[1]何勇 魏国俊 黄晋 姚五平 王鹏.开放和微创经椎间孔融合术治疗腰椎间盘突出症对椎旁肌变化的影响[J].中国中医骨伤科杂志,2017,25(01):26-29.
　HE Yong WEI Guojun HUANG Jin YAO Wuping WANG Peng.Influence of Paraspinal Muscles by Open and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treating Lumbar Disc Herniation[J].Chinese Journal of Traditional Medical Traumatology & Orthopedics,2017,25(01):26-29.
点击复制

开放和微创经椎间孔融合术治疗腰椎间盘突出症对椎旁肌变化的影响()
分享到：

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

卷:
第25卷
期数:
2017年01期
页码:
26-29
栏目:
临床研究
出版日期:
2017-01-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
Influence of Paraspinal Muscles by Open and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treating Lumbar Disc Herniation
文章编号:
1005-0205(2017)01-0026-04
作者:
何勇1 魏国俊1 黄晋1 姚五平1 王鹏1
1甘肃省中医院骨科,甘肃中医药大学第一附属医院
Author(s):
HE Yong1 WEI Guojun1 HUANG Jin1 YAO Wuping1 WANG Peng1
1Department of Orthopedics,Gansu Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine,Lanzhou 730050,China.
关键词:
开放经椎间孔融合术;  微创经椎间孔融合术;  多裂肌萎缩比;  最长肌萎缩比
Keywords:
open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(O-TLIF);  minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(MITLIF);  multifidus muscle(MF)atrophy ratio;  longissimus muscle(LS)atrophy ratio
分类号:
R681.5
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的:探讨传统开放经椎间孔融合术和微创经椎间孔融合术治疗腰椎间盘突出症后多裂肌和最长肌的变化以及临床疗效。方法:自2010年2月至2013年3月,共有48例腰椎间盘单节段突出需行减压融合术的患者纳入研究,其中微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术(MITLIF)组和开放经椎间孔腰椎间融合术(O-TLIF)组各24例,随访时间至少为12个月。随访末期对比两组的多裂肌和最长肌萎缩比、视觉疼痛模拟评分(VAS)以及下腰痛功能障碍指数(ODI)评分,使用SPSS21.0对数据进行统计分析。结果:MITLIF组平均随访时间为(14.71±1.90)个月,O-TLIF组平均随访时间为(14.38±1.88)个月,MITLIF组多裂肌萎缩比为0.41±0.06,O-TLIF组为0.64±0.06; MITLIF最长肌萎缩比为0.67±0.05,O-TLIF组为0.64±0.08; MITLIF组ODI评分为28.50±3.02,O-TLIF组为25.46±3.19; MITLIF组VAS评分为7.54±0.98,O-TLIF组为5.83±1.05.两组患者在多裂肌萎缩比、ODI评分及VAS评分方面差异有统计学意义,最长肌萎缩组间比较差异无统计学意义。两组患者术后并发症为伤口感染,经清创换药后痊愈。结论:MITLIF和O-TLIF相比,MITLIF能够降低椎旁肌的萎缩程度,尤其对多裂肌而言,能够改善患者ODI以及VAS,但对于最长肌的影响两种术式无明显差别。
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the change of multifidus muscle(MF)and longissimus muscle(LS)and the clinical efficacy of open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(O-TLIF)and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(MITLIF)in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.Methods:From February 2011 to March 2013,a total of 48 patients with single segment lumbar disc protrusion required decompression and fusion were enrolled in this study,including 24 cases in MITLIF group and 24 cases in O-TLIF group,followed up for at least 12 months.The atrophy ratio of MF and LS,the visual analogue scale(VAS)and the oswestry disability index(ODI)score were compared between the two groups at the end of follow-up.The data were analyzed by SPSS21.0.Results:The mean follow-up time was(14.71±1.90)months in MITLIF group,(14.38±1.88)months in O-TLIF group.The MF atrophy ratio in MITLIF group was 0.41±0.06,and the O-TLIF group was 0.64±0.06.The LS atrophy ratio of the MITLIF group was 0.67±0.05,and the O-TLIF group was 0.64±0.08.The ODI score of MITLIF group was 28.50±3.02,the O-TLIF group was 25.46±3.19.The MITLIF group's VAS score was 7.54±0.98,the O-TLIF group was 5.83±1.05.There were significant differences between the two groups in the atrophy ratio of MF,ODI score and VAS score,while there was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the atrophy ratio of LF.The postoperative complications of the two groups were wound infection,it healed after debridement and dressing.Conclusion:Compared with O-TLIF,MITLIF can reduce the atrophy degree of paravertebral muscle,especially for MF.It can improve the preoperative ODI and VAS as well,but for LS,there is no significant difference between the two methods.

