颈椎人工椎间盘置换与椎间盘切除融合术后邻近节段退变比较研究的Meta分析

目的 :通过Meta分析系统评价颈椎人工间盘置换术(cervical total disc replacement,TDR)与颈前路椎间盘切除融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)对邻近节段退变(adjacent segment degeneration,ASDeg)、邻近节段病(adjacent segment disease,ASDis)发生的影响。方法 :根据Cochrane系统评价指南,通过Pub Med、Medline、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)和万方数据库(Wanfang Database)检索2002年1月~2016年6月之间关于TDR和ACDF术后出现ASDeg、ASDis的随机对照试验(randomized controlled trials,RCTs),由两名研究人员独立筛选文章。纳入文献的方法学质量和偏倚风险通过Cochrane系统评价指南进行评价,提取数据包括ASDeg、ASDis以及再手术率的相关信息,研究结果以ASDeg和ASDis的发生作为直接结果,以邻近节段再手术率作为间接结果评估邻近节段病变的发生,并根据随访时间和研究地点分层进行亚组分析,最终对整篇Meta分析通过证据质量分级和推荐强度系统(the grades of recommendation,assessment,development and evaluation,GRADE)进行质量评估。结果 :共纳入了11篇RCTs,包括2632名研究对象。对于整体的ASD(包括直接和间接结果),TDR的发生率明显低于ACDF(OR=0.6;95%CI[0.38,0.73];P0.00001),差异有统计学意义。ASDeg和再手术率方面,TDR相对于ACDF具有明显优势(分别为OR=0.58,95%CI[0.46,0.72],P0.00001和OR=0.52,95%CI[0.30,0.87],P=0.01)。以随访时间5年为分界点,不论随访5年还是≥5年,在ASDeg发生率上,TDR的优势都比ACDF显著(分别为OR=0.63,P=0.001;OR=0.49,P=0.0002),并且这种优势可能随时间延长有扩大趋势。以研究地点分层,不论在美国(7篇RCTs)还是中国(4篇RCTs),TDR在邻近节段退变(ASDeg)发生率上均有优势(P0.0001,P=0.03)。根据GRADE评分,该Meta分析的质量级别为中等质量。结论:与ACDF相比,TDR在降低ASDeg和再手术率方面具有优势。     

人工颈椎椎间盘置换与颈前路减压融合术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的疗效分析

目的比较人工颈椎椎间盘置换术与颈前路椎间盘切除减压植骨融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fu-sion,ACDF)治疗脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析本院收治的人工颈椎椎间盘置换术及ACDF治疗的脊髓型颈椎病病例。测量所有患者颈椎活动度(range of motion,ROM),置换节段及相邻节段的ROM,并行日本骨科学会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA)评分及Odom分级。结果所有患者术后JOA评分和Odom功能评定均得到显著改善。置换组术后颈椎ROM、置换节段及其邻近间隙平均ROM无明显改变,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。ACDF组患者中,术后颈椎ROM显著减小,邻近间隙ROM明显增大,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。置换组术后邻近节段的ROM明显小于ACDF组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论人工颈椎椎间盘置换术能保持颈椎ROM,避免邻近节段退变,早、中期疗效满意,远期效果尚有待临床进一步研究。     

单节段颈椎间盘置换术对相邻颈椎节段退变的影响

目的比较单节段人工颈椎间盘置换术(CDA)与单节段颈椎前路减压融合术(ACDF)对相邻颈椎节段退变的影响。方法收集自2007-02—2011-08共150例纳入队列研究。行CDA 45例、ACDF 105例。比较2组术前、术后颈椎疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS法)、颈椎功能障碍指数(NDI)、日本骨科协会(JOA)评分、手术节段活动度(ROM)评价疗效。常规拍摄颈椎正侧位、过伸过屈位X线片,或行颈椎CT或(和)MRI进一步检查,以改良的Hilibrand法评价相邻节段退变程度。结果 2组均获得随访4年。ADR可以明显保留节段运动,但二者在术后VAS评分、NDI评分、JOA评分,及相邻节段退变率上差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 CDA减少相邻节段的退变并不明确,仍需要大量严格随机对照试验的长时间、大样本观察。     

颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术与人工颈椎椎间盘置换术治疗跳跃型颈椎椎间盘突出症的生物力学效应有限元分析

目的探讨颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)和人工颈椎椎间盘置换术(CDA)治疗跳跃型颈椎椎间盘突出症的生物力学改变情况。方法建立正常人颈椎(C2~7)三维有限元模型,并与既往研究数据进行对比,验证模型的有效性。选择C3/C4和C5/C6建立节段跳跃ACDF(Zero-P系统)、跳跃CDA(Prestige-LP假体)模型。在混合负荷模式下,于模型C2齿突上施加75 N力负荷和1.0 N·m力矩作用,模拟颈椎的屈伸、侧曲、旋转等运动,对比分析正常颈椎、跳跃ACDF和跳跃CDA模型运动学与力学参数。结果与正常颈椎有限元模型相比,跳跃ACDF模型手术节段(C3/C4和C5/C6)各方向活动度(ROM)显著减少,中间节段(C4/C5)各方向ROM、椎间盘应力和小关节压力显著增加,其他非手术节段各方向ROM、椎间盘应力和小关节压力也有不同程度增加。跳跃CDA模型手术节段各方向ROM与正常模型相似,中间节段及其他非手术节段各方向ROM、椎间盘应力和小关节压力无明显改变。结论与跳跃ACDF相比,跳跃CDA对中间节段生物力学环境的影响更小,为CDA治疗跳跃型颈椎椎间盘突出症提供了生物力学依据。     

颈椎间盘置换联合椎间融合对比单纯颈椎前路椎间融合治疗多节段颈椎病的Meta分析

[目的]系统评价颈椎间盘置换联合颈椎椎间融合(Hybrid手术)与传统的颈前路减压植骨融合(ACDF)治疗多节段退变性颈椎病效果的差异。[方法]计算机检索Pubmed,Medline,荷兰医学文摘,Cochrane图书馆、Cochrane协作网背痛专业试验数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库,CNKI,手工检索中文文献,收集1995²013年12月发表的关于颈椎间盘置换联合颈椎椎间融合(Hybrid手术)与颈前路减压植骨融合比较治疗多节段退变性颈椎病的随机、半随机对照试验,进行严格的质量评价,利用RevMan 5.2软件对纳入研究结果进行Meta分析。[结果]共纳入5个研究160例病例,Meta分析结果显示:Hybrid手术组与颈前路减压植骨融合术组比较手术时间、术前及术后VAS评分、术前C22013年12月发表的关于颈椎间盘置换联合颈椎椎间融合(Hybrid手术)与颈前路减压植骨融合比较治疗多节段退变性颈椎病的随机、半随机对照试验,进行严格的质量评价,利用RevMan 5.2软件对纳入研究结果进行Meta分析。[结果]共纳入5个研究160例病例,Meta分析结果显示:Hybrid手术组与颈前路减压植骨融合术组比较手术时间、术前及术后VAS评分、术前C2⁷ROM、上位临近节段ROM、下位临近节段差异无统计学意义;手术平均出血量Hybrid手术组少于ACDF组,术后24个月C27ROM、上位临近节段ROM、下位临近节段差异无统计学意义;手术平均出血量Hybrid手术组少于ACDF组,术后24个月C2⁷ROM Hybrid手术组大于ACDF组、术后24个月上位临近间盘ROM及下位临近间盘ROM Hybrid手术组少于ACDF组,且差异有统计学意义。[结论]Hybrid手术对于治疗多节段颈椎病拥有满意的临床疗效和影像学结果,Hybrid手术患者在随访期间相邻节段颈椎活动度降低,而ACDF手术患者在随访期间相邻节段颈椎活动度增加,术后C27ROM Hybrid手术组大于ACDF组、术后24个月上位临近间盘ROM及下位临近间盘ROM Hybrid手术组少于ACDF组,且差异有统计学意义。[结论]Hybrid手术对于治疗多节段颈椎病拥有满意的临床疗效和影像学结果,Hybrid手术患者在随访期间相邻节段颈椎活动度降低,而ACDF手术患者在随访期间相邻节段颈椎活动度增加,术后C2⁷整体活动度Hybrid手术组较ACDF组大,颈椎活动度更接近生理水平。但上述结果因样本量较小、文献质量不高等可能存在各种偏倚,以及Hybrid手术的远期临床效果,需要更多高质量的临床随机对照试验来得出更为可靠的结论。     

