[1]林晓毅 林凤晖△.两种术式治疗腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效比较[J].中国中医骨伤科杂志,2015,23(08):33-36.
　LIN Xiaoyi LIN Fenghui.Comparison of Clinical Efficiency of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treated with Two Surgical Methods[J].Chinese Journal of Traditional Medical Traumatology & Orthopedics,2015,23(08):33-36.
点击复制

两种术式治疗腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效比较
分享到：

《中国中医骨伤科杂志》[ISSN:1005-0205/CN:42-1340/R]

卷:
第23卷
期数:
2015年08期
页码:
33-36
栏目:
临床研究
出版日期:
2015-08-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparison of Clinical Efficiency of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treated with Two Surgical Methods
文章编号:
1005-0205(2015)08-0033-04
作者:
林晓毅1 林凤晖1△
1. 厦门大学附属第一医院骨科(福建 厦门,361003)
△.通信作者 E-mail:51499082@qq.com
Author(s):
LIN Xiaoyi1 LIN Fenghui1
1.Department of Orthopaedics,the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University,Xiamen 361003,Fujian China.
关键词:
腰椎管狭窄症;  内固定;  融合
Keywords:
lumbar spinal stenosis;  fixation;  fusion
分类号:
R681.5
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的:比较改良后路腰椎椎体间融合术(PLIF)与传统PLIF术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的临床效果。方法:治疗腰椎管狭窄症患者100例,50例采用传统PLIF术(A组),50例采用改良PLIF术(B组),比较两组手术时间和术中出血量,采用日本骨科协会评分(JOA)、视觉模拟疼痛评分(VAS)及影像学检查评价术后治疗效果。结果:B组手术时间短于A组(P<0.05),术中出血量低于A组(P<0.05)。JOA评分:组内比较,两组术后3月及6月评分较术前均有显著改善(P<0.05); 组间比较,两组术前及术后各时间点评分无显著性差异(P>0.05)。VAS评分:组内比较,两组术后3月及6月评分较术前均有显著改善(P<0.05); 组间比较,术前两组评分无显著性差异(P>0.05),术后3月及6月B组评分优于A组(P<0.05)。影像学检查示椎间融合良好。结论:改良PLIF术治疗腰椎管狭窄症效果明显,相比传统PLIF术,手术时间更短,术中出血量更少,术后疼痛减轻明显。
Abstract:
Objective: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of treating lumbar spinal stenosis with improved PLIF and traditional PLIF surgery. Methods:Each 50 cases with lumbar spinal stenosis which monitored treated surgically with improved PLIF(regard as group B)and traditional PLIF surgery(regard as group A)were reviewed retrospectively. The operative time and intraoperative blood loss were compared between two groups.The results were evaluated with Japanese Orthopedic Association(JOA)score and visual analogue scale(VAS),and radiographic findings were also reviewed. Results:Compared to group A, the operative duration was shorter and the intraoperative blood loss was less(P<0.05).JOA scores and VAS scores before surgery were significantly different from that of 3 months and 6 months after surgery in both two groups(P<0.05).There was no significant difference in JOA between two groups at 3 and 6 months after operation(P>0.05).The VAS scores in group B at 3 and 6 months after operation showed significant difference compared to group A(P<0.05). Interbody fusion was good in X-ray. Conclusion:Improved PLIF has good clinical outcome for lumbar spinal stenosis, and it has the advantages of less blood loss, shorter operation time and less pain after operation compared with traditional PLIF.

参考文献/References:

[1] 李危石,陈仲强.PLIF技术应用与进展[J].继续医学教育,2006,20(12):84-86.
[2] Satomi K,Hirabayashi K,Toyama Y,et al.A clinical study of degenerative spondylolisthesis:radiographic analysis and choice of treatment[J].Spine(Phila Pa 1976),1992,17(11):1329-1336.
[3] Huskisson EC.Measurement of pain[J].Lancet,1974,2(7):1127-1131.
[4] 张结合,黄学应,任戈亮,等.退变性腰椎管狭窄症后路椎体间融合及内固定的近期疗效分析[J].中国临床保健杂志,2011,14(4):380-381.
[5] 张亚峰,杨惠林,唐天驷,等.表面钛涂层椎间融合系统治疗腰椎管狭窄症伴腰椎不稳症[J].中华骨科杂志,2008,28(3):192-196.
[6] 孟祥圣.两种TLIF手术方法治疗腰椎滑脱合并椎管狭窄症的疗效比较[J].中国现代医学杂志,2014,16(2):60-63.
[7] 仇胥斌,陈亮,庄明,等.改良椎间孔腰椎体间融合术治疗腰椎管狭窄症[J].江苏医药,2012,38(8):964-965.
[8] 储惊蛰,崔志明,徐冠华,等.改良PLIF术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的临床疗效观察[J].实用骨科杂志,2012,18(5):394-397.
[9] 沈宁江,陈建,林明侠,等.三种不同术式治疗腰椎管狭窄症的临床观察[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2011,19(1):62-64.
[10] 张烽,陈兵乾,居建文,等.TLIF、PLIF、ALIF三种椎间融合术后腰椎即刻稳定性的比较[J].江苏医药,2008,34(2):147-149.
[11] 陈建华,王盛海,杨波,等.改良 TLIF治疗退变性腰椎滑脱并椎管狭窄症[J].中国骨与关节损伤杂志,2012,27(3):248-249.
[12] 丁文元,张剑刚,申勇,等.经椎间孔入路与经后方入路椎间融合术治疗退变性腰椎失稳症的疗效比较[J].中国骨科临床与基础研究杂志,2011,3(1):11-17.
[13] Hey HW,Hee HT.Lumbar degenerative spinal deformity:surgical options of PLIF,TLIF and MI-TLIF[J].Indian J Orthop,2010,44(2):159-162.
[14] 高磊,孙磊,叶红,等.三种手术方法治疗腰椎管狭窄症的疗效分析[J].社区医学杂志,2012,10(4):14-16.
[15] 蔡珉巍,薛华明,涂意辉.经椎间孔椎体间融合术治疗双节段腰椎退行性疾病的中期疗效[J].生物骨科材料与临床研究,2012,9(2):38-41.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期:2014-12-08
更新日期/Last Update: 2015-08-15