BACKGROUND Whether it’s better to adopt unilateral pedicle screw(UPS)fixation or to use bilateral pedicle screw(BPS)one for lumbar degenerative diseases is still controversially undetermined.AIM To make a comparison ...BACKGROUND Whether it’s better to adopt unilateral pedicle screw(UPS)fixation or to use bilateral pedicle screw(BPS)one for lumbar degenerative diseases is still controversially undetermined.AIM To make a comparison between UPS and BPS fixation as to how they work efficaciously and safely in patients suffering from lumbar degenerative diseases.METHODS We have searched a lot in the databases through 2020 with index terms such as“unilateral pedicle screw fixation”and“bilateral pedicle screw fixation.”Only randomized controlled trials and some prospective cohort studies could be found,yielding 15 studies.The intervention was unilateral pedicle screw fixation;Primarily We’ve got outcomes of complications and fusion rates.Secondarily,we’ve achieved outcomes regarding total blood loss,operative time,as well as length of stay.Softwares were installed and utilized for subgroup analysis,analyzing forest plots,sensitivity,heterogeneity,forest plots,publication bias,and risk of bias.RESULTS Fifteen previous cases of study including 992 participants have been involved in our meta-analysis.UPS had slightly lower effects on fusion rate[relative risk(RR)=0.949,95%CI:0.910 to 0.990,P=0.015],which contributed mostly to this metaanalysis,and similar complication rates(RR=1.140,95%CI:0.792 to 1.640,P=0.481),Δvisual analog scale[standard mean difference(SMD)=0.178,95%CI:-0.021 to 0.378,P=0.080],andΔOswestry disability index(SMD=-0.254,95%CI:-0.820 to 0.329,P=0.402).In contrast,an obvious difference has been observed inΔJapanese Orthopedic Association(JOA)score(SMD=0.305,95%CI:0.046 to 0.563,P=0.021),total blood loss(SMD=-1.586,95%CI:-2.182 to-0.990,P=0.000),operation time(SMD=-2.831,95%CI:-3.753 to-1.909,P=0.000),and length of hospital stay(SMD=-0.614,95%CI:-1.050 to-0.179,P=0.006).CONCLUSION Bilateral fixation is more effective than unilateral fixation regarding fusion rate after lumbar interbody fusion.However,JOA,operation time,total blood loss,as well as length of stay were improved for unilateral fixation.展开更多
Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion(ACDF)is the preferred surgical method for the treatment of severe cervical degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy or myelopathy,of which the objectives are to restore the ...Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion(ACDF)is the preferred surgical method for the treatment of severe cervical degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy or myelopathy,of which the objectives are to restore the normal height of intervertebral space and cervical lordosis through the implantation of cervical interbody fusion cage.The biomechanical performance of a cervical interbody fusion cage,which plays a significant role in achieving the goals of ACDF,is influenced by multiple factors.In this paper,various studies focusing on the biomechanical performance of cervical interbody fusion cage are reviewed.Furthermore,the research methods,biomechanical evaluation parameters and data analysis methods of these research are analyzed in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the progress and limitations of research in this field.Although great progress has been made to clarify the biomechanical behaviors of cervical interbody fusion cage,there is still controversy regarding the issues such as the relative contribution of multiple factors to the performance of cage,the interactions among these factors,as well as whether the effects of factors change with the process of intervertebral osseointegration and so on.Thus,investigations are still needed to improve the comprehension of cervical interbody fusion cage biomechanically.展开更多
