期刊文献+

改良经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术治疗老年腰椎管狭窄症并不稳患者的疗效观察 被引量:4

Clinical efficacy of modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar instability in the elderly
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的探讨改良经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)治疗老年腰椎管狭窄症并不稳的可行性和临床疗效。方法对2011年6月至2012年12月我院确诊为老年腰椎管狭窄症并不稳并行改良经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合手术治疗的45例患者进行回顾性分析,平均(70.6±4.0)岁。记录手术时间、出血量及并发症发生情况;于术前、术后3个月及末次随访时,采用疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)结合日本骨科学会评分(JOA)评价临床疗效;采用Brantigan-Steffe椎间融合评估标准评定椎问椎骨融合情况。结果45例患者均顺利完成手术,手术时间1.0~185min,平均(126±23)min,术中出血180~550ml,平均(272±89)ml,未发生硬脊膜撕裂、神经根损伤及深部感染等严重并发症。术后45例均获随访,随访时间12~30个月,平均(20.6±5.8)个月。术前腰痛VAS评分为(4.8±1.7)分,术后3个月及末次随访时分别为(1.6±0.5)分和(1.3±0.3)分,与术前比较明显改善(F=68.35,P=0.00);术前下肢疼痛VAS评分为(6.7±1.6)分,术后3个月及末次随访时分别为(1.2±0.5)分和(0.6±0.3)分,与术前比较明显改善(F=98.58,P=0.00);术前JOA评分为(13.2±4.9)分,术后3个月及末次随访时分别为(23.8±4.O)分和(24.1±4.2)分,与术前相比明显提高,差异有统计学意义(F=89.73,P=0.00)。术后1年复查腰椎x片,所有患者均达到影像学融合标准,无椎弓根螺钉断裂、松动及椎间融合器移位等内植物失败发生。结论改良TLIF技术的优点是手术创伤较小,术中减压彻底,并对神经结构干扰小,是治疗老年腰椎管狭窄症并不稳较为理想的手术方式。 Objective To explore the feasibility and clinical efficacy of modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar instability in the elderly. Methods Retrospective study was done on 45 elderly patients diagnosed as lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar instability treated by modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion from June 2011 to December 2012. There were 25 males and 20 females aged from 65 to 78 years [mean (70.6 4.0) years]. The operation time, blood loss, and complications were recorded and analyzed. The visual analog scale (VAS) score, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score were used to assess clinical outcomes before and 3 months after treatment and at the last follow-up. According to the criteria of Brantigan-Steffe, intervertebral fusion was evaluated. Results The operation of 45 patients was successful, and there were no severe complication. The average operative time was (126 23) rain, (range, 100 - 185 min), and the average amount of blood loss was (272±89) ml (range, 180-550 ml). There was no injury of nerve root, dural tear, or deep infection. All patients were followed up for 12 months to 30 months with an average of (20.6±5.8) months. The VAS score of low back pain was decreased from (4.8± 1.7) before operation to (1.6 ±0.5) at 3 months after operation and (1.3±0.3) at last follow-up. The VAS score of leg pain was decreased from (6.7±1.6) before operation to (1.2±0.5) at 3 months after operation and (0. 6±0.3) at last follow-up. The JOA score was increased from (13.2±4.9) before operation to (23.8±4.0) at 3 months after operation and (24.1 4.2) at last follow up. There were significant differences in the VAS score and JOA score between pre- and post-operation (F= 68.35, 98. 58, 89. 73, all P〈0.05), but no significant difference between 3 months after operation and final follow-up (all P〈 0.05). We observed no pedicle screw loosening, breaking, orany pullingout of intervertebral fusion cage. All patients showed evidence of fusion in each operated segment according to the criteria of Brantigan- Steffe. Conclusions Modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion has the advantages including less invasion, sufficient decompression, and less interference to neural structures, and it may provide an ideal surgical method for lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar instability in the elderly.
出处 《中华老年医学杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2014年第6期626-629,共4页 Chinese Journal of Geriatrics
关键词 腰椎 脊柱融合术 Lumbar vertebrae Spinal fusion
  • 相关文献

