期刊文献+

后路内固定术中分步体内原位弯棒复位技术治疗腰椎爆裂骨折的效果 被引量:2

Application of step-by-step in situ rod bending in posterior internal fixation of lumbar burst fractures
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的探讨后路内固定术中应用分步体内原位弯棒复位技术治疗腰椎爆裂骨折的临床疗效。方法采用回顾性病例对照研究分析2007年3月-2014年3月收治的76例腰椎爆裂骨折患者,其中男48例,女28例;年龄18~57岁,平均40.4岁。损伤节段:L1 32例,L2 24例,L3 14例,L4 6例。根据术中弯棒方法不同分为两组,其中34例采用体外预弯棒技术(体外预弯棒组),42例采用体内原位弯棒技术(体内原位弯棒组)。比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、术后伤椎前缘高度恢复及后凸Cobb角恢复情况、术前和术后疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)。结果76例患者获随访12~36个月,平均20.9个月。其中体外预弯棒组1例发生内固定松动,于术后9个月拆除内固定,余无内固定断裂发生。体外预弯棒组与体内原位弯棒组手术时间分别为(88.1±16.0)min和(79.9±14.7)min(P〈0.05),术中出血量分别为(88.3±21.2)ml和(74.0±12.5)ml(P〈0.01),术后引流量分别为(71.5±17.3)ml和(62.1±16.0)ml(P〈0.05),术后伤椎前缘高度分别恢复(74.1±7.8)%和(79.5±8.5)%(P〈0.01),后凸Cobb角分别恢复至(10.2±2.7)°和(8.8±2.6)°(P〈0.01)。体外预弯棒组与体内原位弯棒组术前VAS分别为(7.5±0.9)分和(7.2±1.0)分(P〉0.05),术后1周VAS分别为(2.9±0.7)分和(3.0±0.7)分(P〉0.05),术后9个月VAS分别为(2.2±0.7)分和(1.9±0.7)分(P〈0.01)。结论与体外预弯棒技术相比,后路内固定术中应用分步体内原位弯棒技术治疗腰椎爆裂骨折具有手术时间短、出血少、精准复位及有效减少中远期腰背痛等优点。 Objective To evaluate the clinical outcome of the technique of step-by-step in situ rod bending used in posterior internal fixation of lumbar burst fractures. Methods A retrospective case control analysis was conducted on 76 cases of lumbar burst fractures hospitalized between March 2007 and March 2014. There were 48 males and 28 females, with a mean age of 40.4 years ( range, 18-57 years). Fractured segments included L1 in 32 cases, L2 in 24, L3 in 14 and L4 in 6. According to the different rod bending methods, the subjects were divided into preliminary rod bending group (34 cases) and in suit rod bending group (42 cases). Operation time, amount of bleeding during and after operation, restoration of anterior vertebral height and Cobb angle, and visual analogue score (VAS) were compared between groups. Results Seventy patients were followed up for 12-36 months (mean, 20. 9 months). One patient in preliminary rod bending group presented internal fixation loosening, and had implant removal 9 months after operation. No implant breakage occurred. Comparison of preliminary rod bending group and in situ rod bending group showed significant differences in operation time [ (88.1 ± 16.0)rain vs. ( 79.9 ± 14.7)mini, amount of bleeding during operation [ (88.3 ± 21.2) ml vs. (74.0 ± 12.5) ml ], amount of bleeding after operation [ (71.5 ±17.3)ml vs. (62. 1 ± 16.0)ml] , restoration of anterior vertebral height [ (74. 1 ± 7.8)% vs.(79.5±8.5)%], and restoration of Cobb angle [ (10.2±2.7) °vs. (8.8±2.6) °](P〈 0.01 or 0.05 ). VAS presented no significant differences between preliminary rod bending group and in situ rod bending group before operation [ (7.5 ± 0.9) points vs. ( 7.2 ± 1.0) points ] and 1 week after operation [ ( 2.9 ± 0.7 ) points vs. ( 3.0 ± 0.7 ) points ] ( P 〉 0.05 ) , while there was significant difference 9 months after operation [ 2.2 ± 0.7 ) points vs. ( 1.9 ± 0.7 ) points ] ( P 〈 0.01 ). Conclusion In suit rod bending for lumbar burst fractures has advantages over preliminary rod bending in terms of operation time, blood loss, precise restoration and back pain.
出处 《中华创伤杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2017年第3期219-224,共6页 Chinese Journal of Trauma
基金 浙江省卫生高层次创新人才培养工程(CXRC201401-60000118) 浙江省公益性计划项目(2014C33150) 浙江省自然科学基金(LY15H060005)
关键词 腰椎 骨折固定术 后凸畸形 Lumbar vertebrae Fracture fixation, internal Kyphosis
  • 相关文献

参考文献1

二级参考文献13

  • 1Fogel GR, Reitman CA, Liu W, et al. Physical Characteristics of polyaxial- headed pediele screws and biomeehanieal comparison of load with their failure. Spine, 2003, 28(5 ) :470 -473.
  • 2Korovessis PG, Baikousis A, Stamatakis M. Use of the Texas Scottish Rite Hospital instrnmentation in the treatment of thoraeo- lumbar injuries. Spine, 1997, 22(8) :882 -888.
  • 3Magerl F, Aebi M, Gertzbein SD, et al. A comprehensive classifi- cation of thoracic and lumbar injuries. Eur Spine J, 1994, 3(4) : 184 -201.
  • 4Mathews HH, Long BH. Endoscopy assisted pereutaneous anterior interbody fusion with subcutaneous suprafascial internal fixation:e- volution of technique and surgical considerations. Orthop Int Ed, 1995, 3(6) :496 -500.
  • 5Foley KT, Gupta SK. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine: preliminary clinical results. J Neurosurg, 2002, 97Suppl 1:7 - 12.
  • 6Foley KT, Gupta SK, Jusis JR, et al. Pereutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine. Neurosurg Focus, 2001, 10 (4) :E10.
  • 7Stanford RE, Loefler AH, Stanford PM, et al. Muhiaxial pedicle screw designs: static and dynamic mechanical testing. Spine, 2004, 29(4) :367 -375.
  • 8Gelb D, Ludwig S, Karp JE, et al. Successful treatment of thora- columbar fractures with short - s%ment pedicle instrumentation. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2010, 23 (5) :293 - 301.
  • 9Shepard MF, Davies MR, Abayan A, et al. Effects of polyaxial pedicle screws on lumbar construct rigidity. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2002, 15(3) :233 -236.
  • 10Goel VK, Lim TH, Gwon J, et al. Effects of rigidity of an inter- nal fixation device. A comprehensive biomeehanical investiga- tion. Spine, 199l, 16Supp13:S155-S161.

共引文献30

同被引文献21

二级引证文献9

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