期刊文献+
共找到2篇文章
< 1 >
每页显示 20 50 100
微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术治疗腰椎滑脱原位与复位融合的比较 被引量:6
1
作者 范国鑫 汪东冬 +6 位作者 吴信波 朱炎杰 管晓菲 顾广飞 顾昕 张海龙 贺石生 《脊柱外科杂志》 2016年第6期335-339,共5页
目的比较微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(MIS-TLIF)治疗腰椎滑脱原位与复位融合的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析本院2010年1月—2013年4月收治的62例患者的临床资料,男27例,女35例;年龄(55.3±13.3)岁。纳入标准:Meyerding分级Ⅰ级或Ⅱ... 目的比较微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(MIS-TLIF)治疗腰椎滑脱原位与复位融合的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析本院2010年1月—2013年4月收治的62例患者的临床资料,男27例,女35例;年龄(55.3±13.3)岁。纳入标准:Meyerding分级Ⅰ级或Ⅱ级的单节段腰椎滑脱患者;接受MIS-TLIF复位融合(35例)或原位融合(27例)治疗;随访时间>30个月。对比2组住院天数,手术时间,术中出血量,并发症情况,术前、术后3个月及末次随访的疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)、日本骨科学会(JOA)评分及其改善率。患者疗效满意度采用改良Mac Nab标准评价,采用Bridwell标准评估融合情况。结果 2组患者在住院天数,手术时间,术中出血量,并发症情况,满意度,融合情况,术前、术后3个月及末次随访的VAS评分、ODI、JOA评分及其改善率方面差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 MIS-TLIF复位融合和原位融合在治疗腰椎滑脱的长期随访研究中疗效无明显差异。 展开更多
关键词 腰椎 脊椎滑脱 脊柱融合术 外科手术 微创性
下载PDF
Magnetic resonance imaging analysis of surgical trans-sacral axial L5/S1 interbody fusion 被引量:1
2
作者 YAN Ning ZHANG Hai-long +7 位作者 gu guang-fei LIU Bi-feng LIU Yan-bin ZHANG Li-guo gu Xin DING Yue guO Cheng-bin HE Shi-sheng 《Chinese Medical Journal》 SCIE CAS CSCD 2011年第18期2911-2914,共4页
Background Trans-sacral axial L5/S1 interbody fusion (AxiaLIF), a novel surgical procedure, recently adopted in clinical practice, has excellent clinical outcomes. However, there is inadequate data on the feasibilit... Background Trans-sacral axial L5/S1 interbody fusion (AxiaLIF), a novel surgical procedure, recently adopted in clinical practice, has excellent clinical outcomes. However, there is inadequate data on the feasibility of the approach in all adult patients and the optimal surgical approach is currently unclear; therefore, further studies are required. In order to enhance the surgical approach for AxiaLIF, prospective anatomical imaging optimization is necessary. The objective of this study was to investigate the ability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to achieve an optimal procedural setting. Methods The subjects (n=40) underwent lumbosacral MRI examination. The median sagittal MRI images were analyzed and four measurement markers were defined as follows: the center of the L5/S1 disc (A), the anterior margin of the S1/2 disc space (B), the sacrococcygeal junction (C), and the coccygeal tip (D). The measurement markers were connected to each other to produce five lines (AB, AC, AD, BC, and BD), as reference lines for surgical approaches. The distance between each reference line and the anterior and posterior margins of the L5 and S1 vertebral bodies was measured to determine the safety of the respective approaches. Results In all patients, Lines AB and AC satisfied the imaging safety criteria. Line AB would result in a significant deviation from the median and was determined to be unsuitable for AxiaLIF. Line AD satisfied the imaging safety criteda in 39 patients. However, the anal proximity of the puncture point proved to be limiting. For lines BC and BD, the imaging safety criteria were satisfied in 70% and 45% of patients, respectively. Conclusions The AxiaLIF procedure is a safe technique for insertion of fusion implants in all subjects. Line AC is a favorable reference line for surgical approach and safe for all subjects, while line BC is not suitable for all subjects. 展开更多
关键词 trans-sacral fixation interbody fusion magnetic resonance imaging surgical approach
原文传递
上一页 1 下一页 到第
使用帮助 返回顶部