论文部分内容阅读
目的:对比斜外侧椎间融合联合后方肌间隙入路双侧通道下椎弓根螺钉固定与后方肌间隙入路双侧通道下椎弓根螺钉固定并椎间融合治疗腰椎管狭窄症的临床效果和并发症。方法:收集2015年6月至2017年6月73例单节段腰椎管狭窄症患者资料，其中男33例，女40例；年龄（66.80±7.94）岁（范围：39~85岁）。病变部位位于Ln 3/45例，Ln 4/568例。根据入院时间先后随机分组：采用斜外侧椎间融合联合后方肌间隙入路双侧通道下椎弓根螺钉固定（斜外侧组）；采用后方肌间隙入路双侧通道下椎弓根螺钉固定并椎间融合（后路组）。对比斜外侧组与后路组的基线资料，观察并对比两组病例的临床疗效、影像学结果及并发症情况。n 结果:斜外侧组与后路组的基线资料（包括年龄、性别比例、病史时间及病变部位的分布）的差异均无统计学意义。73例均顺利完成手术，38例斜外侧组手术时间为（99±8.96）min，35例后路组为（96.8±9.57）min，差异无统计学意义；斜外侧组术中出血量（80±24.72）ml，后路组（261±52.87）ml，差异有统计学意义（n t=9.621，n P<0.05）。73例均获得随访，随访时间（17.5±2.58）个月（范围：12~24个月）。斜外侧组术后72 h腰部切口VAS评分（1.21±0.55）分，后路组（1.70±0.86）分，差异有统计学意义（n t=3.723，n P=0.028）；后路组ODI指数由术前的48.6±6.1恢复至末次随访10.2±2.2，斜外侧组由术前49.0±5.7恢复至9.3±1.8，组内比较差异有统计学意义（n t=8.942，n P<0.05；n t=9.211，n P<0.05）。斜外侧组与后路组的组内手术前后的椎间孔面积有统计学差异（n t=10.753，n P<0.05；n t=11.631，n P<0.05）；椎管面积亦有统计学差异（n t=9.152，n P<0.05；n t=9.344，n P<0.05）；两组术后椎间孔面积和椎管面积对比均无统计学差异。椎间隙高度：斜外侧组与后路组术后均较术前有明显恢复，差异有统计学意义（n t=9.592，n P<0.05；n t=8.443，n P<0.05），末次随访时两组椎间隙高度均有不同程度的丢失，且与术后对比差异有统计学意义（n t=5.172，n P<0.05；n t=5.291，n P<0.05）。术后无一例发生切口感染。随访过程中未出现椎弓根螺钉松动、移位、断裂或椎间融合器前后向、横向移位。后路组融合率为97.1%，斜外侧组融合率为100%，差异无统计学意义。后路组并发症发生率22.86%，斜外侧组发生率23.68%，差异无统计学意义。n 结论:斜外侧椎间融合与后路减压融合治疗腰椎管狭窄症均获得良好的临床效果，前者优势更为明显，包括出血少、神经损伤风险低、良好的椎管间接减压，可作为部分腰椎管狭窄症手术治疗的较好选择。“,”Objective:To compare the clinical outcomes and complications of oblique lateral interbody fusion combined with bilateral pedicle screw fixation through intermuscular approach and posterior interbody fusion combined with bilateral pedicle screw fixation through intermuscular approach by channel for lumbar spinal stenosis.Methods:A retrospective study was conducted on 73 patients who underwent surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis from Jun 2015 to Jun 2017, including 33 males and 40 females. The average age was 66.8±7.94 years (from 39-85 years). These diseases occured at Ln 3/4 in 5 patients and Ln 4/5 in 68 patients. Random according to the time of admission, 38 cases were treated with oblique lateral interbody fusion combined with bilateral pedicle screw fixation through intermuscular approach (oblique lateral fusion group), and 35 cases with posterior interbody fusion combined with bilateral pedicle screw fixation through intermuscular approach by channel (posterior fusion group). The clinical results, image data and complications were compared between the two groups.n Results:All patients in both groups had operation performed smoothly. The operation time was 99±8.96 min in the oblique lateral fusion group and 96.8±9.57 min in the posterior fusion group, and there was no significant difference between the two groups. The intraoperative bleeding in the oblique lateral fusion group 80±24.72 ml was significantly less than that in the posterior fusion group 261±52.87 ml (n t=9.621, n P<0.05). No incision infection occurred after surgery. The VAS score of lumbar incision 72h after operation in the oblique lateral fusion group 1.21±0.55 was significantly less than that in the posterior fusion group 1.70±0.86 (n t=3.723, n P=0.028). The follow-up period lasted for 12-24 months, averagely 17.5±2.58 months. There was statistically significant difference between preoperative and postoperative in the two groups, whether it was the area of the foraminal canal or the area of the spinal canal. There wboth the foraminal area and the spinal canal area were enlarged. The intervertebral space height in the two groups recovered significantly after surgery, the difference was statistically significant. But the intervertebral space height were partly lost at the last follow-up, and there was significant difference compared with postoperative. During the follow-up, no pedicle screw loosening, displacement, rupture, or anterior and lateral displacement of cage occurred. The fusion rate was 97.1% in the posterior fusion group and 100% in the oblique lateral fusion group. There was no statistical difference between the two groups.In terms of ODI index: the posterior fusion group recovered from 48.6±6.1 preoperative to 10.2±2.2 at the last follow-up, and the oblique lateral fusion group recovered from 49.0±5.7 preoperative to 9.3±1.8 at the last follow-up. There was statistically difference between last follow-up and preoperative in the two groups. The incidence of complications in the posterior fusion group was 22.86%, and the incidence in the oblique lateral fusion group was 23.68%. There was no significant difference between the two groups.n Conclusion:Both the two decompression and fusion methods have achieved good clinical results in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, with the advantages of less trauma, good stability, fast recovery, and high fusion rate. Compared with posterior decompression and fusion methods, the advantages of OLIF are more obvious, such as less bleeding,lower risk of nerve injury and good indirect decompression of spinal canal. Therefore, the OLIF technique can be a better choice for surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.