邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病患者的外科治疗方案研究

目的比较颈前路椎间盘切除植骨融合术(ACDF)和颈前路椎体次全切除融合术(ACCF)对邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病的治疗效果。方法回顾性分析在我院接受手术治疗的邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病的50例患者,其中采用颈前路椎间盘切除植骨融合术的患者25例(ACDF组),采用颈前路椎体次全切除融合术的患者25例(ACCF组)。比较两组患者的手术时间、住院时间、出血量,JOA评分和VAS评分以及两组患者手术前后的颈椎曲度和融合节段高度。结果 ACCF组手术时间明显低于ACDF组,术中的出血量明显多于ACDF组(P0.05),但住院时间差异不具有统计学意义(P0.05);两组患者手术后的JOA评分明显高于手术前,VAS评分明显低于手术前(P0.05);但两组患者间的JOA评分和VAS评分差异不具有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组患者手术前的颈椎曲度差异不具有统计学意义(P0.05),手术后3 d以及术后1年随访,ACCF组中患者的颈椎曲度明显小于ACDF组(P0.05);两组融合节段高度均明显高于手术前(P0.05),但两组患者手术前后的融合节段高度差异不明显。结论 ACDF具有出血量少,能更好地改善颈椎曲度,但ACCF具有手术时间短的优点。临床医师应根据患者的实际情况,采用适当的手术方式治疗邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病。     

颈前路手术治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病

目的分析颈前路减压融合手术治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法对124例3节段脊髓型颈椎病患者行颈前路手术治疗,78例行颈前路椎间盘切除减压融合术(ACDF),46例行颈前路椎体次全切除减压融合术(ACCF)。评估术后JOA评分及其改善率、植骨融合情况以及颈椎曲度。结果患者均获得随访,时间:ACDF组13~54(36.7±15.1)个月,ACCF组14~53(33.6±18.7)个月。两组患者术后JOA评分及颈椎Cobb角均较术前显著提高及恢复,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。ACDF组在手术时间、术中出血量及颈椎生理曲度恢复程度方面均优于ACCF组,且并发症发生率更低(P0.05)。两组术后JOA评分及其改善率、植骨融合率比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ACDF与ACCF治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病均可达到满意的神经功能恢复;ACDF治疗后颈椎生理曲度恢复较好,且并发症发生率较低。     

两种前路手术治疗邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床效果

目的 :比较双节段前路椎间盘切除减压融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)和单节段前路椎体次全切除减压融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion,ACCF)对邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病的治疗结果。方法:对2010年09月~2013年7月应用双节段椎间盘切除减压聚醚醚酮融合器(Polyetheretherketone cage,PEEK cage)植骨融合术及单节段椎体次全切减压钛网植骨融合术进行治疗的54例邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病患者进行回顾性分析,ACCF组23例,ACDF组31例。比较两组患者基线资料、住院天数、手术时间、出血量、日本骨科协会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA)评分及疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue score,VAS)的不同。通过测量术前、术后3d、末次随访时的影像学图片,分析两组患者颈椎曲度、融合节段高度及融合率的变化。结果:年龄、性别、病变节段、矢状位序列、植骨材料、住院天数和手术时间两组间差异无统计学意义,ACDF组的出血量显著少于ACCF组(175.4±12.1ml VS 201.3±80.4ml)。ACDF组JOA及VAS评分在术前(13.06±0.81、6.48±1.43)与末次随访时(15.45±1.06、2.97±1.28)比较均有显著统计学意义(P=0.000),ACCF组JOA及VAS评分同ACDF组,术后与术前比较均有统计学意义(P0.05);但组间比较未发现明显差别(P0.05)。两组颈椎曲度和融合节段高度术后3d时较术前均有增加(P0.05),而末次随访时轻度下降(P0.05),ACDF组改善程度明显大于ACCF组(P0.05)。两组均获得了100%的融合率。结论 :在邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病的手术治疗中,ACDF出血量相对较少,能更好地改善颈椎曲度和维持融合节段高度。     

