期刊文献+

微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗老年腰椎退变性疾病 被引量:19

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases in elderly
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的:探讨Pipeline可扩张通道辅助下行后路经椎间孔腰椎椎问融合术(minimall yinvasive transforam-inal lumbar interbody fusion,MI—TLIF)治疗老年腰椎退变性疾病的临床疗效。方法:2010年2月~2012年6月.共有46例老年腰椎退变性疾病患者在我院接受腰椎后路经椎间iL减压椎间植骨融合内固定术。其中24例采用Pipeline可扩张通道辅助下行MI—TLIF,男15例,女9例;年龄60—79岁,平均66-3岁;病程6~60个月.平均18.5个月,设为观察组;22例采用传统开放TLIF(conventional open TLIF,CO—TLlF),男10例,女12例:年龄62—75岁,平均67.0岁;病程6~84个月,平均22.6个月,设为对照组。记录并比较两组患者的手术出血量、手术时间、输血量及术后并发症情况。术后1周、3个月及末次随访时采用视觉模拟评分(VAS)、术后3个月和末次随访时采用Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评估两组临床疗效,末次随访时采用Suk标准对椎间融合情况进行评定。结果:两组患者手术出血量、输血量及并发症发生率有统计学意义(P〈0.05),手术时间无统计学意义(P〉0.05)。随访13~26个月,平均18个月,两组患者术后各时间点的VAS及ODI与术前比较均有统计学意义(P〈0.05):两组术后1周和3个月的VAS评分及术后3个月的ODI比较有统计意义(P〈0.05),末次随访时两组VAS评分及ODI无统计学意义(P〉O.05)。末次随访时观察组植骨融合率为87.5%(21/23例).对照组为82-8%(18/22),两组比较无统计学意义(P〉0.05)。结论:MI—TLIF治疗老年腰椎退变性疾病能获得与传统开放TLIF手术相似的早期临床疗效,而出血量和并发症更少。 Objectives: To evaluate outcomes of posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) under Pipeline expandable access system for lumbar degenerative diseases in elderly. Methods: From Febru- ary 2010 to June 2012, 46 elderly patients with lumbar degenerative diseases who underwent TLIF by using two different approaches were retrospectively analyzed. All patients were classified into observation group(MI- TLIF group) and control group(conventional open TLIF, CO-TLIF) according to the operative methods. There were 24 cases in observation group including 15 males and 9 females, aged from 60 to 79 years (average, 66.3 years), and the course of diseases ranging from 6 to 60 months(average, 18.5 months); 22 cases in con- trol group including 10 males and 12 females, aged from 62 to 75 years(average, 67.0 years), and course of diseases ranging from 8 to 64 months(average, 22.6 months). The blood loss, operation time, amount of blood transfusion and postoperative complications were compared. The clinical outcomes of both groups were evalu- ated by using the VAS(at postoperative 1 week, 3 months and the final follow-up) and ODI(at postoperative 3 months and the final follow-up), respectively. The bony fusion of both groups were assessed by the Suk stan- dard at the final follow-up. Results: There were significant differences on blood loss, amount of blood trans- fusion and postoperative complications (P〈0.05), but no significant difference on operation time between MI- TLIF group and control group(P〉0.05). All patients were followed up for an average of 18 months(range, 13 to 26 months). The VAS and ODI of both groups at each time point postoperatively experienced improvement compared with the preoperation (P〈0.05). There were significant differences on VAS score at 1 week and 3 months and the ODI at 3 months respectively, but no differences was noted at the final follow-up between 2 groups(P〈0.05). The bony fusion rate of MI-TLIF group and control group was 87.5%(21/23 cases) and 82.8% (18/22 cases) at the final follow-up respectively, which showed no statistical significance(P〉0.05). Conclusions: MI-TLIF has similar surgical outcome with CO-TLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases in elderly, but the former has less blood loss and complications than the latter.
出处 《中国脊柱脊髓杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2013年第12期1079-1085,共7页 Chinese Journal of Spine and Spinal Cord
关键词 经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术 微创 腰椎退变性疾病 老年人 Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion Minimally invasive Degenerative lumbar diseases El- derly
  • 相关文献

