期刊文献+

经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定联合Quadrant微创撑开系统在治疗腰椎退行性疾病中的临床应用 被引量:22

Percutaneous pedicle screws combined with Quadrant system for lumbar degenerative disease
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的:探讨经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定联合Quadrant微创撑开系统在治疗腰椎退行性疾病中的临床应用价值。方法:我院于2010年2月。2012年2月共治疗腰椎退行性疾病患者92例,随机对其中46例采用经皮椎弓根内固定联合Quadrant微创撑开系统行椎间盘摘除植骨融合术治疗(微创组),46例采用传统后路腰椎间融合术(PLIF)治疗(传统组),分别对两组手术时间、切口长度、失血量、末次随访时根据改良MacNab标准判定的优良率、术前及术后半年与术后1年腰背痛VAS评分、并发症等进行对比分析。结果:患者均获随访,随访时间4~24个月,平均16个月。微创组术后并发症出现切口延期愈合1例,脑脊液漏1例。微创组与传统组的手术时间分别为100.0±21.7min和91.0±18.1min,优良率分别为89.2%和86.9%,两组间比较差异无显著性(P〉0.05)。微创组与传统组术前VAS评分分别为6.0±3.3分和6.3±2.5分,术后6个月时分别为2.5±1.3分和2.6±1.4分,术后1年时分别为1.4±1.1分和1.3±1.1分.两组患者术后腰背痛较术前均得到缓解(P〈0.05),两组间比较差异无显著性(P〉0.05)。手术切口微创组(2.5±0.2cm)小于传统组(5.1±0.6cm),出血量微创组(80.0±7.2m1)少于传统组(152.0±12.3m1),差异均有显著性(P〈0.05)。微创组24例在术后3个月,18例在术后6个月,其余4例患者在术后1年时影像学上获得植骨融合;传统组25例在术后3个月,18例在术后6个月,其余3例患者在术后1年时影像学上获得植骨融合。结论:经皮椎弓根内固定联合Quadrant微创撑开系统应用于腰椎后路治疗腰椎问盘突出症是一种安全、有效的方法,较之传统后路手术具有切口小,出血量少的优势。 Objectives: To evaluate the clinical application of percutaneous pedicle screws combined with Quadrant system for lumbar degenerative disease. Methods: 92 patients with lumbar disc herniation were treated in our hospital from Feburary 2010 to Feburary 2012. They were divided into two groups randomly, 46 patients underwent percutaneous pediele screws combined with Quadrant system (MIS group), the others experienced posterior lumbar interbody fusion(PLIF)(conventional group). The operation time, length of incision, blood loss, excellent to good rate at final follow-up were evaluated by modified MaeNab criteria, and the VAS score of low back pain and complications before operation, 6 months and 1 year after operation between two groups were recorded and compared. Results: All patients were followed up for 4-24 months(average, 16 months). In the MIS group, 1 cases suffered from delayed incision healing, and 1 case suffered from CSF leak. The operation time of MIS group and conventional group was 100.0±21.7min and 91.0±18.1min, and the excellent-to-good rate was 89.2% and 86.9% respectively, which showed no significant difference (P〉0.05). Preoperative VAS score for low back pain of 2 groups was 6.0±3.3 and 6.3±2.5 respectively, 2.5±1.3 and 2.6±1.4 at 6 months and 1.4±1.1 and 1.3±1.1 at 1 year after operation respectively, which improved signifi- cantly compared with the preoperatives (P〈0.05). Compared with the conventional group, the MIS group had shorter length of incision and less blood loss(P〈0,05). In the MIS group, 24 cases obtained bony fusion at 3month follow-up, 18 cases obtained bony fusion at 6 month follow-up, 4 cases obtained bony fusion at 1 year follow-up. While in the conventional group, it was 25, 18 and 3 cases obtained bony fusion at corre- sponding follow-ups respectively. Conclusions: Percntaneous pedicle screws combined with Quadrant system is safe and effective for lumbar degenerative disease, which has less skin incision and blood loss compared with conventional treatment.
出处 《中国脊柱脊髓杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2013年第3期204-208,共5页 Chinese Journal of Spine and Spinal Cord
关键词 QUADRANT 微创撑开系统 腰椎间盘突出症 经皮椎弓根钉 Quadrant system Lumbar disk herniation Pereutaneous pedicle screw fixation
  • 相关文献