3种前路手术治疗单节段脊髓型颈椎病的中期疗效比较

目的比较分析颈前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)、颈前路椎体次全切除融合术(ACCF)和人工颈椎间盘置换术(CADR)治疗单节段脊髓型颈椎病的中期疗效。方法回顾性分析自2004-01—2012-01行ACDF、ACCF和CADR手术治疗的79例单节段脊髓型颈椎病。ACDF组44例,ACCF组22例,CADR组13例。比较3组手术时间、术中出血量,术后6、60个月VAS评分、JOA评分、NDI指数、SF-12评分及颈椎曲度。结果 79例均获得61~88(69.8±12.7)个月随访。ACDF组与ACCF组植骨融合时间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后6个月时,ACCF组JOA评分均高于ACDF组及CADR组,ACDF组与ACCF组颈椎曲度优于CADR组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);而3组VAS评分、NDI指数和SF-12评分比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后60个月时,ACDF组与CADR组VAS评分、NDI指数低于ACCF组,而SF-12评分高于ACCF组;ACDF组颈椎曲度优于ACCF组与CADR组,且CADR组优于ACCF组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);而3组JOA评分差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ACCF在短期内神经功能恢复优于ACDF和CADR,但在随访中期ACCF在症状缓解、生活质量改善及颈椎曲度的维持方面却差于ACDF和CADR。     

两种颈椎前路减压融合术治疗多节段颈椎病

目的比较前路椎间盘切除减压融合术(ACDF)与前路椎体次全切除减压融合术(ACCF)治疗脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效及影像学结果。方法对40例脊髓型颈椎病分别采用ACDF(24例)和ACCF(16例)治疗。结果本组获随访13～34个月,两组术后、末次随访时JOA评分较术前有显著改善(P<0.05),但组间比较则差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);ACCF组末次随访椎间高度丢失较ACDF组明显(P<0.05),ACDF组颈椎曲度维持优于ACCF组(P<0.05)。结论两种手术均可获得较好的临床疗效,相对于ACCF,ACDF对椎间高度、颈椎曲度的维持更有优势。     

两种术式治疗多节段颈椎病的疗效比较

目的比较前路椎间盘减压融合术(ACDF)与前路椎体次全切除减压融合术(ACCF)对多节段颈椎病的临床疗效。方法将62例多节段颈椎病患者按照随机数字表法分为ACDF组和ACCF组,每组31例,记录术中出血量、术后引流量,采用颈椎活动度、颈椎曲度C值、颈椎前柱高度、JOA评分评价疗效。结果两组患者均随访24个月。术中出血量和术后引流量ACDF组均少于ACCF组(P 0. 05)。术后3、6、12个月,颈椎活动度、颈椎曲度C值两组比较差异均无统计学意义(P 0. 05);颈椎前柱高度ACDF组高于ACCF组(P 0. 05)。术后12个月JOA评分ACDF组高于ACCF组(P 0. 05)。结论 ACDF和ACCF均能有效恢复脊柱形态,减轻脊髓神经压迫,最大限度恢复患者感觉、运动功能,但ACDF创伤更小、术后功能恢复更为理想。     

前路椎间盘切除减压融合与椎体次全切除减压融合治疗多节段颈椎病疗效比较

目的比较前路椎间盘减压融合(ACDF)与前路椎体次全切除减压融合(ACCF)治疗多节段颈椎病的效果。方法将138例多节段脊髓型颈椎病患者按照治疗方式的不同分为观察组(行ACDF治疗)和对照组(行ACCF治疗),比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、术前与术后6个月颈椎总活动度、颈椎曲度、颈椎节段性高度及JOA评分。结果手术时间:观察组(128.3±32.4)min,对照组(163.2±43.6)min;术中出血量:观察组(161.4±122.5)ml,对照组(319.2±308.7)ml;以上指标观察组均少于对照组(P0.05)。术后住院时间:观察组(8.1±3.6)d,对照组(9.5±4.2)d;术后6个月时JOA评分:观察组(12.1±2.2)分,对照组(11.7±2.1)分;颈椎总活动度:观察组26.6°±7.3°,对照组30.5°±8.1°;以上指标两组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后颈椎曲度:观察组23.5°±7.4°,对照组16.1°±7.2°;椎间节段性高度:观察组5.6°±0.4°,对照组4.7°±0.8°;以上指标两组比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ACDF较ACCF手术时间短、术中出血量少、颈椎生理弯曲和椎间节段高度恢复更好。     

