显微椎板开窗盲视法治疗极外侧椎间盘突出症

目的:探讨显微镜下椎板开窗"盲视"法髓核摘除术治疗极外侧椎间盘突出的效果.方法:回顾我院2006年4月至2009年7月经显微镜下椎板开窗"盲视"法髓核摘除术治疗的12例极外侧椎间盘突出症患者的临床资料及随访结果.分析术中、术后并发症情况以及手术效果的长期随访结果.结果:12例病人症状改善良好,手术效果优良.结论:显微镜下椎板开窗"盲视"法髓核摘除术具有安全有效,可同时处理椎管内病变及较少的影响腰椎稳定性等优点,是极外侧椎间盘微创治疗的一种可行的方法.     

经皮椎间孔镜与椎板开窗髓核摘除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效比较

目的:探讨和比较经皮椎间孔镜与椎板开窗髓核摘除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床效果和安全性。方法:回顾性分析2011年-2014年我院收治的明确诊断为腰椎间盘突出症并行经皮椎间孔镜或椎板开窗髓核摘除术患者192例,其中118例给予经皮椎间孔镜治疗(PELD组),74例给予椎板开窗髓核摘除术(对照)。结合随访资料,评价并比较两组患者在术前后的VAS疼痛评分、Mac Nab疗效、Lehmann腰椎功能评分及住院时间、费用、手术出血量以及并发症的发生情况。结果:两组患者的术后疼痛评分、Lehmann腰椎功能评分、Mac Nab疗效、总费用、手术时间比较均无统计学差异(P0.05),但PELD组术中出血量、切口长度、并发症的发生率均较对照组降低或减小,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:经皮椎间孔镜技术作为一种新型微创脊柱外科技术,能够在保证良好疗效的前提下,明显减少出血及并发症,在临床工作中可以进一步的开展。     

经皮椎间孔镜与椎板开窗治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效分析

目的:探讨经皮侧路椎间孔镜下椎间盘髓核摘除术(percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy,PTED)与后路椎板开窗髓核摘除术(fenestration decompression,FD)治疗腰椎间盘突出症(lumbar disc herniation,LDH)的临床疗效。方法:回顾性分析2014年1月至2015年6月,在我院治疗确诊为单节段腰椎间盘突出症的患者80例,其中经皮椎间孔镜治疗(PTED组)37例,椎间开窗髓核摘除术(FD组)43例,记录两组患者术中透视次数、切口长度、手术时间、术中出血量、术后卧床及住院时间,治疗前后视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)和Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)进行随访,评估两种手术方式治疗效果。结果:PTED组在手术切口长度(7.91±0.69 mm VS 64.09±9.90 mm)、术中出血量(9.77±2.36 mL VS 64.16±16.95 mL)、术后卧床时间(6.31±2.31 h VS 81.55±77.93 h)及住院时间(3.79±1.14 d VS 8.65±2.27-d)的比较上优于FD组,差异性均有统计学意义;FD组较PTED组在手术时间更短(58.23±9.98 min VS 88.00±10.82 min)、术中透视次数更少(2.74±0.90次VS 16.54±3.10次),差异性均有统计学意义。两组VAS、ODI评分术后与术前比较,均有明显地改善,差异性有统计学意义(t=1.06,P=0.00)。末次随访Macnab标准疗效评分,PTED组优良率为83.78-%,FD组优良率为79.06-%,两组比较差异无统计学意义(x~2=0.874P=0.918)。结论:PTED和FD两种手术方式均能有效治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症;PTED手术方式具有手术切口小、术中出血量少、术后卧床及住院时间短、术后并发症少及恢复快等优点。FD具有X射线辐射小,手术时间更短,学习曲线短、更易掌握等优点。     

