期刊文献+

颈椎单开门椎管扩大术缝线悬吊与钛板固定疗效比较 被引量:6

Comparison of clinical efficacy between titanium plate fixation and suture suspension fixation in the expansive open-door laminoplasty
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的对比分析缝线悬吊固定与微型钛板固定两种技术应用于颈椎单开门椎管扩大术中治疗颈椎管狭窄的临床疗效。方法 2008-11~2011-11我院收治颈椎管狭窄患者中符合颈椎单开门椎管扩大术适应证并接受此手术治疗的患者37例。其中16例患者术中行缝线悬吊固定,为A组;21例患者术中行微型钛板固定,为B组。随访过程中分别记录并对比两组患者手术时间、术中出血量、JOA评分及轴性症状发生情况。根据患者X线、CT等影像学资料测量颈椎曲度和C5节段椎管矢状径,并观察门轴侧骨融合情况。通过上述数据评价术后神经功能及椎管扩大和维持情况。结果两组手术时间、术中出血量无明显统计学差异。根据术后12个月JOA评分,两组间神经功能改善率比较无统计学差异(P>0.05)。术后12个月轴性症状发生率A组62.5%,B组19.0%,两组比较具有统计学差异(P<0.05)。A组颈椎曲度术前为20.5°±1.8°,术后12个月为18.8°±1.3°,有统计学差异(P<0.05);B组颈椎曲度术前20.3°±1.6°,术后12个月19.9°±1.5°,无统计学差异(P>0.05)。C5节段椎管矢状径术前及术后12个月两组比较均无明显统计学差异(P>0.05)。门轴侧骨融合率A组93.8%,B组100%,两组经卡方检验具有统计学差异(P<0.05)。结论颈椎单开门椎管扩大术中应用微型钛板固定比缝线悬吊固定能够更坚强地固定掀开的椎板,进而有利于门轴侧骨折处骨融合,同时能在一定程度上避免发生术后轴性症状和颈椎曲度丢失。 Abstract: Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of the suture suspension fixation versus the titanium plate fixation in the expan- sive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenosis. Methods A total of 37 patients with cervical spinal stenosis undergoing ex- pansive open-door laminoplasty from November 2008 to November 2011 were enrolled in this study. Sixteen patients were treated with expansive open-door laminoplasty by suture suspension as group A,and the other 21 patients were selected to receive expansive open- door laminoplasty by titanium plate as group B. The operation time, the blood loss during operation, Japanese orthopaedic association scores for assessment of cervical myelopathy and the incidences of axial symptoms were compared between two groups. According to the imaging examination data including X-rays and CT, the cervical curvature angle, spinal canal diameter of C5 and bone fusion on the hinge side were analyzed to evaluate the postoperative neurofunction and spinal canal enlargement. Results There was no significant difference with regard to the operation time,the blood loss and the improvement rate of neurofunction between two groups(P 〉 0.05 ). The rate of axial symptoms at 12 months after operation in group A was significantly higher than that in group B(62.5% vs 19.0% , P 〈 0.05 ). The curvature angle of cervical vertebrae in group A was significantly statistical different before and after operation(20.5° ± 1.8° vs 18.8° ± 1.3° ,P 〈 0.05 ), while no significant difference was found in group B ( P 〉 0.05 ). The spinal canal diameter of C5 showed no significantly statistical difference between two groups before operation and at month 12 after operation(P 〉 0.05 ). Bone fu- sion on the hinge side was higher in group B than that in group A( 100% vs 93.8% ,P 〈0.05). Conclusion Compared with the su- ture suspension fixation,the titanium plate fixation in the expansive open-door laminoplasty is more stable for the elevated laminae to improve bone fusion on the hinge side. At the same time ,the titanium plate fixation could reduce the postoperative axial symptoms and the loss of cervical curvature.
出处 《山西医科大学学报》 CAS 2013年第4期307-310,共4页 Journal of Shanxi Medical University
关键词 颈椎管狭窄症 椎管扩大术 微型钛板 内固定 疗效 cervical spinal stenosis expansive laminoplasty titanium plate internal fixation efficacy
  • 相关文献

参考文献9

  • 1Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K,ei al. Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy [ J ].Spine, 1983,8(7) :693 -699.
  • 2Hironobu S,Nobru N,YoshihiroM,et al. Long-term outcome oflaminoplasty for cervical myelopathy due to disc herniation : acomparative study of laminoplasty and anterior spinal fusion [ J].Spine,2005,30(7) :756-759.
  • 3Zhang H,Zhu R, Yang H,^ al. Multifactor analysis on the out-comes of cervical spondylotic myelopathy with expansive open-door laminoplasty[ J]. Orthop Surg,2012,40(4) :1608 - 1616.
  • 4O ’ Brien MY,Peterson D, Casey ATH,et al. A novel techniquefor laminoplasty augmentation of spinal canal area using titanium-minip late stabilization : a computerized morphometric analysis[J]. Spine,1996,21 (4) :474 -483.
  • 5曾岩,党耕町,马庆军.颈椎前路融合术后颈部运动功能的评价[J].中华外科杂志,2004,42(24):1481-1484. 被引量:96
  • 6Wang MY,Green BA. Open-door cervical expansile laminoplasty[J]. Neurosurgery,2004,54( 1) ; 119 - 124.
  • 7Tanaka J,Seki N,Tokimura F,et al. Operative results of canal ex-pansive laminoplasty for cervical spondylodic myelopathy in eldlypatients[J].Spine,1999,24( 22) : 2308 -2312.
  • 8潘胜发,孙宇,朱振军,陈景春,刘忠军,蔡钦林.单开门颈椎管扩大椎板成形术后轴性症状与颈椎稳定性的相关观察[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2003,13(10):604-607. 被引量:135
  • 9孙宇,张凤山,潘胜发,王少波,李迈,张立.“锚定法”改良单开门椎管成形术及其临床应用[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2004,14(9):517-519. 被引量:128

二级参考文献26

  • 1Hirabayashi K. Expensive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (Jpn)[J].Shujutsu,1978,32 (10):1159-1163.
  • 2Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H,Ishihara H,et al.Axial symptoms after en bloc cervical laminoplasty[J]. J Spinal Disord,1999,12(5):392-395.
  • 3Hosono N,Yonenobu K,Ono K. Neck and shoulder pain after laminoplasty[J].Spine, 1996,21 ( 17 ): 1969-1973.
  • 4Bogduk N,Marsland A. The cervical zagapophysial joints as a source of neck pain[J].Spine,1988,13(6):610-617.
  • 5Dwyer A,Aprill C,Bogduk N. Cervical zagapophyseal joint pain patterns l:a study in normal volunteers[J]. Spine,1990,15(4):453--457.
  • 6Nishituzi T. Roentgenographic studies on the cervical spine of patients with cervico-omo-brachial syndrome[J].Cent Jpn J Orthop Traumat,1963,6 (7):890-917.
  • 7White AA, Panjabi MM. The basic kinematics of the humen spine:a review of past and current knowledge[J].Spine,1978,3( 1 ):12-20.
  • 8Tanaka S,Peterson HA,Laws ER. Roentgenological examination of the cervical spine after extensive laminectomy[J].Cent Jpn J Orthop Traumat, 1982,25 (8):1162-1167.
  • 9Tominaga S. study of surgical treatment for spondylotic myelopathy[J].Seikei Geka,1975,26 (6):803-816.
  • 10Wada E,Suzuki S,Kanazawa A,et al. Subtotal corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy[J]. Spine,2001,26(13):1443-1448.

共引文献313

同被引文献70

引证文献6

二级引证文献18

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