前路颈椎椎间盘切除融合术与动态装置植入术治疗单节段颈椎椎间盘突出症

目的对比前路颈椎椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)与颈椎前路动态装置植入术(DCI)对单节段颈椎椎间盘突出症(CDH)患者颈椎活动度(ROM)及术后颈椎曲度的影响。方法回顾性分析2018年6月—2019年9月海军军医大学长征医院收治的78例单节段CDH患者临床资料,其中42例采用ACDF治疗(ACDF组),36例采用DCI治疗(DCI组)。记录并比较2组患者手术时间、术中出血量,术前及术后1年日本骨科学会(JOA)评分、疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、手术节段Cobb角、C2~7颈椎曲度、邻近椎体高度及颈椎各运动方向(前屈后伸、左右侧曲、左右旋转)的ROM。结果所有手术顺利完成。2组术中出血量比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。DCI组手术时间比ACDF组短,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。2组患者术后1年JOA评分、VAS评分和邻近椎体高度均较术前改善,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后1年ACDF组C2~7颈椎曲度、手术节段Cobb角均较术前有所丢失,DCI组无明显丢失,组间比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后1年2组前屈后伸、左右侧曲ROM与术前比较均未出现明显变化,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后1年2组左右旋转ROM出现了相近程度的受限,与术前比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论ACDF与DCI治疗单节段CDH均可获得满意的临床效果,虽然ACDF术后影像学资料显示有生理曲度的丢失,但颈椎ROM维持良好,并不影响患者的生活质量。     

颈人工椎间盘置换治疗单节段颈椎病的中期随访研究

目的观察颈人工椎间盘置换术(CTDR)治疗单节段颈椎病的中期临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2009年1月—2011年10月本院收治的随访4年的81例单节段退变性颈椎病患者临床资料,按照手术方式分为CTDR组(n=41)及颈椎前路椎间盘切除减压融合术(ACDF)组(n=40)。采用颈椎功能障碍指数(NDI)和日本骨科学会(JOA)评分进行功能评价,采用Mc Afee分级评定异位骨化情况,并进行组间比较。通过MRI进行影像学评估,比较2组手术节段、邻近节段活动度(ROM)和C_(2~7) Cobb角。结果两组患者术后NDI和JOA评分明显改善。术后1个月CTDR组NDI明显高于ACDF组,在工作、驾车和娱乐3个项目上差异均有统计学意义(P0.05),两组之间JOA评分改善差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。在上、下邻近节段ROM和C_(2~7) Cobb角方面,CTDR组术前、术后变化不明显;ACDF组上位邻近节段ROM术后明显增加,C_(2~7) Cobb角术后明显减小,与术前相比差异均有统计学意义(P0.05);CTDR组与ACDF组相比,术后上位邻近节段ROM及C_(2~7) Cobb角差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。CTDR组在末次随访时共有15例患者出现异位骨化,2例假体下沉,1例椎体前缘骨赘吸收。ACDF组无椎间融合器下沉、植骨不愈合、畸形愈合、内固定松动断裂等并发症发生。结论 CTDR在早期恢复独立生活能力方面优势明显,中期随访可较好维持颈椎生理曲度及置换节段ROM,减少相邻节段的异常活动,保护邻近椎间盘,但中期随访发现有异位骨化发生。     

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,并以长钛板固定ACCF和ACDF节段(传统组);246例采用改良单节段ACCF并ACDF治疗,以短钛板固定ACCF手术节段,采用单纯椎间融合器重建ACDF节段(改良组)。统计并比较2组患者手术时间、住院时间、术中出血量、术中输血情况、手术前后日本骨科学会(JOA)评分和疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、融合器与钛网相对位置、术后并发症、颈椎活动度(ROM)、ACDF节段椎间隙高度及术后症状复发情况。结果所有手术顺利完成。所有患者随访超过1年。2组术后JOA评分及VAS评分均较术前显著改善,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。改良组术中出血量及术后吞咽困难发生率低于传统组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。改良组术前VAS评分≥2分者术后1年JOA评分改善率高于术前VAS评分<2分者,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论改良单节段ACCF并ACDF治疗连续3节段椎间盘突出并椎管狭窄的CSM安全有效,且术中出血量更少,术后吞咽困难发生率更低。     

