Objective To explore the efficacy and safety of different surgical approaches of cervical spondylotic myelopathy, and the predictive factors for the outcome of surgery. Methods Clinical data of 68 consecutive patients...Objective To explore the efficacy and safety of different surgical approaches of cervical spondylotic myelopathy, and the predictive factors for the outcome of surgery. Methods Clinical data of 68 consecutive patients who underwent surgical treatment from 2003-08-01 to 2006-12-01 were collected. The quantization of the efficacy of operation was made by applying Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scoring system, based on which the recovery rate and satisfaction rate were calculated. In the patients who underwent anterior approach, we compared the recovery rate among the subgroups of different duration of symptoms, age at surgery and the severity of diseases. Any surgery-related complications were also noted. Results 73.5% (50/68) patients underwent anterior approach, with an average recovery rate of (68.21 ± 10.06)% and the satisfaction rate of 88.00%;20.6% patients (14/68) underwent posterior approach, with an average recovery rate of (64.03 ± 7.07)% and the satisfaction rate of 100%. The recovery rate had no significant difference in the two approaches. Only 4 patients (5.9%) underwent anterior and posterior combined approach, and the recovery rate and the satisfaction rate were 65.10% and 100%, respectively. In the group of patients who accepted anterior approach, no significant differences were found in the recovery rates of different age subgroups and different duration of symptom subgroups;the significant differences recovery rates between the moderate and severe subgroups were identified. Minor complications, such as asymptomatic screw misplacement, transient dysphagia/odynophagia, pain related to the donor site and axial syndrome, were observed in a few patients. Conclusion The JOA score can be improved by applying the appropriate approaches and the high recovery and satisfaction rates can be achieved at the same time. The efficacies of anterior and posterior approaches were similar. The complications of surgery were minor. In the patients who underwent anterior approach, the severity of diseases was a predictive factor for the outcome of surgery.展开更多
目的探讨脊髓型颈椎病患者行颈前路椎体次全切除植骨融合术(anterior cervical corporectomy and fusion,ACCF)手术中保留椎体后壁横联结构的临床价值。方法回顾性分析本科于2015年3月~2021年3月行ACCF手术的脊髓型颈椎病患者60例作为...目的探讨脊髓型颈椎病患者行颈前路椎体次全切除植骨融合术(anterior cervical corporectomy and fusion,ACCF)手术中保留椎体后壁横联结构的临床价值。方法回顾性分析本科于2015年3月~2021年3月行ACCF手术的脊髓型颈椎病患者60例作为研究对象,按ACCF手术方案的不同进行分组:常规ACCF手术30例,纳入常规组;保留椎体后壁横联结构的改良ACCF手术30例,纳入改良组。术后获访1年,对两组患者的围术期指标(手术时间、出血量和住院时间)、减压效果(JOA评分)、影像学指标(颈椎曲度、融合节段高度)、手术安全性和植骨融合情况进行比较。结果改良组的手术时间、术中出血量等数据均显著低于常规组(P<0.05);但两组住院时间无显著性差异(P>0.05)。两组术后共出现7例并发症,其中常规组4例(13.3%),3例为术后肩颈部疼痛,1例声音嘶哑;改良组3例(10%),均为肩颈部疼痛。上述并发症均于1~4周后自行好转。与术前相比,两组患者术后1周的JOA评分均显著改善,且术后3个月和1年的JOA评分呈持续改善趋势(P<0.05),两组间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组患者术后的颈椎曲度、融合节段高度等影像学指标均获不同程度改善,但组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后1年,两组患者均获得骨性融合。结论保留椎体后壁横联结构的改良ACCF手术治疗脊髓型颈椎病患者,可取得与常规ACCF手术一致的减压效果,且手术时间短、术中出血量少,减少了对椎体结构的破坏程度,手术安全可靠。展开更多
文摘Objective To explore the efficacy and safety of different surgical approaches of cervical spondylotic myelopathy, and the predictive factors for the outcome of surgery. Methods Clinical data of 68 consecutive patients who underwent surgical treatment from 2003-08-01 to 2006-12-01 were collected. The quantization of the efficacy of operation was made by applying Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scoring system, based on which the recovery rate and satisfaction rate were calculated. In the patients who underwent anterior approach, we compared the recovery rate among the subgroups of different duration of symptoms, age at surgery and the severity of diseases. Any surgery-related complications were also noted. Results 73.5% (50/68) patients underwent anterior approach, with an average recovery rate of (68.21 ± 10.06)% and the satisfaction rate of 88.00%;20.6% patients (14/68) underwent posterior approach, with an average recovery rate of (64.03 ± 7.07)% and the satisfaction rate of 100%. The recovery rate had no significant difference in the two approaches. Only 4 patients (5.9%) underwent anterior and posterior combined approach, and the recovery rate and the satisfaction rate were 65.10% and 100%, respectively. In the group of patients who accepted anterior approach, no significant differences were found in the recovery rates of different age subgroups and different duration of symptom subgroups;the significant differences recovery rates between the moderate and severe subgroups were identified. Minor complications, such as asymptomatic screw misplacement, transient dysphagia/odynophagia, pain related to the donor site and axial syndrome, were observed in a few patients. Conclusion The JOA score can be improved by applying the appropriate approaches and the high recovery and satisfaction rates can be achieved at the same time. The efficacies of anterior and posterior approaches were similar. The complications of surgery were minor. In the patients who underwent anterior approach, the severity of diseases was a predictive factor for the outcome of surgery.