不同手术方式治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症的疗效比较

目的:比较保留椎板的髓核切除术和传统椎板切除腰椎间切除术治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症(recurrent lumbar disc herniation,RLDH)的疗效.方法:选择在本院就诊的RLDH患者50例,随机分组:25例为保留椎板的髓核切除术组,采用保留椎板的髓核切除术治疗;25例为椎板切除腰椎间盘切除术组,采用椎板切除椎间盘切除术术治疗,并做疗效和安全性的对照比较.结果:保留椎板的髓核切除术组优秀率92.0%(23/25)高于椎板切除椎间融合术组84.0%(21/25,P<0.05),同时椎板切除椎间盘切除术组有2例(8.0%)出现并发症.结论:采用保留椎板的髓核切除术治疗RLDH疗效佳,而且也保留了脊柱的稳定性和完整性,建议临床进一步推广.     

经皮椎间盘镜与椎间孔镜技术治疗腰椎间盘突出症临床对比分析

目的:比较椎间盘镜髓核摘除术(microendoscopic discectomy,MED)与椎间孔镜髓核摘除术(percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy,PELD)治疗腰椎间盘突出症的优缺点、安全性及临床疗效。方法:分析和回顾2012.06-2015.06第四军医大学唐都医院骨科收治的共计118例腰椎间盘突出症患者。经严格的进行纳入和排除标准筛选,其中椎间盘镜组共纳入患者46例,椎间孔镜组患者共纳入患者72例。对所有患者均进行了6个月以上的术后随访,记录和分析两组患者在手术时间、卧床时间、出血量、切口长度、疼痛、并发症等指标。并通过Macnab腰椎功能评分等对两组患者的功能恢复进行比较。结果:在术后,两组患者在疼痛评分及功能恢复方面均有明显的提高,且两组之间并无显著统计学差异(P0.05)。而椎间孔镜组在手术时间、卧床时间,总花费等指标中要优于椎间盘组(P0.05)。但在住院时间,出血量,切口长度及并发症等方面两组无明显的显著性差异(P0.05)。结论:两种手术方式作为脊柱微创手术,能够有效地治疗腰椎间盘突出症,安全程度较高,各有其优劣性,在临床中应根据不同的患者的实际情况进行个性化的选择。     

微创髓核摘除术治疗高龄腰椎间盘突出症的临床研究

目的:探讨微创髓核摘除术治疗高龄腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法:收集2007年3月~2012年3月本科室收治的老年腰椎间盘突出症患者40例(年龄65岁,排除腰椎不稳),随机分为实验组和对照组,每组20例,其中实验组患者行微创Quadrant通道下髓核摘除术,对照组患者行腰椎后路椎管减压椎间盘摘除植骨融合内固定术。比较两组手术时间、切口长度、出血量、手术效果、椎间隙平均高度丢失量及腰椎平均前凸角改变等指标的差异。结果:实验组患者的手术时间、切口长度、出血量及术后3天VAS疼痛目测评分均明显低于对照组(P0.01)。腰椎平均前凸角改变显著小于对照组(P0.05)。实验组和对照组术后6个月改良MacNab分级优良率均为90%(P0.05),实验组术后2年椎间隙高度平均丢失量与对照组无明显差异(P0.05)。结论:相对腰椎后路椎管减压椎间盘摘除植骨融合内固定术而言,单纯微创髓核摘除术治疗高龄腰椎间盘突出症时具有手术时间短、出血少、创伤小的优势。     