单节段人工椎间盘置换治疗颈椎病的中长期疗效

目的:评价单节段颈椎人工椎间盘置换(cervical disc arthroplasty,CDA)对颈椎病的中长期治疗效果。方法:2003年12月～2005年12月采用前瞻、随机、对照研究单节段Bryan假体CDA与传统前路颈椎减压融合(ACDF)手术治疗颈椎病的疗效,所有患者均按统一的纳入、排除标准进入临床研究,共80例,随机分为两组,并进行均衡性检验,一组进行CDA手术,另一组进行ACDF手术,术后经1d、3个月、6个月、1年、2年、5年及2012年6月的末次随访。其中CDA组32例、ACDF组35例完成了随访,应用动力位X线片观察置换间隙活动度,采用McAfee异位骨化分级方法评定颈椎间盘置换术后异位骨化情况,在MRI T2加权像上采用Miyaza-ki颈椎间盘退变分级方法评定两组相邻节段椎间盘退变情况,采用颈椎活动障碍指数(NDI)和疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)评价术后症状改善程度。结果:本组病例随访7.2~9.6年,平均8.8年。CDA组假体位置良好,无塌陷或移位发生,末次随访时矢状面假体置换间隙活动度1.20°~8.20°,平均6.35°±1.45°;32例患者中8例(25%)置换间隙发生异位骨化,其中2例(6.25%)置换节段丧失活动度;翻修3例,1例因头侧邻近间隙退变、颈椎间盘突出压迫脊髓;2例因头侧跳跃间隙后方骨赘压迫脊髓;末次随访时置换间隙相邻的其他63个节段中22个椎间盘退变分级加重1级,8个加重2级,但无相关临床症状出现。ACDF组融合率100%,翻修3例,2例因头侧邻近间隙退变、存在神经症状;1例因尾侧邻近间隙退变,压迫脊髓;其余67个相邻节段中34个椎间盘退变分级加重1级,15个加重2级,但均无相关临床症状出现。末次随访时CDA组的NDI、颈部VAS及上肢VAS评分分别为16.83±3.12、1.17±0.41及1.96±0.51分,ACDF组分别为17.21±3.53、1.23±0.35及1.86±0.62分,较术前均显著改善,但两组间比较无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论:颈椎人工椎间盘置换术与ACDF手术治疗单节段颈椎病的中长期临床疗效间无显著性差异,颈椎人工椎间盘置换节段术后中长期可以保持一定活动度,相邻节段椎间盘退变情况好于ACDF组,可以作为单节段颈椎病的手术选择方式。     

人工颈椎间盘置换术与颈椎前路减压融合术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的疗效比较

目的探讨人工颈椎间盘置换术(ADR)和颈椎前路减压融合术(ACDF)治疗脊髓型颈椎病的疗效及其对相邻节段退变的影响。方法手术治疗92例脊髓型颈椎病患者,根据手术方法分为ADR组(采用ADR治疗,47例)、ACDF组(采用ACDF治疗,45例)。术后对患者进行12个月的随访观察,对比两组患者术后邻近节段运动范围、JOA评分及颈椎相邻节段退变情况。结果两组患者均随访12个月。术后1、3、6、12个月,邻近节段的前屈后伸、左侧屈曲、右侧屈曲测定值ACDF组均大于ADR组(P 0. 05);两组JOA评分均较术前显著提高(P 0. 05)。术后6个月,两组颈椎邻近节段退变差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05);术后12个月,颈椎邻近节段退变程度ADR组低于ACDF组(P 0. 05)。结论 ADR和ACDF治疗脊髓型颈椎病均能显著改善脊髓功能,而ADR在维持颈椎活动度、减少术后相邻节段退变方面有一定优势。     

The change of adjacent segment after cervical disc arthroplasty compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background Context

Many meta-analyses have been performed to study the efficacy of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF); however, there are few data referring to adjacent segment within these meta-analyses, or investigators are unable to arrive at the same conclusion in the few meta-analyses about adjacent segment. With the increased concerns surrounding adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg) and adjacent segment disease (ASDis) after anterior cervical surgery, it is necessary to perform a comprehensive meta-analysis to analyze adjacent segment parameters.