[目的]观察显微镜直视下经前路颈椎间盘切除及椎间融合术的临床疗效，探讨其技术要点和临床效果。[方法]自2004年10月以来，对36例患者实施显微镜直视下经前路颈椎间盘切除及椎间融合术，其中男27例，女9例；年龄34—67岁，平均42岁。...[目的]观察显微镜直视下经前路颈椎间盘切除及椎间融合术的临床疗效，探讨其技术要点和临床效果。[方法]自2004年10月以来，对36例患者实施显微镜直视下经前路颈椎间盘切除及椎间融合术，其中男27例，女9例；年龄34—67岁，平均42岁。患者术前ADL（ability of dailyliving）评分7．0分。[结果]随访8-16个月，平均9．4个月。手术时间30—160min，平均每个节段45min，术中出血量50—600ml，平均每个节段150ml。无术中并发症。术后ADL评分平均13．8分，术后症状改善率为90％。36例患者，术后影像学检查均显示手术部位减压彻底。随访时X线片显示椎间融合器无松动及下沉、周围无透光带。过屈过伸位X线片显示椎体前后缘椎间距离无改变，椎间高度无丢失，提示融合满意，并能维持一定的颈椎前凸。[结论]显微镜直视下经前路颈椎间盘切除及椎问融合术具有显著的优点。与传统开放手术比较：（1）组织损伤轻，切口小；（2）极大的减少了术中并发症出现的机会，改善了治疗效果。与内窥镜手术比较：（1）手术范围大大增加；（2）技术操作简单；（3）不受手术节段的限制，可多节段手术；（4）操作不受通道影响，操作更精确，适应证大大放宽；（5）椎间融合器放置更加容易可靠；（6）手术适应证范围明显扩大，无特殊手术禁忌。展开更多
目的:比较前路颈椎间盘切除融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)联合前路椎体次全切钛网植骨融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion,ACCF)与颈后路单开门微型钛板内固定术治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效...目的:比较前路颈椎间盘切除融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)联合前路椎体次全切钛网植骨融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion,ACCF)与颈后路单开门微型钛板内固定术治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法:对2014年3月至2016年3月手术治疗的63例(男39例,女24例)3节段脊髓型颈椎病患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,其中43例行ACDF联合ACCF(前路组),20例行颈后路单开门微型钛板内固定术(后路组)。比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症发生率,并按照JOA评分标准评定两组患者的临床疗效。结果:所有病例获得随访,时间16~40个月,平均25.8个月。前路组与后路组患者手术时间分别为(123.70±6.21)min和(118.70±5.41)min,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术中出血量分别(85.23±7.51)ml和(107.18±9.41)ml,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。前路组发生轴性症状6例,吞咽困难1例,未发生C5神经根麻痹、声音嘶哑及呛咳等并发症,并发症发生率为16.3℅(7/43);后路组发生轴性症状5例,C5神经根麻痹1例,未发生吞咽困难、声音嘶哑及呛咳等并发症,并发症发生率为30.0℅(6/20),两组并发症发生率比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。前路组术后1周及末次随访时的JOA评分均优于后路组(P<0.05)。结论 :两种手术方式治疗脊髓型颈椎病均能提供即刻的稳定性,前路联合手术在术中出血量、并发症发生率、临床疗效方面均优于后路组,因此对于连续性3节段脊髓型颈椎病的治疗倾向于前路联合手术。展开更多
基金Supported by the Health Science and Technology of Tianjin Municipality,No.RC20204Tianjin Institute of Orthopedics,No.2019TJGYSKY03the National Natural Science Foundation of China,No.818717771177226。
文摘BACKGROUND Whether it’s better to adopt unilateral pedicle screw(UPS)fixation or to use bilateral pedicle screw(BPS)one for lumbar degenerative diseases is still controversially undetermined.AIM To make a comparison between UPS and BPS fixation as to how they work efficaciously and safely in patients suffering from lumbar degenerative diseases.METHODS We have searched a lot in the databases through 2020 with index terms such as“unilateral pedicle screw fixation”and“bilateral pedicle screw fixation.”Only randomized controlled trials and some prospective cohort studies could be found,yielding 15 studies.The intervention was unilateral pedicle screw fixation;Primarily We’ve got outcomes of complications and fusion rates.Secondarily,we’ve achieved outcomes regarding total blood loss,operative time,as well as length of stay.Softwares were installed and utilized for subgroup analysis,analyzing forest plots,sensitivity,heterogeneity,forest plots,publication bias,and risk of bias.RESULTS Fifteen previous cases of study including 992 participants have been involved in our meta-analysis.UPS had slightly lower effects on fusion rate[relative risk(RR)=0.949,95%CI:0.910 to 0.990,P=0.015],which contributed mostly to this metaanalysis,and similar complication rates(RR=1.140,95%CI:0.792 to 1.640,P=0.481),Δvisual analog scale[standard mean difference(SMD)=0.178,95%CI:-0.021 to 0.378,P=0.080],andΔOswestry disability index(SMD=-0.254,95%CI:-0.820 to 0.329,P=0.402).In contrast,an obvious difference has been observed inΔJapanese Orthopedic Association(JOA)score(SMD=0.305,95%CI:0.046 to 0.563,P=0.021),total blood loss(SMD=-1.586,95%CI:-2.182 to-0.990,P=0.000),operation time(SMD=-2.831,95%CI:-3.753 to-1.909,P=0.000),and length of hospital stay(SMD=-0.614,95%CI:-1.050 to-0.179,P=0.006).CONCLUSION Bilateral fixation is more effective than unilateral fixation regarding fusion rate after lumbar interbody fusion.However,JOA,operation time,total blood loss,as well as length of stay were improved for unilateral fixation.
