alternative to the laparoscopic approach? [J]. Minim Invasive Neurosurg, 2007,50(3): 150-154
  • 5Vazquez RM, Gireesan GT. Balloon-assisted endoscopic retroperitoneal gasless (BERG)technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) [J]. Surg Endosc, 2003,17:268-272
  • 6Aunoble S, Hoste D, Donkersloot P, et al. Video-assisted ALIF with cage and anterior plate fixation for L5-S1 spondylolisthesis [J]. Spinal Disord Tech, 2006,19(7):471-476
  • 7Saraph V, Lerch C,WalochnikN, et al. Comparison of conventional versus minimally invasive extraperitoneal approaehfor anterior lumbar interbody fusion [J]. Eur Spine, 2004,13:425-431
  • 8Chung SK, Lee SH, Lira SR, et al. Comparative study of laparoscopic L5-S1 fusion versus open mini-ALIF with a minimum 2-year follow-up [J]. Eur Spine, 2003,12:613-617
  • 9Escobar E, Transfeldt E, Garvey T, et al. Video-Assisted Versus Open Anterior Lumbar Spine Fusion Surgery: A Comparison of Four Techniques and Complications in 135 Patients [J]. Spine, 2003,28(7): 729-732
  • 10Zdeblick TA, David SM. A prospective comparison of surgical approach for anterior L4-L5 fusion: Laparoscopic versus mini anterior lumbar interbody fusion [J]. Spine, 2000,25:2682-2687

共引文献77

同被引文献61

  • 1赵杰,沈洪兴,王炤,栗景峰,杨继东,侯铁胜.椎体间撑开复位在Ⅱ°峡部型腰椎滑脱症治疗中的作用[J].脊柱外科杂志,2003,1(1):38-40. 被引量:10
  • 2王建,周跃,初同伟,王卫东,张正丰,李长青,张年春.改良内窥镜下行后路腰椎间融合和经皮椎弓根螺钉固定治疗腰椎退变性疾患[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2007,17(12):908-912. 被引量:25
  • 3Bozkus H, Dickman CA. Transvertebral interbody cage and pedicle screw fixation for high-grade spondylolisthesis. Case report. J Neurosurg, 2004, 100(1 Suppl Spine): 62-65.
  • 4Park Y, Ha JW. Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2007, 32(5): 537-543.
  • 5Gille O, Jolivet E, Dousset V, et al. Erector spine muscle changes on magnetic resonance imaging following lumbar surgery through a posterior approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2007, 32(11): 1236-1241.
  • 6Motosuneya T, Asazuma T, Tsuji T, et al. Postoperative change of the cross- sectional area of back musculature after 5 surgical procedures as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. J Spinal Discord Tech, 2006, 19(5): 318-322.
  • 7Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, et al. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J, 2010, 19(10): 1780-1784.
  • 8Hyun SJ, Kim YB, Kim YS, et al. Postoperative changes in paraspinal muscle volume: comparison between paramedian interfascial and midline approaches for lumbar fusion. Korean Med Sci, 2007, 22(4): 646-651.
  • 9Levin DA, Hale JJ, Bendo JA. Adjacent segment degeneration following spinal fusion for degenerative disc disease. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis, 2007, 65(1): 29-36.
  • 10Kim KT, Lee SH, Suk KS, et al. The quantitative analysis of tissue injury markers after mini-open lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2006, 31(6): 712-716.

引证文献7

二级引证文献44

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部