显微内窥镜椎间盘切除术(MED)治疗腰椎间盘突出症的特点及易出现的并发症研究

摘要 目的：探讨与研究显微内窥镜椎间盘切除术(microendoscopic discectomy,MED)治疗腰椎间盘突出症的特点及易出现的并发症情况。方法：2017年1月到2020年2月选择在空军第九八六医院诊治的椎间盘突出症患者72例,根据治疗方法把患者分为MED组与对照组,各36例,MED组给予MED手术治疗,对照组给予开放手术治疗,记录两组术后并发症发生情况。结果：MED组术后6个月的优良率为97.2 %,显著高于对照组的77.8 %(P<0.05)。两组术后1个月、术后6个月的日本骨科协会(Japanese orthopaedic association,JOA)评分高于术前,MED组高于对照组(P<0.05)。两组术后1个月、术后6个月的视觉模拟评分法(visual analogue scale,VAS)评分低于术前,MED组低于对照组(P<0.05)。MED组术后6个月的髓核组织残留、神经根损伤、硬脊膜破裂、脑脊液漏等并发症发生率为5.6 %,显著低于对照组的33.3 %(P<0.05)。结论：MED治疗腰椎间盘突出症能改善患者的腰椎功能,缓解患者疼痛,提高总体治疗优良率,减少术后并发症的发生。     

椎间孔镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效分析

目的:探讨椎间孔镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法:选取单或双节段椎间盘突出症29例,对其实施经皮椎间孔镜下椎间盘髓核摘除并减压手术,观察术前术后的疗效对比。结果:疗效按照术前和术后疼痛及麻木的感觉类比(VAS)评定,术前VAS评分为(5.46±0.56)分,术后1周为(0.8±0.65)分,术后6个月(0.5±0.43)分,在不同时间节点术后与术前相比较评分降低,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:椎间孔镜下髓核摘除并减压术治疗椎间盘突出症疗效明显,可用于临床推广。     

改良小切口开窗椎间盘摘除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效及安全性分析

目的观察改良小切口开窗椎间盘摘除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症患者的临床效果。方法将我院收治的109例腰椎间盘突出症患者采用随机数字表法分为两组,对照组54例给予椎管镜下腰椎间盘摘除术治疗,观察组55例采用改良小切口开窗椎间盘摘除术治疗,观察比较两组患者术后腰椎功能、手术相关指标、疼痛情况及安全性。结果两组患者术后1、6个月时的JOA评分、VAS评分均较治疗前显著提升(P0.05),而两组患者的JOA评分、VAS评分改善情况比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。两组患者术中出血量、手术时间比较,观察组均明显低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组患者的并发症发生率比较,观察组为1.82%低于对照组的3.70%,但差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论改良小切口开窗椎间盘摘除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的手术用时少,术中出血量少,治疗效果显著,安全性高。     

椎间孔镜下髓核摘除术对腰椎间盘突出患者CK、CRP及腰椎功能恢复的影响

目的:探讨椎间孔镜下髓核摘除术对椎间盘突出患者肌酸激酶(CK)、C反应蛋白(CRP)及腰椎功能恢复的影响。方法:选择2016年10月-2018年8月在我院接受治疗的90例腰椎间盘突出患者,采用抽签法分为椎间孔镜组(n=45)和后路切开组(n=45)。对照组给予后路切开髓核摘除手术治疗,观察组给予椎间孔镜下髓核摘除治疗。比较两组患者的手术情况、CK、CRP、腰椎功能、视觉模拟(VAS)评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评分变化情况及并发症发生情况。结果:椎间孔镜组手术时间较后路切开组更长,术中出血量、术后下床时间及住院时间较后路切开组更低(P<0.05);手术前,两组CK、CRP检测结果无差异;手术后,两组CK、CRP均随着时间的延长均呈上升趋势,且椎间孔镜组上升较后路切开组低(P<0.05);手术前,两组腰椎功能检测结果无差异;手术后,两组腰椎曲度、直腿抬高试验均随着时间的延长均呈上升趋势,且椎间孔镜组上升更为明显(P<0.05);手术前,两组VAS、ODI评分评定结果无差异;手术后,两组VAS、ODI评分均随着时间的推移均呈下降趋势,且椎间孔镜组下降更为明显(P<0.05);手术后,与后路切开组24.44%(11/45)进行比较,椎间孔镜组4.44%(2/45)显著降低(P<0.05)。结论:在腰椎间盘突出症患者中应用椎间孔镜下髓核摘除效果显著,可有效改善CK、CRP及腰椎功能水平。     