基金This work was supported by the China National Key Research and Development Plan Project(grant number 2016YFB1101100)National Natural Science Foundation of China(grant number 11822201)the 111 Project(grant number B13003).
文摘Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion(ACDF)is the preferred surgical method for the treatment of severe cervical degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy or myelopathy,of which the objectives are to restore the normal height of intervertebral space and cervical lordosis through the implantation of cervical interbody fusion cage.The biomechanical performance of a cervical interbody fusion cage,which plays a significant role in achieving the goals of ACDF,is influenced by multiple factors.In this paper,various studies focusing on the biomechanical performance of cervical interbody fusion cage are reviewed.Furthermore,the research methods,biomechanical evaluation parameters and data analysis methods of these research are analyzed in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the progress and limitations of research in this field.Although great progress has been made to clarify the biomechanical behaviors of cervical interbody fusion cage,there is still controversy regarding the issues such as the relative contribution of multiple factors to the performance of cage,the interactions among these factors,as well as whether the effects of factors change with the process of intervertebral osseointegration and so on.Thus,investigations are still needed to improve the comprehension of cervical interbody fusion cage biomechanically.
文摘[目的]观察显微镜直视下经前路颈椎间盘切除及椎间融合术的临床疗效，探讨其技术要点和临床效果。[方法]自2004年10月以来，对36例患者实施显微镜直视下经前路颈椎间盘切除及椎间融合术，其中男27例，女9例；年龄34—67岁，平均42岁。患者术前ADL（ability of dailyliving）评分7．0分。[结果]随访8-16个月，平均9．4个月。手术时间30—160min，平均每个节段45min，术中出血量50—600ml，平均每个节段150ml。无术中并发症。术后ADL评分平均13．8分，术后症状改善率为90％。36例患者，术后影像学检查均显示手术部位减压彻底。随访时X线片显示椎间融合器无松动及下沉、周围无透光带。过屈过伸位X线片显示椎体前后缘椎间距离无改变，椎间高度无丢失，提示融合满意，并能维持一定的颈椎前凸。[结论]显微镜直视下经前路颈椎间盘切除及椎问融合术具有显著的优点。与传统开放手术比较：（1）组织损伤轻，切口小；（2）极大的减少了术中并发症出现的机会，改善了治疗效果。与内窥镜手术比较：（1）手术范围大大增加；（2）技术操作简单；（3）不受手术节段的限制，可多节段手术；（4）操作不受通道影响，操作更精确，适应证大大放宽；（5）椎间融合器放置更加容易可靠；（6）手术适应证范围明显扩大，无特殊手术禁忌。
文摘目的:比较前路颈椎间盘切除融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)联合前路椎体次全切钛网植骨融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion,ACCF)与颈后路单开门微型钛板内固定术治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法:对2014年3月至2016年3月手术治疗的63例(男39例,女24例)3节段脊髓型颈椎病患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,其中43例行ACDF联合ACCF(前路组),20例行颈后路单开门微型钛板内固定术(后路组)。比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症发生率,并按照JOA评分标准评定两组患者的临床疗效。结果:所有病例获得随访,时间16~40个月,平均25.8个月。前路组与后路组患者手术时间分别为(123.70±6.21)min和(118.70±5.41)min,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术中出血量分别(85.23±7.51)ml和(107.18±9.41)ml,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。前路组发生轴性症状6例,吞咽困难1例,未发生C5神经根麻痹、声音嘶哑及呛咳等并发症,并发症发生率为16.3℅(7/43);后路组发生轴性症状5例,C5神经根麻痹1例,未发生吞咽困难、声音嘶哑及呛咳等并发症,并发症发生率为30.0℅(6/20),两组并发症发生率比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。前路组术后1周及末次随访时的JOA评分均优于后路组(P<0.05)。结论 :两种手术方式治疗脊髓型颈椎病均能提供即刻的稳定性,前路联合手术在术中出血量、并发症发生率、临床疗效方面均优于后路组,因此对于连续性3节段脊髓型颈椎病的治疗倾向于前路联合手术。