文摘目的 探讨头颈半棘肌间平面阻滞(ISPB)对颈椎后路手术患者术后恢复质量的影响。方法 选择2023年1—4月择期行颈椎后路手术的患者72例,男41例,女31例,年龄18~64岁,BMI 18~28 kg/m^(2),ASAⅡ或Ⅲ级。采用随机区组设计将患者分为两组:ISPB组(I组)和对照组(C组),每组36例。所有患者在麻醉诱导前使用超声定位于C_(5)平面,I组在双侧头半棘肌和颈半棘肌之间筋膜平面内注射0.25%罗哌卡因20 ml, C组注射同等体积生理盐水,注射完成后15 min开始麻醉诱导。记录术前1 d、术后1、2 d 40项恢复质量评分(QoR-40)、匹兹堡睡眠质量指数(PSQi)。记录术后1、6、12、24、48 h NRS评分。记录PCIA有效按压次数、PCIA总按压次数、补救镇痛例数,术中舒芬太尼、瑞芬太尼用量和术后喷他佐辛用量。记录术后恶心呕吐(PONV)的发生情况、术后首次独立下地行走时间和首次经口进食时间、血肿、感染或局麻药中毒等穿刺相关并发症的发生情况。结果 与术前1 d比较,两组术后1、2 d QoR-40各项评分和总分明显降低,PSQI明显升高(P<0.05)。与C组比较,I组术后1、2 d QoR-40情绪状态、身体舒适度、心理支持、疼痛评分和总分均明显升高,PSQI明显降低(P<0.05);术后1、6、12、24 h NRS评分均明显降低(P<0.05);术后PICA有效按压次数、PCIA总按压次数、补救镇痛率、术中瑞芬太尼用量、术后喷他佐辛用量、PONV发生率均明显降低,术后首次独立下地行走时间和首次经口进食时间明显缩短(P<0.05)。两组无一例发生穿刺相关并发症。结论 双侧ISPB可有效改善颈椎后路手术患者术后睡眠,减轻术后疼痛,降低PONV发生率,提高患者术后恢复质量。
文摘目的探讨脊髓型颈椎病患者行颈前路椎体次全切除植骨融合术(anterior cervical corporectomy and fusion,ACCF)手术中保留椎体后壁横联结构的临床价值。方法回顾性分析本科于2015年3月~2021年3月行ACCF手术的脊髓型颈椎病患者60例作为研究对象,按ACCF手术方案的不同进行分组:常规ACCF手术30例,纳入常规组;保留椎体后壁横联结构的改良ACCF手术30例,纳入改良组。术后获访1年,对两组患者的围术期指标(手术时间、出血量和住院时间)、减压效果(JOA评分)、影像学指标(颈椎曲度、融合节段高度)、手术安全性和植骨融合情况进行比较。结果改良组的手术时间、术中出血量等数据均显著低于常规组(P<0.05);但两组住院时间无显著性差异(P>0.05)。两组术后共出现7例并发症,其中常规组4例(13.3%),3例为术后肩颈部疼痛,1例声音嘶哑;改良组3例(10%),均为肩颈部疼痛。上述并发症均于1~4周后自行好转。与术前相比,两组患者术后1周的JOA评分均显著改善,且术后3个月和1年的JOA评分呈持续改善趋势(P<0.05),两组间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组患者术后的颈椎曲度、融合节段高度等影像学指标均获不同程度改善,但组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后1年,两组患者均获得骨性融合。结论保留椎体后壁横联结构的改良ACCF手术治疗脊髓型颈椎病患者,可取得与常规ACCF手术一致的减压效果,且手术时间短、术中出血量少,减少了对椎体结构的破坏程度,手术安全可靠。