参考文献11

  • 1吕飞舟,王洪立,姜建元,马昕,夏新雷,王立勋.工作区域内移的改良经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术[J].中华骨科杂志,2011,31(10):1072-1077. 被引量:26
  • 2White AA, Panjabi MM. The problem of clinical instability in the human spine: a systematic approach // White AA, Panjabi MM. Clinical Biomechanics of the spinel-M]. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Company, 1990: 277-378.
  • 3Fukui M, Chiba K, Kawakami M, et al. JOA back pain evaluation questionnaire (JOABPEQ)/JOA cervical myelopathy evaluation questionnaire (JOACMEQ) the report on the development of revised versions [J]. Journal of Orthopaedic Science, 2009, 14:348-365.
  • 4Bijur PE, Silver W, GaUagher EJ. Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain[J]. Academic emergency medicine. 2001, 8: 1153-1157.
  • 5Brantigan JW, Steffee AD. A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion: two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1993, 18: 2106-2117.
  • 6Nanjo Y, Nagashima H, Dokai T, et al. Clinical features and surgical outcomes of lumbar spinal stenosis in patients aged 80 years or older:a multi- center retrospective study [J]. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 2013, 133:1243-1248.
  • 7Ghogawala Z, BenzelEC, Amin-HanjaniS, et al. Prospective outcomes evaluation after decompression with or without instrumented fusion for lumbar stenosis and degenerative grade I spondylolisthesis [J]. J Neurosurg Spine, 2004,1 : 267-272.
  • 8徐宏兵,王英明,孙常太,张华俦,薛庆云,杨述华.老年腰椎管狭窄症患者后路植骨融合效果的临床研究[J].中华老年医学杂志,2013,32(12):1326-1330. 被引量:8
  • 9Mehta VA, McGirt MJ, Garces Ambrossi GL, et al. Trans-foraminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of surgical morbidity [J] . Neurological Research, 2011, 33.. 38-42.
  • 10Tormenti MJ, Maserati MB, Bonfield CM, et al. Perioperative surgical complications of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-center experience.. Clinical article[J].J Neurosurg Spine, 2012, 16: 44- 50.

二级参考文献22

  • 1Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA. Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg, 2002, 49: 499-517.
  • 2Foley KT, Holly LT, Scbwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2003, 28(15 Suppl): S26-35.
  • 3Kim CW, Siemionow K, Anderson DG, et al. The current state of minimally invasive spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2011, 93(6): 582-596.
  • 4Brantigan JW, Steffee AD. A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients. Spine(Phila Pa 1976), 1993, 18(14): 2106-2117.
  • 5Gejo R, Kawaguehi Y, Kondoh T, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and histologic evidence of postoperative back muscle injury in rats. Spine(Phila Pa 1976), 2000, 25(8): 941-946.
  • 6Stevens K J, Spenciner DB, Griffiths KL, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2006, 19(2): 77-86.
  • 7Powers CJ, Isaaes RE. Minimally invasive fusion mad fixation techniques. Neurosurg Clin N Am, 2006, 17(4): 477-489.
  • 8Rahman M, Summers LE, Richter B, et al. Compm'ison of techniques for decompressive lumbar laminectomy: the minimally invasive versus the "classic" open approach. Minim Invasive Neurosurg, 2008, 51(2): 100-105.
  • 9Oppenheimer JH, DeCastro I, McDonnell DE. Minimally invasive spine technology and minimally invasive spine surgery: a historical review. Neurosurg Focus, 2009, 27(3): E9.
  • 10Selznick LA, Shamji MF, Isaacs RE. Minimally invasive interbody fusion for revision lumbar surgery: technical feasibility and safety. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2009, 22(3): 207-213.

共引文献32

同被引文献46

引证文献4

二级引证文献27

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