期刊文献+

微创Wiltse入路与传统后正中入路手术治疗双节段腰椎管狭窄症的疗效比较 被引量:76

The minimally invasive operation by Wiltse approach versus traditional posterior open surgery in treatment of dural-level lumbar spinal stenosis
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的:比较微创Wiltse入路与传统后正中人路手术治疗双节段腰椎管狭窄症的疗效。方法:2006年3月~2011年6月手术治疗215例双节段腰椎管狭窄症患者,其中113例采用微创Wihse人路经椎间孔减压椎间植骨融合手术(transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF,A组),男54例,女59例,L2/3~L3/46例,L3,4~L4/527例,IA/5.L5/S180例,年龄43~84岁,平均57岁;术前ODI为(59.16±21.47)%,腰痛VAS评分6.1±3.0分.腿痛VAS评分4.1±2.3分。102例采用传统后正中人路椎板切除减压椎间植骨融合手术(posteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion,PLIF,B组),男50例,女52例,L2/3~L3/45例,L3/4~L4/530例,L4/5~L5/S167例,年龄48~76岁,平均55岁;术前ODI为(53.14±20.32)%,腰痛VAS评分5.4±2.9分,腿痛VAS评分4.3±2.2分。记录两组的手术时间、术中出血量、切口长度,随访患者腰痛和腿痛VAS评分和ODI改善情况,并进行统计分析。结果:两组患者在年龄结构、性别比例、手术节段构成比、术前ODI和腰腿痛VAS评分均无统计学差异(P〉0.05)。A组平均随访19个月,B组平均随访21个月,两组间无统计学差异(伶0.05)。A组手术时间、术后末次随访时ODI和腿痛VAS评分分别为140~190min(165±37min)、(13.20±7.9)%和1.1±0.9分;B组分别为130~220min(155±46min)、(15.20±6.72)%和1.3±1.1分,两组比较均无统计学差异(P〉0.05),A组手术切口长度、术中出血量、术后末次随访时腰背痛残留率和腰痛VAS评分分别为4~5em(4.5±1.1cm)、140~400ml(260±215m1)、1.2±1.1分和2.7%,B组分别11~18em(14.2±2.4em)、300~1200m1(420±437m1)、1.9±1.5分和18.6%,A组均明显优于B组(P〈0.05)。两组术后ODI和腰腿痛VAS评分与术前比较均有显著性改善(P〈0.05)。结论:微创Wihse入路经椎间孔减压椎间植骨融合手术与传统后正中入路椎板切除减压椎间植骨融合手术治疗双节段腰椎管狭窄症均能达到良好的减压效果,但微创Wiltse入路手术损伤小,术后腰背痛残留率低。 Objectives: To compare the chnical results between minimally invasive operation by wihse approach and traditional posterior open surgery in treatment of dural-level lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods: From March 2006 to June 2011, a total of 215 cases with dural-level lumbar spinal stenosis underwent surgical intervention were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 113 cases received minimally invasive operation (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, TLIF, group A): male 54 cases, female 59 cases, 6 cases in L2/3- L3/4, 27 cases in L3/4-L4/5, 80 cases in L4/5-L5/S1, with an average age of 57(range from 43 to 84); pre- operative ODI and the VAS of low back pain/leg pain was (59.16±21.47)%, 6.1±3.0, and 4.1±2.3 respectively. 102 cases received open surgery(posterior lumbar interbody fusion, PLIF, group B): male 50 cases, female 52 cases, 5 cases in L2/3-L3/4, 30 eases in L3/4-L4/5, 67 cases in L4/5-L5/S1, with an average age of 55 (range from 48 to 76); preoperative ODI and the VAS of low back pain/leg pain was (53.14±20.32)%, 5.4±2.9, and 4.3±2.2 respectively. Operation time, intraoperative bleeding, and length of incision were recorded. Low back pain/leg pain was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS), and lumbar function was evaluated by Oswestry Disability Index(ODI) during postoperative follow-up, then by statistical analysis. Results: There were no significant differences among age, sex, surgery segment between group A and group B(P〉0.05). The mean follow-up time was 19 months in group A and 21 months in group B, no significant difference was detected (P〉0.05). Both of the two groups got satisfactory clinical outcome and osseous fusion. Operation time, ODI and the VAS score of leg pain at the final follow-up in group A was 140-190min(165±37min), (13.20±7.9)% and 1.1±0.9 respectively; and which in group B was 130-220min(155±46min), (15.20±6.72)% and 1.3±1.1 respectively; there was no significant difference between group A and group B (P〉0.05). Length of incision, intraoperative bleeding, rate of residual low back pain at the final follow-up and the VAS of low back pain in group A was 4-5em(4.5±1.1cm), 140-400ml(260±215ml), 2.7% and 1.2±1.1 respectively; and which in group B was 11-18cm(14.2±2.4cm), 300-1200ml(420±437ml), 18.6% and 1.9±1.5 respectively; group A was superior to group B (P〈0.05). There were significant improvements of ODI and the VAS of back/leg pain in two groups between preoperation and postoperation (P〈0.05). Conclusions: Minimally invasive operation by wiltse approach as well as open surgery can get satisfactory clinical outcome. Minimally invasive operation by wihse approach has advantages as follows: less invasive, less intraoperative bleeding, lower incidence of back pain in the duration of follow-up.
出处 《中国脊柱脊髓杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2012年第9期812-817,共6页 Chinese Journal of Spine and Spinal Cord
基金 广州市科技计划重大项目(编号:2011Y2-00023)
关键词 腰椎管狭窄症 微创 Wiltse入路 经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术 后路腰椎椎间融合术 Lumbar spinal stenosis Minimally invasive Wiltse approach Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion Posterior lumbar interbody fusion
  • 相关文献