Current incidence of adjacent segment pathology following lumbar fusion versus motion-preserving procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent projections

BACKGROUND CONTEXTLumbar fusion has shown to be an effective surgical management option when indicated, improving patient outcomes and functional status. However, concerns of adjacent segment pathology (ASP) due to reduced mobility at the operated segment have fostered the emergence of motion-preserving procedures (MPP).PURPOSETo assess rates of radiographic adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg) and symptomatic adjacent segment disease (ASDis) as well as reoperation rates due to ASP in patients who have undergone lumbar fusion compared to motion-preservation for degenerative disorders.STUDY DESIGNSystematic Review and Meta-Analysis.METHODSFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to find current (1/2012–12/2019) retrospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials evaluating rates of ASDeg, ASDis, and reoperations due to lumbar ASP.RESULTSA total of 1,751 patients (791 underwent fusion surgery and 960 motion-preserving procedures) in 19 publications were included in the final analysis. Overall incidence rates of ASDeg, ASDis, and reoperation rates were 27.8%, 7.6%, and 4.6%, respectively. Results showed no significant difference between the lumbar fusion versus MPP cohorts in incidence of ASDeg (36.4% vs. 19.2%, p: 0.06), ASDis (10.7% vs. 4.42%, p: 0.25), or reoperation due to ASP (7.40% vs. 1.80%, p: 0.19). Fixed-effects analysis revealed patients who underwent MPP had significantly lower odds of ASDeg (OR: 2.57, CI: 1.95, 3.35, p<.05) and reoperations (OR: 3.18, CI: 1.63, 6.21, p<.05) compared to lumbar fusion patients.CONCLUSIONSThis meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in incidence of ASDeg, ASDis, or reoperations due to ASP for patients after lumbar fusion versus MPP. Weighted analysis, however, showed that MPP patients had significantly lower odds of ASDeg and reoperations due to ASP. While previous studies have established the biomechanical efficacy of MPP on cadaveric models, further high-quality studies are required to evaluate the long-term consequences of these procedures on patient-reported outcomes, postoperative complications, and associated inpatient/outpatient costs.     

连续式和跳跃式颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术治疗多节段颈椎病

目的探讨连续式和跳跃式颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)治疗多节段颈椎病的疗效及安全性。方法回顾性分析2013年1月-2018年12月收治的经非手术治疗无效的78例多节段颈椎病患者临床资料,其中36例采用跳跃式ACDF治疗(观察组),42例采用连续式ACDF治疗(对照组)。比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间等临床指标及并发症发生情况。记录2组C_2~7活动度(ROM)、矢状位垂直距离(SVA)、T₁倾斜角、植骨融合率、邻近及中间保留节段椎间盘退行性变加重率等影像学指标。采用日本骨科学会(JOA)评分及JOA评分改善率评估神经功能改善情况。结果所有手术顺利完成。所有患者随访8~19个月,中位随访时间为13个月。观察组手术时间和术中出血量明显少于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05);2组住院时间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。2组术后各随访时间点JOA评分均较术前改善,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05),组间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05);2组JOA评分改善率差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。2组术后12周C_2~7 ROM较术前降低,SVA及T₁倾斜角较术前增加,差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05),组间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05);末次随访时C_2~7 ROM、SVA及T₁倾斜角均较术后12周有所改善,接近术前水平。2组植骨融合率、邻近及中间节段椎间盘退行性变加重率比较,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。2组植骨融合率、邻近及中间节段椎间盘退行性变加重率差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。观察组术后发生吞咽困难2例、声音嘶哑1例,并发症发生率为8.33%;对照组术后发生吞咽困难2例,并发症发生率为4.76%;组间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。结论跳跃式ACDF用于经非手术治疗无效的多节段颈椎病患者可获得与连续式ACDF相近的术后疗效及安全性,并能够有效缩短手术时间,减少术中医源性创伤。     

Cervical kinematics and radiological changes after Discover artificial disc replacement versus fusion