颈前路ACCF联合ACDF治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效观察

目的探讨颈前路椎体次全切除(ACCF)联合椎间植骨融合内固定(ACDF)治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2010-01—2014-10诊治的75例多节段脊髓型颈椎病,采用ACCF ACDF治疗40例(观察组),采用后路单开门椎管扩大成形术治疗35例(对照组)。比较2组手术时间、围手术期出血量,术后1年JOA评分、NDI指数、颈椎曲度。结果 75例均获得随访,随访时间平均13(12~24)个月。2组术后1年JOA评分、NDI指数均较术前明显改善,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);但术后1年观察组与对照组JOA评分、NDI指数比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。观察组术后1年颈椎曲度较术前明显改善,且优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ACCF联合ACDF治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病能在有效改善神经功能的同时恢复和维持颈椎正常曲度,对周围软组织干扰小,短期疗效满意。     

ACDF与ACCF治疗相邻双节段脊髓型颈椎病的比较

目的比较颈前路椎间盘切除减压融合内固定术(ACDF)和颈前路椎体次全切除减压融合内固定术(ACCF)治疗相邻双节段脊髓型颈椎病的创伤性指标与功能恢复情况。方法回顾性分析自2012-01—2015-06诊治的42例相邻双节段脊髓型颈椎病,ACDF组26例,ACCF组16例。比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量,术后1 d的C反应蛋白、肌酸激酶、血沉,以及术后6、12个月JOA评分。结果 42例均获得随访,随访时间平均21(12~32)个月。ACDF组手术时间较ACCF组短,并且术中出血量、术后引流量较ACCF组少,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。ACDF组术后1 d的C反应蛋白、血沉水平明显低于ACCF组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);但2组术后1 d肌酸激酶比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。ACDF组与ACCF组术后6、12个月时JOA评分比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ACDF与ACCF治疗脊髓型颈椎病均能获得较好的手术效果,而ACDF术式创伤更小。     

两种颈前路手术方式治疗双节段颈椎病

[目的]比较两种颈前路术式治疗双节段颈椎病的疗效。[方法]回顾性分析2010~2014年52例双节段颈椎病患者的临床资料,其中颈前路椎体次全切减压+钛网植骨融合内固定术治疗29例(ACCF组),颈前路双节段椎间盘切除减压+Cage植骨融合内固定术治疗23例(ACDF组)。t检验比较两组平均失血量、平均手术时间、NDI评分。方差分析法比较术后JOA评分改善率、内固定沉降率。[结果]ACCF组平均随访时间(25±2.3)个月,ACDF组为(26±1.9)个月。两组患者神经症状均较术前明显改善,JOA评分及术后2年植骨沉降率差异无统计学意义。两组术中平均失血量、平均手术时间、术后2年NDI评分方面差异有统计学意义。平均失血量:ACCF组为(176±28.2)ml,ACDF组(65.7±16.7)ml,P=0.015;平均手术时间:ACCF组为(70±11.2)min,ACDF组(99±15.6)min,P=0.023;术后2年NDI评分:ACCF组为(9.3±3.3),ACDF组(5.2±1.1),P=0.019。[结论]除非出现病椎平面后方较大致压物,双节段ACDF组不能彻底减压的情况,双节段ACDF术式较单节段ACCF更具优势。     

改良颈椎前路单椎体次全切除融合术并单节段颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病

目的 探讨改良颈椎前路单椎体次全切除融合术(ACCF)并单节段颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)治疗连续3节段椎间盘突出并椎管狭窄的脊髓型颈椎病(CSM)的可行性、安全性和有效性.方法 2010—2018年本院收治3节段椎间盘突出并椎管狭窄的CSM患者379例,其中133例采用传统单节段ACCF并ACDF治疗,并以长...     

Efficacy of multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus corpectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a minimum 5-year follow-up study

Purpose

We evaluated radiologic and clinical outcomes to compare the efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).

Methods

A total of 40 patients who underwent ACDF or ACCF for multilevel CSM were divided into two groups. Group A (n = 25) underwent ACDF and group B (n = 15) ACCF. Clinical outcomes (JOA and VAS scores), perioperative parameters (length of hospital stay, blood loss, operation time), radiological parameters (fusion rate, segmental height, cervical lordosis), and complications were compared.

Results

Both group A and group B demonstrated significant increases in JOA scores and significant decreases in VAS. Patients who underwent ACDF experienced significantly shorter hospital stays (p = 0.031), less blood loss (p = 0.001), and shorter operation times (p = 0.024). Both groups showed significant increases in postoperative cervical lordosis and achieved satisfactory fusion rates (88.0 and 93.3 %, respectively). There were no significant differences in the incidence of complications among the groups.