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Ovine Model

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is the most common surgical operation for cervical radiculopathy and/or myelopathy in patients who have failed conservative treatment^1,5. Since the operation was first described by Cloward² and Smith and Robinson⁶ in 1958, a variety refinements in technique, graft material and implants have been made³. In particular, there is a need for safe osteoinductive agents that could benefit selected patients. The ovine model has been shown to have anatomical, biomechanical, bone density and radiological properties that are similar to the human counterpart, the most similar level being C3/4⁴. It is therefore an ideal model in which preclinical studies can be performed. In particular this methodology may be useful to researchers interested in evaluating different devices and biologics, including stem cells, for potential application in human spinal surgery.Download video file.^{(67M, mp4)}     

经皮椎板间内镜与椎板小开窗术治疗腰椎间盘突出症临床疗效比较

目的：分析和比较椎板间内镜与椎板小开窗术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效和安全性指标。方法：使用回顾性分析的方法 对2012-2014 年共计126 例在我科行椎板间内镜手术或椎板小开窗手术的腰椎间盘突出患者进行分析和比较。通过纳入和排除 标准的筛选,经皮椎板间内镜组纳入48例,椎板小开窗组纳入78 例。结合详实的术后随访,对两组患者在花费,住院时间等一般 性指标,疼痛指标,功能指标,并发症等数据进行分析和比较。结果：两组患者在术后均取得明显的治疗疗效,在疼痛、功能等指标 中都有明显的改善。但两组之间并无明显统计学差异(P>0.05)。而椎板间内镜组在住院时间,出血量,切口长度及并发症等方面明 显的优于小开窗组,具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论：经皮椎板间内镜手术作为一种脊柱微创手术,治疗效果确切,安全性好,能体 现微创的优势,可作为椎间孔镜技术在治疗椎间盘突出症的有益补充,在临床中进一步的开展和推广。     

O型臂引导下经皮椎间孔镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症

目的:总结O型臂引导下经皮椎间孔镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症术后疗效。方法:回顾性分析77例采用侧入路椎间孔镜技术治疗腰椎间盘突出症患者的临床资料,采用视觉模拟评分法(visual analogue score,VAS)及Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)评估术后疼痛、功能改善等。结果:患者术前VAS7.5±1.2,ODI(%)62.7±16.0,术后6个月VAS1.6±1.9,ODI(%)32.1±24.3,治疗效果明显,且无严重并发症,少数短期并发症可恢复。结论:O型臂引导下经皮椎间孔镜是治疗腰椎间盘突出症安全、有效的微创手术方式。     

后路椎间盘镜治疗急性重症腰椎间盘突出症的临床研究

目的:探讨后路显微内窥镜椎间盘摘除术(MED)治疗急性重症腰椎间盘突出症的临床价值.方法:回顾分析对19例(21个节段)急性重症腰椎间盘突出患者在入院24小时内采用MED手术治疗.结果:本组病人均在术后9天内出院,全组病人均获得随访,平均随访时间平均8个月,术后按Nakai标准行功能评级:优16例,良2例,可1例,优良率94.7%.结论:MED术能尽快解除急性重症腰椎间盘突出症脱出髓核对神经的急性压迫,防止神经损伤进行性加重,且具有切口小、组织损伤少、恢复快和有效地维持脊柱的稳定性的优点,可作为治疗急性重症腰椎间盘突出的首选手术方法.     

经皮椎间孔镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症临床疗效观察

目的:评估经皮椎间孔镜技术(percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy,PTED)治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法:回顾性分析2009~2013年我院收治的明确诊断为腰椎间盘突出症且接受PTED治疗的194例患者的临床和随访资料,评价其Mac Nab疗效,比较手术前后患者的VAS疼痛评分、Lehmann腰椎功能评分及SF-36生存质量评分。结果:所有患者均至少随访至术后12月,患者术后当天及术后3月、12月的VAS评分、Lehmann腰椎功能评分、SF-36生存质量评分均较术前明显改善,差异均具有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后3月、12月,患者Macnab疗效的优良率分别为90.7%、92.3%。结论:采用PTED治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效较好,患者的疼痛明显缓解,腰椎功能和生活质量均明显改善,且安全方便。     

Physiotherapy Post Lumbar Discectomy: Prospective Feasibility and Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial

Objectives

To evaluate: acceptability and feasibility of trial procedures; distribution of scores on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ, planned primary outcome); and efficient working of trial components.