参考文献/References:

[1] Foley KT,Holly LT,Schwender JD.Minimally invasive lumbar fusion[J].Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2003,28:26-35.
[2] Kawaguchi Y,Matsui H,Tsuji H.Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery:a histologic and enzymatic analysis[J].Spine(Phila Pa 1976),1996,21(8):941-944.
[3] Styf JR,Willen J.The effects of external compression by three different retractors on pressure in the erector spine muscles during and after posterior lumbar spine surgery in humans[J].Spine(Phila Pa 1976),1998,23(3):354-358.
[4] Borenstein D.Epidemiology,etiology,diagnostic evaluation,andreatment of low back pain[J].Curr Opin Rheumatol,1996,8:124-129.
[5] Freynhagen R,Baron R.The evaluation of neuropathic components in low back pain[J].Curr Pain Headache Rep,2009,13(3):185-190.
[6] Mayer TG,Vanharanta H,Gatchel RJ,et al.Comparison of CT scan muscle measurements and isokinetictrunk strength in postoperative patients[J].Spine(Phila Pa 1976),1989,14(1):33-36.
[7] Gille O,Jolivet E,Dousset V,et al.Erector spinae muscle changes on magnetic resonance imaging following lumbar surgery through a posterior approach[J].Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2007,32(11):1236-1241.
[8] Waschke A,Hartmann C,Walter J,et al.Denervation and atrophy of paraspinal muscles after open lumbar interbody fusion is associated with clinical outcome-electromyographic and CT-volumetric investigation of 30 patients[J].Acta Neurochir(Wien),2014,156(2):235-244.
[9] Kuriyama N,Ito H.Electromyographic functional analysis of the lumbar spinal muscles with low back pain[J].J Nippon Med Sch,2005,72(3):165-173.
[10] Min SH,Kim MH,Seo JB,et al.The quantitative analysis of back muscle degeneration after posterior lumbar fusion comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open surgery[J].Asian Spine J,2009,3(2):89-95.
[11] Cawley DT,Alexander M,Morris S.Multifidus innervation and muscle assessment post-spinal surgery[J].Eur Spine J,2014,23(2):320-327.
[12] Putzier M,Hartwig T,Hoff EK,et al.Minimally invasive TLIF leads to increased muscle sparing of the multifidus muscle but not the longissimus muscle compared with conventional PLIF-a prospective randomized clinical trial[J].Spine J,2016,16(7):811-819.
[13] Khan NR,Clark AJ,Lee SL,et al.Surgical outcomes for minimally invasive vs open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion:an updated systematic review and Meta-analysis[J].Neurosurgery,2015,77(6):847-874.
[14] Cheng JS,Park P,Le H,et al.Short-term and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions:is there a difference?[J].Neurosurg Focus,2013,35(2):E6.
[15] Guan J,Bisson EF,Dailey AT,et al.Comparison of clinical outcomes in the national neurosurgery quality and outcomes database for open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion[J].Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2016,41(7):416-421.
[16] Phan K,Rao PJ,Kam AC,et al.Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease:systematic review and meta-analysis[J].Eur Spine J,2015,24(5):1017-1030.
[17] 袁振超,陈远明,周先明,等.两种不同的手术方法治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症临床疗效比较[J].中国骨与关节杂志,2013,2(4):211-214.
[18] 陈云生,陈荣春,郭朝阳,等.微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗老年腰椎退变性疾病[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2013,23(12):1079-1085.
[19] 杨林,廖绪强,赵新建,等.微创经椎间孔椎间融合术治疗35 例腰椎退行性疾病的疗效分析[J].中国医药指南,2014,12(22):53-54.
[20] 丁英胜,张文志,段丽群,等.显微镜辅助下微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术治疗腰椎滑脱症的疗效观察[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2014,28(5):535-539.

更新日期/Last Update: 2017-01-15