Conclusions

Both ACDF and ACCF provide satisfactory clinical outcomes and fusion rates for multilevel CSM. However, multilevel ACDF is associated with better radiologic parameters, shorter hospital stays, less blood loss, and shorter operative times.     

分节段减压与椎体次全切治疗多节段颈椎病的疗效比较

目的比较分节段减压融合术与传统椎体次全切除融合术在治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的中远期临床疗效,并评估其相关影响因素。方法回顾性总结2006年6月至2011年6月行分节段减压融合术(A组)与前路椎体次全切除减压融合术(B组)联合髂骨取骨植骨治疗多节段颈椎病52例。比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、住院天数;术后随访并通过影像学测量融合节段前凸角度、全颈椎生理曲度和颈椎矢状面的活动度(range of motion,ROM),同时评估植骨融合程度、融合节段高度的变化以及相邻节段退变情况;采用日本矫形外科学会(Japanese orthopaedic association,JOA)评分系统评估其神经功能恢复情况。结果术中B组的出血量明显大于A组,但手术时间少于A组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。52例患者均获得有效随访,平均随访时间为3.2年(1.2~5年)。术后6个月内JOA评分及改善率两组间无明显差异;12个月后B组明显降低。两组术后融合节段高度较术前明显增高(P0.05),其中B组平均增加值最明显,术后12个月B组高度丢失明显。术后两组ROM都明显下降,而融合节段Cobb角及全颈椎曲度与术前比较增加明显(P0.05)。术后两组脊髓减压程度相仿。结论分节段减压融合术与传统椎体次全切除融合术两种手术方式在治疗多节段颈椎病的早期均可获得满意的临床效果,但选择性椎体次全切除分节段减压植骨融合合并颈椎前路长节段钛板固定的手术方式中远期效果更可靠。     

Outcomes of three anterior decompression and fusion techniques in the treatment of three-level cervical spondylosis

The purpose of this article is to compare the outcomes of three different anterior approaches for three-level cervical spondylosis. The records of 120 patients who underwent anterior approaches because of three-level cervical spondylosis between 2006 and 2008 were reviewed. Based on the type of surgery, the patients were divided into three groups: Group 1 was three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF); Group 2 anterior cervical hybrid decompression and fusion (ACHDF, combination of ACDF and ACCF); and Group 3 two-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF). The clinical outcomes including blood loss, operation time, complications, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, C2–C7 angle, segmental angle, and fusion rate were compared. There were no significant differences in JOA improvement and fusion rate among three groups. However, in terms of segmental angle and C2–C7 angle improvement, Group 2 was superior to Group 3 and inferior to Group 1 (all P < 0.01). Group 2 was less in operation time than Group 3 (P < 0.01) and more than Group 1 (P < 0.01). Group 3 had more blood loss than Group 1 and Group 2 (all P < 0.01) and had higher complication rate than Group 1 (P < 0.05). No significant differences in blood loss and complication rate were observed between Group 1 and Group 2 (P > 0.05). ACDF was superior in most outcomes to ACCF and ACHDF. If the compressive pathology could be resolved by discectomy, ACDF should be the treatment of choice. ACHDF was an ideal alternative procedure to ACDF if retro-vertebral pathology existed. ACCF was the last choice considered.     

保留椎体后壁的椎体次全切除术治疗脊髓型颈椎病

目的 介绍保留椎体后壁椎体次全切除术,并与传统的椎体次全切除术比较.方法 2007-08-2009-09,40例脊髓型颈椎病患者随机行保留椎体后壁的椎体次全切除术和传统的椎体次全切除术各20例,术后1周,3、6、12个月进行随访并行X线及CT三维重建检查,比较两组年龄、手术时间、出血量、并发症、术前术后JOA评分、植骨...     