参考文献15

  • 1Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, et al. Minimally invasiveversus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluatinginitial experience^]. Int Orthop, 2009, 33(6): 1683-1688.
  • 2Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, et al. Comparision of one-levelminimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbodyfusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grade 1and 2[J]. Eur Spine J, 2010, 19(10): 1780-1784.
  • 3Report of a WHO Study Group. Assessment of fracture riskand its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporo-sis[S]. 1994 World Heath Organ Tech Rep Ser, 1994, 843:1-129.
  • 4Suk S, Lee CK, Kim WJ, et al. Adding posterior lumbar in-terbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterlateral fu-sion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesis [J].Spine, 1997,22(2): 210-220.
  • 5Shao ZH, Chen Z, Zhou LQ, et al. Spinal dorsal ramus syn-drome[J]. Chin Med J, 1996, 109(4): 317-321.
  • 6Pulido-Rivas P, Sola RG, Pallares-Femandez JM, et al. Lum- bar spinal surgery in elderly patients[J]. Rev Neurol, 2004, 39(6): 501-507.
  • 7Daubs MD, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Decompressionalone versus decompression with limited fusion for treatmentof degenerative lumbar scoliosis in the elderly patient[J]. EvidBased Spine Care J, 2012, 3(4): 27-32.
  • 8Chen LH, Lai PL, Tai CL, et al. The effect of interspinousligament integrity on adjacent segment instability after lumbarinstrumentation and laminectomy: an experimental study inporcine model[J]. Biomed Mater Eng, 2006,16(4): 261-267.
  • 9Suwa H, Hanakita J, Ohshita N, et al. Postoperative changesin paraspinal muscle thickness after various lumber backsurgery procedures[J]. Neurol Med Chit(Tokyo), 2000,40(3):151-155.
  • 10Kanayama M, Togawa D, Hashimoto T, et al. Motion-pre-serving surgery can prevent early breakdown of adjacentsegments: comparison of posterior dynamic stabilization withspinal fusion[J]. Spinal Disord Tech, 2009, 22(7): 463-467.

二级参考文献16

  • 1Isaacs RE,Podichetty VK,Santiago P,et al. Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation[J].J Neurosurg Spine, 2005,3 (2) : 98-105.
  • 2Schwender JD,Holly LT,Rouben DP,et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) :technical feasibility and initial results [J].J Spinal Disord Tech,2005,18 (Suppl 1) :1-6.
  • 3Scheufler KM,Dohmen H,Vougioukas VI. Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability [J].Neurosurgery,2007,60 (4 Suppl 2) :203-212.
  • 4Wang J,Zhou Y,Zhang ZF, et al. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthruie spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2[J].Eur Spine J,2010,19(10) : 1780-1784.
  • 5Harms JG,Jeszenszky D.The unilateral transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion [J].Orthop Traumatol, 1998,6(2) :88-89.
  • 6Humphreys SC,Hodges SD,Patwardhan AG, et al. Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbndy fusion[J].Spine, 2001,26 (5) : 567-571.
  • 7Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery:a histologic and enzymatic analysis[J].Spine, 1996,21 (8) : 941-944.
  • 8Kawaguchi Y,Matsui H,Tsuji H.Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery(Part 2):histologic and histochemical analyses in humans[J].Spine, 1994,19(22) :2598-2602.
  • 9Styf JR,Willen J.The effects of external compression by three different retractors on pressure in the erector spine muscles during and after posterior lumbar spine surgery in humans[Jl. Spine, 1998,23 (3) : 354-358.
  • 10Ozgur BM,Yoo K,Rodriguez G,et al.Minimally invasive technique for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(TLIF)[J].Eur Spine J,2005,14(9):887-894.

共引文献34

同被引文献178

引证文献19

二级引证文献117

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