参考文献11

  • 1Arts MP, Kols NI, Onderwater SM, et al. Clinical outcome of instrumented fusion for the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome: a case series of 100 patients [J]. Acta Neurochir (Wien), 2012, 154(7): 1213-217.
  • 2Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas Ⅵ. Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability[J]. Neurosurgery, 2007, 60(4 Suppl 2): 203-213.
  • 3Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim WJ, et al. Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesis [J]. Spine J, 1997, 22(2): 210-220.
  • 4Kawaguchi 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.
  • 5Mayer T, Gatchel R, Betancur J, et al. Trunk muscle endurance measurement:isometric contrasted to isokinetic testing in normal subjects[J]. Spine, 1995, 20(8): 920-927.
  • 6Ota M, Neo M, Fujibayashi S, et al. Advantages of the paraspinal muscle splitting approach in comparison with conventional midline approach for sl pedicle screw placement[J]. Spine, 2010, 35(11): E452-E457.
  • 7Wetzel FT, LaRoeea H. The failed posterior lumbar interbody fusion[J]. Spine, 1991, 16(7): 839-845.
  • 8Goel VK, Fromkneeht SJ, Nishiyama K, et al. The role of the lumbar spinal elements in flexion[J]. Spine, 1985, 10(6): 516- 523.
  • 9Hindle RJ, Pearcy MJ, Cross A. Mechanical function of the human lumbar interspinous and supraspinous ligaments [J]. J Biolned Eng, 1990, 12(4): 340-344.
  • 10Yagi M, Okada E, Ninomiya K, et al. Postoperative outcome after modified unilateral-approach microendoscopic midline decompression for degenerative spinal stenosis[J]. J Neurosurg Spine, 2009, 10(4): 293-299.

二级参考文献8

  • 1Bogduk N. The lumbar mamillo-accessory ligament. Its anatomical and neurosurgical significance. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1981, 6(2): 162-167.
  • 2Panjabi M .The stabilizing system of the spine. Part I. Function, dysfunction, adaptation, and enhancement. J Spinal Disord, 1992, 5(4): 383-389.
  • 3Gille O, Jolivet E, Dousset V, et al. Erector spinae muscle changes on magnetic resonance imaging following lumbar surgery through a posterior approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2007, 32 (11): 1236-1241.
  • 4Watkins MB. Posterolateral bone grafting for fusion of the lumbar and lumbosacral spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1959, 41 (3): 388- 396.
  • 5Wiltse LL, Bateman JG, Hutchinson RH, et al. The paraspinal sacrospinalis-splitting approach to the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1968, 50(5): 919-926.
  • 6Wiltse LL, Spencer CW. New uses and refinements of the paraspinal approach to the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1988, 13(6): 696-706.
  • 7Haro H, Maekawa S, Hamada Y. Prospective analysis of clinical evaluation and self-assessment by patients after decompression surgery for degenerative lumbar canal stenosis. Spine J, 2008, 8 (2): 380-384.
  • 8Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Lewis ML, et al. Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2000, 25 (11): 1437-1446.

共引文献27

同被引文献838

引证文献76

二级引证文献464

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