两种颈椎前路减压融合术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效分析

[目的]回顾性分析比较椎间盘切除减压融合术(ACDF)和椎体次全切除减压融合术(ACCF)在治疗相邻两个节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效及影像学数据.[方法]2005年4月～2007年8月,采用ACDF和ACCF治疗相邻两个节段脊髓型颈椎病156例.临床疗效采用日本骨科学会评分系统(JOA评分)对术前、末次随访的临床疗效进行评价.比较两组患者I临床疗效及手术时间、住院大数、术中失血量、颈椎活动度、颈椎曲度及节段性高度.[结果]两组的临床改善优良率无显著性差异(P＞0.05),ACDF组与ACCF组术中平均出血量及手术时间有显著性差异(P＜0.01),ACCF较ACDF增加,而ACCF组术后的节段性高度及颈椎前凸角较ACDF组明显降低(P＜0.01).[结论]ACDF与ACCF均能达到良好的手术疗效,然而ACDF在减少术中出血量、手术时间,改善和维持术后颈椎前凸角度及节段性高度较ACCF作用明显,但ACDF要求技术较高,有较长的学习曲线.     

人工椎间盘置换术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效分析

目的探讨人工颈椎间盘置换术(CADR)与前路减压椎体融合术(ACDF)对比治疗单节段脊髓型颈椎病(CSM)的早中期临床疗效。方法 2015年1月至2018年1月,共完成随访单节段CSM患者40人,其中19人采用ACDF治疗,21人采用CADR治疗,两组患者分别观察记录术前、术后3个月、术后1年、术后3年的JOA评分与NDI评分,以及JOA评分改善率;检查MRI与X线影像变化,观察术后减压效果及内置物位置是否满意。结果两组患者术后的临床症状均得到明显缓解,神经功能得到显著改善,组内比较,术后各个时间段JOA评分、NDI评分与术前相比均有统计学差异(P0.05);组间比较,ACDF组与CADR组术后各时间段的JOA评分无明显差异(P0.05)、NDI评分CADR组术后各时间段均优于ACDF组(P0.05);ACDF组JOA评分优良率为84%,CADR组为90%,无明显统计学差异(P0.05)。影像学表现,末次随访ACDF组融合成功率为94.7%,CADR组2例发生轻度异位骨化,但人工椎间关节活动度无明显受限。两组均未发生严重的术后并发症。结论通过与经典前路融合术式的疗效对比,人工颈椎间盘置换术不仅能获得同样优良的减压效果,还能利用仿生假体维持原有的椎间活动能力,有效避免因融合导致的周围骨关节代偿功能增加而发生的退变,取得满意的近期疗效。     

Fusion and subsidence rates of vertebral body sliding osteotomy: Comparison of 3 reconstructive techniques for multilevel cervical myelopathy

BACKGROUND CONTEXTVertebral body sliding osteotomy (VBSO) was previously reported as a technique to decompress spinal canal by translating the vertebral body anteriorly and is indicated for cervical myelopathy caused by spondylosis or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. However, little is known about its fusion and subsidence rates.PURPOSETo compare the fusion and subsidence rates of VBSO, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF).STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGRetrospective cohort studyPATIENT SAMPLEOne hundred sixty-eight patients who underwent VBSO, ACDF, or ACCF for the treatment of cervical myelopathy and were followed-up for more than 2 years were retrospectively reviewed.OUTCOME MEASURESFusion and subsidence rates, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for neck pain, neck disability index (NDI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores were assessed.METHODSResults of the VBSO, ACDF, and ACCF groups were compared using Student's t-test and chi-square test.RESULTSThe fusion rate at 1-year postoperatively and the final follow-up for VBSO was 92.9% (37/42). VBSO demonstrated a higher 1-year fusion rate than ACDF (77.9% [74/95], p=0.04) and ACCF (74.2% [23/31], p=0.04). However, the fusion rate at the final follow-up did not demonstrate significant difference. The mean amount of subsidence (ACDF group, 1.5±1.2 mm; VBSO group, 1.5±1.5 mm; p=1.00) and rate of significant subsidence of > 3 mm (ACDF group, 13.7% [13/95]; VBSO group, 14.3% [6/42]; p=1.00) were similar for ACDF and VBSO. Furthermore, the mean amount of subsidence in VBSO was significantly less than that in ACCF (1.5±1.5 mm vs 2.4±2.0 mm; p=0.04). Neck pain VAS, NDI, and JOA scores were not significantly different among the groups.CONCLUSIONSVBSO demonstrated faster solid union than ACDF and ACCF, although the fusion rates at the final follow-up were similar. VBSO resulted in less subsidence than ACCF at the 1-year follow-up. VBSO could be applied safely when the shape and/or location of the pathologic foci and sagittal alignment favor its application without much concern for pseudarthrosis or subsidence.