参考文献11

  • 1袁维,徐建广.后路椎弓根螺钉固定加椎体间融合术治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症[J].脊柱外科杂志,2008,6(4):221-223. 被引量:17
  • 2Kluger P, Weidt F, Puhl W. Spondylolisthesis and pseu- dospondylolistbesis. Treatment by segmental reposition and in- terbody fusion with fixateur interne [J]. Orthopade, 1997, 26 (9): 790-795.
  • 3Macnab I. Negative disc exploration: an analysis of the causes of nerve root involvement in sixty-eight patients [J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1971, 53(5): 891-903.
  • 4Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative tech- nique, after care[J]. J Neurosurg, 1953, 10(2): 154-168.
  • 5Sihvonen T, Herno A, Palj:irvi L, et al. Local denervation at- rophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syn- drome[J]. Spine, 1993, 18(5): 575-581.
  • 6Kawaguchi 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.
  • 7Larry TK, Sylvain P, Daniel TL, et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion[J]. Neurosurg, 2002, 51(5): 166-181.
  • 8Foley KT, Gupta SK. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine: preliminary clinical results[J]. J Neurosurg, 2002, 97(1 Suppl): 7-12.
  • 9Park Y, Ha JW. Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar in- terbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach[J]. Spine, 2007, 32(5): 537- 543.
  • 10Musacchio M, Patel N, Bagan B, et ah Minimally invasive lumbar laminectomy via a dual-tube technique: evaluation in a cadaver model[J]. Surg Neurol, 2007, 67(4): 348-352.

二级参考文献17

  • 1朱守荣,刘郑生,肖嵩华,王岩,张永刚,刘保卫.腰椎间盘突出症术后原间隙再突出的病因分析和策略[J].脊柱外科杂志,2007,5(2):77-79. 被引量:9
  • 2Foley KY,HoIly LT,Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion[J].Spine,2003,28(15 Suppl) :S26-S35.
  • 3Kim KT,Lee SH,Suk KS, et al. The quantitative of tissue injury markers after mini-open lumbar fusion[J].Spine,2006, 31 (6) :712-716.
  • 4Suk KS,Lee HM,Kim NH, et al. Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal fusion[J]. Spine,2000, 25(14) : 1843-1847.
  • 5Ogilvie JW.Complications in spondylolisthesis surgery[J].Spine, 2005,30(6 Suppl) :S97-101.
  • 6Bridwell KH. Utilization of iliac screws and structural interbody grafting for revisi-on spondylolisthesis surgery[J].Spine, 2005.30(6 SUDD1) :S88-S96.
  • 7Salehi SA,Tawk R,Ganju A,et al.transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion:surgical technique and results in 24patients[J]. Neurosurgerv, 2004,54 (2) : 368-374.
  • 8Schizas C,Nicolas T,Elefterios T,et al.Minimally invasive versus open transforam-inal lumbar interbody fusion:evaluating initial experience[J].International Ortho-paedics(SICOT),2009, 33(11 ) : 1683-1688.
  • 9Chin Z,Zhao J,Liu A.Surgical treatment of recurrent lumbar disc heniation by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion[J]. International Orthopaedics, 2008,21 (3) : 12.
  • 10Musacchio M,Patel N,Bagan B,et al.Mnimally invasive lumbar laminectomy via a dualtube technique:evaluation in a cadaver model[J].Surgeuro1,2007,67(4) :348-352.

共引文献40

同被引文献158

  • 1刘洪涛,镇万新,朱杰诚,徐亮,王巨.经皮椎弓根内固定术在胸腰椎骨折中的应用[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2005,13(16):1227-1229. 被引量:13
  • 2周跃,王健,初同伟,李长青,王卫东,郑文杰,张正丰,郝勇,潘勇.经皮椎弓根螺钉固定、内窥镜下腰椎管减压、椎间融合的临床应用[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2007,17(5):333-336. 被引量:54
  • 3Drury T,Ames S E,Costi K,et al.Degenerative spondylolisthesis in patients with neurogenic claudication effects functional performance and self-reported quality of life[J].Spine,2009,34(25):2812-2817.
  • 4Righesso O,Falavigna A,Avanzi O.Comparison of open discectomy with microendoscopic discectomy in lumbar disc herniations:results of a randomized controlled trail[J].Neurosurgery,2007,61(3):545-549.
  • 5Podichetty V K,Spears J,Isaacs R E,et al.Complications associated with minimally invasive democompression for lumbar spinal stenosis[J].J Spinal Disord Tech,2006,19(3):161-166.
  • 6Ringel F,Stoffel M,Stüer C,et al.Minimally invasive transmuscular pedicle screw fixation of the thoracic and lumbar spine[J].Neurosurgery,2006,59(4 Suppl 2):361.
  • 7Schizas C,Michel J,Kosmopoulos V,et al.Computer tomography assessment of pedicle screw insertion in percutaneous posterior transpedicular stabilization[J].Eur Spine J,2007,16(5):613-617.
  • 8Fan SW, Hu Z J, Zhao FD, et al. Multi dus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach [J]. Eur Spine J,2010, 19(2):316-324.
  • 9Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P, et al. Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation [J]. J Neurosurg, 2005,3 (2) : 98-105.
  • 10Schizas C, T zinieris N, T siridis E, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience [J]. Int Orthop,2009,33(6) : 1683-1688.

引证文献22

二级引证文献105

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