Background contextThe cervical disc arthroplasty has emerged as a promising alternative to the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients with radiculopathy or myelopathy with disc degeneration disease. The advantages of this technique have been reported to preserve the cervical mobility and possibly reduce the adjacent segment degeneration. However, no studies have compared the clinical outcomes and radiological results in patients treated with Discover artificial disc replacement to those observed in matched group of patients that have undergone ACDF.PurposeWe conducted this clinical study to compare the cervical kinematics and radiographic adjacent-level changes after Discover artificial disc replacement with ACDF.Study designAnalysis and evaluation of data acquired in a comparative clinical study.Patient sampleThe number of patients in the Discover and ACDF group were 149 and 196, respectively.Outcome measuresThe Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) pain score were evaluated. The range of movement (ROM) by the shell angle, the functional segment unit and global angles were measured, and the postoperative radiological changes at adjacents levels were observed.MethodsA total of 149 patients with symptomatic single or two-level cervical degenerative diseases received the Discover cervical artificial disc replacement from November 2008 to February 2010. During the same period, there were a total of 196 patients undergoing one or two-level ACDF. The average follow-up periods of the Discover disc group and ACDF group were 22.1 months and 22.5 months, respectively. Before surgery, patients were evaluated using static and dynamic cervical spine radiographs in addition to computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Static and dynamic cervical spine radiographs were obtained after surgery and then at 3- and 6-month follow-up. Then, the subsequent follow-up examinations were performed at every 6-month interval. The clinical results in terms of NDI and VAS scores, the parameters of cervical kinematics, postoperative radiological changes at adjacent levels, and complications in the two groups were statistically analyzed and compared. No funding was received for this study, and the authors report no potential conflict of interest–associated biases in the text.ResultsAlthough the clinical improvements in terms of NDI and VAS scores were achieved in both the Discover and ACDF group, no significant difference was found between the two groups for both single- (VAS p=.13, NDI p=.49) and double-level surgeries (VAS p=.28, NDI p=.21). Significant differences of cervcial kinematics occurred between the Discover and the ACDF group for both the single- and double-level surgeries at the operative segments (p<.001). Except the upper adjacent levels for the single-level Discover and ACDF groups (p=.33), significant increases in adjacent segment motion were observed in the ACDF group compared with the minimal ROM changes in adjacent segment motion noted in the Discover group, and the differences between the two groups for both single and double-level procedures were statistically significant (p<.05). There were significant differences in the postoperative radiological changes at adjacent levels between the Discover and ACDF groups for the single-level surgery (p<.001, χ²=18.18) and the double-level surgery (p=.007, χ²=7.2). No significant difference of complications was found between the Discover and ACDF groups in both single (p=.25, χ²=1.32) and double-level cases (p=.4, χ²=0.69).ConclusionsThe adjacent segment ROM and the incidence of radiographic adjacent-level changes in patients undergoing ACDF were higher than those undergoing Discover artificial disc replacement. The cervical mobility was relatively well maintained in the Discover group compared with the ACDF group, and the Discover cervical disc arthroplasty can be an effective alternative to the fusion technique.     

零切迹自稳型颈椎融合器治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病的中期临床疗效

目的评价应用零切迹自稳型颈椎融合器(ROI-C)行颈前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病的中期临床疗效。方法 2012年3月—2014年3月,本院采用ROI-C行ACDF治疗的双节段脊髓型颈椎病患者22例,男16例,女6例;年龄45~76岁,平均58.1岁;C3/C4/C5 3例,C4/C5/C6 11例,C5/C6/C7 5例,C6/C7/T1 1例,C5/C6及C7/T1 1例,C3/C4及C5/C6 1例。采用疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分评价颈部疼痛程度,日本骨科学会(JOA)评分评价神经功能,Mac Nab标准评价疗效优良率。颈椎侧位X线片测量颈椎生理曲度和融合节段椎间高度,过伸过屈位X线片评价融合相邻节段的椎间活动度(ROM),并对术前及随访时数据进行比较。结果所有手术顺利完成。所有患者随访29~53个月,平均35.3个月。术后3个月VAS和JOA评分均较术前明显改善,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);末次随访时VAS评分和JOA评分较术后3个月进一步改善,且差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后3个月颈椎曲度和融合节段椎间隙高度均较术前明显改善,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);末次随访时与术后3个月时相比,差异无统计学意义(P0.05),颈椎曲度和融合节段椎间隙高度维持良好。末次随访时融合器沉陷率为11.4%。术后3个月相邻节段ROM较术前增加,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);末次随访时相邻节段ROM较术后3个月进一步增加,且差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。末次随访时有1例融合上位相邻节段发生椎间隙不稳,但无临床症状。根据Mac Nab标准,疗效优良率为90.9%。随访中未发生术后颈部轴性疼痛、融合器松动等其他并发症。结论应用ROI-C行ACDF治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病中期随访临床疗效可靠,颈椎生理曲度和融合椎间高度得以有效维持。     

