期刊文献+

两种腰椎非融合内固定术治疗腰椎间盘突出症早期疗效的比较 被引量:9

Comparison of early curative effectiveness between two non-fusion and internal fixation treatments for lumbar intervertebral disc protrusion
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的比较棘突问Coflex动态内固定术(A组)与腰椎椎弓根螺钉加弹性棒内固定术(B组)两种腰椎非融合内固定手术方式治疗腰椎间盘突出症的早期手术疗效。方法对2008年3月至2012年3月经郑州大学第一附属医院确诊为单节段腰椎间盘突出(L4/5)的22例患者行腰椎非融合内固定手术治疗并对其进行短期随访调查研究,术后随访时间为(6.87±3.25)个月。术前术后分别用JOA评分和ODI指数对早期临床疗效进行评价,并比较两种术式的手术时间、出血量。结果术后两组患者JOA评分(A组25.00±2.65、B组24:70±3.04)较术前(A组10.10±4.78、B组10.70±5.21)明显提高(P〈0.05),术后ODI指数(A组3.40±2.74、B组3.30±2.68)较术前(A组25.30±8.82、B组24.80±7.93)明显下降,两种手术方式疗效差异无统计学意义(P〉0.05);两种手术方式手术时间及出血量差异有统计学意义(P〈0.05)。结论两种腰椎非融合内固定术比较,棘突间Coflex动态内固定术相对手术时间短、术中出血量少;两者均能保留一定的腰椎活动度,改善临床症状,获得较满意的疗效,早期疗效差异无统计学意义。 Objective To compare the early curative effectiveness between two non-fusion and internal fixation treatments (lumbar pedicle screws combined with elastic rod fixation treatment vs. interspinous dynamic internal fixation with Coflex treatment) for lumbar intervertebral disc protrusion. Methods From March 2011 to March 2012, there were 22 patients diagnosed as having single segmental lumbar intervertebral disc protrusion (L4/5) in the hospital, and subjected tO lumbar non-fusion fixation operation. All patients were followed up for 3 to 13 months (mean 6. 87 ± 3.25 months). Early clinical efficacy was evaluated before and after operation respectively by the JOA score and ODI index. Operative time and bleeding loss were compared between the two treatments. Results The JOA score in two groups was significantly increased ( P 〈 0. 05 ) after the operation ( pre-operation: 10. 10 ±4. 78, 10. 70 ±5.21 ; postoperation: 25.00 ± 2. 65, 24. 70 ± 3.04), and ODI index was significantly decreased ( pre-operation : 25.30 ±8. 82, 24. 80± 7.93 ; postoperation: 3.40 ± 2. 74, 3.30 ± 2. 68 ). There was significant difference in the curative effectiveness between two groups (P 〉 0. 05 ). Operative time and bleeding loss showed statistically significant difference between two groups ( P 〈 0. 05 ). Conclusion Interspinous dynamic internal fixation with Coflex treatment has shorter operative time, and less bleeding loss during operation. Both treatments can retain a certain degree of lumbar spine mobility, improve clinical symptoms, and obtain satisfactory curative effectiveness, but there is no significant difference in early curative effectiveness between them.
出处 《中华实验外科杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2013年第1期158-160,共3页 Chinese Journal of Experimental Surgery
关键词 腰椎 内固定 腰椎间盘突出症 Lumbar Internal fixation Lumbar intervertebral disc protrusion
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

二级参考文献15

  • 1吴在德,吴肇汉,郑树,等.腰腿痛和颈肩痛.外科学,第7版.北京:人民卫生出版社,2008:846-859.
  • 2胥少汀,葛宝丰等.腰椎间盘突出症.实用骨科学,第3版.北京:人民军医出版社,2011:1687-1712.
  • 3Japanese Orthopaedic Association. Assessment of surgical treatment of low back pain. Jpn Orthop Assoc, 1984,58 : 1183-1187.
  • 4潘兵,张志敬,卢一生,等.Wallis刺穿间动态稳定装置的生物力学研究.中华实验外科杂志,2011,27:1462-1464.
  • 5Satoh I,Yonenobu K, Hosono N, et al. Indication of posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar disc herniation. J Spinal Disorders Tech, 2006,19 : 104-108.
  • 6Yong SB, Yoon HA, Poong GA, et al. Interspinous Implantation for Degenerative Lumbar Spine:Clinical and Radiologieal Outcome at 3- yr Follow Up. Kor J Spine,2008,5 : 130-135.
  • 7Adelt D. The interspinous U implant ( now Coflex ) : long-term out- come, study overview and differential indication. Der Orthopade, 2010,39:595-601.
  • 8Wiseman CM, Lindsey DP, Fredrick AD,et al. The effect of an inter- spinous process inplant on facet loading during extension. Spine ( Phi- la Pa 1976) ,2005,50:905-907.
  • 9Kong DS, Kim ES,Eoh W. One-year outcome evaluation after interspi- nous implantation for degenerative spinal stenosis withsegmental insta- bility. J Korean Med Sci ,2007,22:330-335.
  • 10Richter A, Schu C, Hauck M, et al. Does an interspinous device lum- bar spinal stenosis? One-year follow up of a prospective case control study of 60 patients. Eur Spine J,2010,19:283-289.

共引文献23

同被引文献84

  • 1费琦,邱贵兴,王以朋.腰椎棘突间内固定的应用进展[J].中国骨与关节外科,2008,1(3):245-250. 被引量:4
  • 2王洪,陈晓东,蔺福辉,易小波,任志宏.小切口B-twin融合治疗腰椎间盘突出症并腰椎不稳[J].临床骨科杂志,2013,16(1):99-10. 被引量:5
  • 3Kang SH, Choi SH, Seong N J, et al. Comparative study of lumbar magnetic resonance imaging and myelography in young soldiers with herniated lumbar disc[J].J Korean Neurosurg Soc,2010,48(6) : 501-505.
  • 4Askar Z,Wardlaw D,Muthukumar T,et al.Correlation between inter-vertebral disc morphology and the results in patients undergoing grafligament stabilization.Eur Spine J,2004,13:714-718.
  • 5Lee MJ,Lindsey JD,Bransford RJ.Pedicle screw-based posterior dy-namic stabilization in the lumbar spine.J Am Acad Orthop Surg,2010,18:581-588.
  • 6Japanese Orthopedic Association. Assessment of surgical treatment of low back pain[J].Jpn Orthop Asspc,1984.1183-1187.
  • 7Fairbank JC,Pynsent PS. The oswestry disability index[J].SPINE,2000.28-46.
  • 8, . Mori E, Okada S, Ueta T, et al. Spinous process-splitting open pedicle screw fusion provides favorable results in patients with low back dis- comfort and pain compared to conventional open pedicle screw fixation over 1 year after surgery[ J]. Eur Spine J,2012,21 (4) :745-753.
  • 9Tsutsumimoto T, Shimogata M, Ohta H, et al. Mini-open versus con- ventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis:comparison of paraspinal mus- cle damage and slip reduction [ J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976 ) ,2009,34 (18) :1923-1928.
  • 10Kramer M, Katzmaier P, Eisele R, et al. Surface electromyography veri- fied muscular damage associated with the open dorsal approach to the lumbar spine [ J ]. Eur Spine J,2001,10 (5) :414-420.

引证文献9

二级引证文献25

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