Design and Setting

A feasibility and external pilot randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN33808269, assigned 10/12/2012) was conducted across 2 UK secondary care outpatient physiotherapy departments associated with regional spinal surgery centres.

Participants

Consecutive consenting patients aged >18 years; post primary, single level, lumbar discectomy.

Interventions

Participants were randomised to either 1:1 physiotherapy outpatient management including patient leaflet, or patient leaflet alone.

Main Outcome Measures

Blinded assessments were made at 4 weeks post surgery (baseline) and 12 weeks post baseline (proposed primary end point). Secondary outcomes included: Global Perceived Effect, back/leg pain, straight leg raise, return to work/function, quality of life, fear avoidance, range of movement, medication, re-operation.

Results

At discharge, 110 (44%) eligible patients gave consent to be contacted. 59 (54%) patients were recruited. Loss to follow up was 39% at 12 weeks, with one site contributing 83% losses. Mean (SD) RMDQ was 10.07 (5.58) leaflet and 10.52 (5.94) physiotherapy/leaflet at baseline; and 5.37 (4.91) leaflet and 5.53 (4.49) physiotherapy/leaflet at 12 weeks. 5.1% zero scores at 12 weeks illustrated no floor effect. Sensitivity to change was assessed at 12 weeks with mean (SD) change -4.53 (6.41), 95%CI -7.61 to -1.44 for leaflet; and -6.18 (5.59), 95%CI -9.01 to -3.30 for physiotherapy/leaflet. RMDQ mean difference (95%CI) between change from baseline to twelve weeks was 1.65(-2.46 to 5.75). Mean difference (95%CI) between groups at 12 weeks was -0.16 (-3.36 to 3.04). Participant adherence with treatment was good. No adverse events were reported.

Conclusions

Both interventions were acceptable, and it is promising that they both demonstrated a trend in reducing disability in this population. A randomised controlled trial, using a different trial design, is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of combining the interventions into a stepped care intervention and comparing to a no intervention arm. Findings will guide design changes for an adequately powered randomised controlled trial, using RMDQ as the primary outcome.

Trial Registration

ISRCTN registry 33808269     

Comparison of Discectomy versus Sequestrectomy in Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

Background

Lumbar disc removal is currently the standard treatment for lumbar disc herniation. No consensus has been achieved whether aggressive disc resection with curettage (discectomy) versus conservative removal of the offending disc fragment alone (sequestrectomy) provides better outcomes. This study aims to compare the reherniation rate and clinical outcomes between discectomy and sequestrectomy by literature review and a meta-analysis.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library was performed up to June 1, 2014. Outcomes of interest assessing the two techniques included demographic and clinical baseline characteristics, perioperative variables, complications, recurrent herniation rate and post-operative functional outcomes.

Results

Twelve eligible trials evaluating discectomy vs sequestrectomy were identified including one randomized controlled study, five prospective and six retrospective comparative studies. By contrast to discectomy, sequestrectomy was associated with significantly less operative time (p<0.001), lower visual analogue scale (VAS) for low back pain (p<0.05), less post-operative analgesic usage (p<0.05) and better patients’ satisfaction (p<0.05). Recurrent herniation rate, reoperation rate, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization duration and VAS for sciatica were without significant difference.

Conclusions

According to our pooled data, sequestrectomy entails equivalent reherniation rate and complications compared with discectomy but maintains a lower incidence of recurrent low back pain and higher satisfactory rate. High-quality prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to firmly assess these two procedures.