腰椎融合术后邻近节段退化的系统回顾分析

目的探讨腰椎融合术导致融合邻近节段退化(ASDet)发生的概率、发病机制及危险因素。方法通过计算机检索和人工检索,对近30年来国内外发表的关于腰椎融合术导致邻近节段退化的文献进行系统回顾。结果共搜索到301篇相关文献,筛选出30篇符合入选标准的文献。本研究发现ASDet发病率波动在6.3%～100%,邻近节段退变(ASDeg)发病率波动范围8%～100%,邻近节段疾病(ASDis)发病率波动范围6.3%～27.4%。ASDeg平均发病率高于ASDis,P=6.751×10-7(P<0.05)。多种影响因素参与ASDet的发生。结论 ASDet、ASDeg、ASDis发病率差异较大。目前ASDet发生的机制仍不明,绝大多数学者认为与手术引起的邻近节段生物力学机制改变有关。年龄大于60岁、使用内固定器械、损伤上方小关节、改变腰椎前凸和骶倾角、破坏腰椎后方组织结构、已绝经妇女是邻近节段退化性疾病发生的危险因素。然而长节段融合是否导致ASDet的发病率增高还有待进一步研究。     

颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术中采用零切迹椎间融合器与钉板系统治疗单节段颈椎椎间盘突出症对术后颈椎曲度的影响

目的比较颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)中采用零切迹椎间融合器(Zero-P)与钉板系统(PCC)治疗单节段颈椎椎间盘突出症对术后颈椎曲度的影响。方法回顾性分析2016年5月—2018年3月在本院接受ACDF治疗的136例单节段颈椎椎间盘突出症患者临床资料,其中71例术中采用Zero-P(Zero-P组),65例采用PCC(PCC组)。记录2组手术时间,术中出血量,术前及术后1、6、12和24个月日本骨科学会(JOA)评分、疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、C_(2～7)颈椎曲度、手术节段Cobb角及邻近椎体高度,术后植骨融合及内固定相关并发症情况。结果所有手术顺利完成,Zero-P组手术时间明显短于PCC组,差异有统计学意义(P 0.05)。2组患者术后JOA评分、VAS评分、C_(2～7)颈椎曲度、手术节段Cobb角及邻近椎体高度均较术前显著改善,差异有统计学意义(P 0.05)。术后24个月,Zero-P组C_(2～7)颈椎曲度、手术节段Cobb角和邻近椎体高度较术后1个月降低,与PCC组相比差异亦有统计学意义(P 0.05)。结论 ACDF术中采用PCC可获得与Zero-P相同的临床效果,虽然PCC在控制手术时间方面不如Zero-P组,但可更好地维持颈椎曲度。     

人工椎间盘置换术治疗跳跃型多节段颈椎病的中期疗效

 目的 评价 Bryan 人工间盘置换术治疗跳跃型多节段颈椎病的疗效。方法 回顾性分析 2002 年 2 月至 2012 年 5 月接受 Bryan 间盘置换术（Bryan 组）或颈前路减压植骨融合术（ACDF 组）治疗的跳跃型多节段颈椎病患者相关资料。临床功能评估采用日本矫形外科协会（Japanese orthopaedic association,JOA）评分、颈椎功能障碍指数（neck disability index,NDI）、疼痛视觉模拟评分（visual analoguc scale,VAS）,影像学评估采用颈椎矢状位曲度、颈椎整体活动度及中间节段活动度,并于末次随访时评估邻近节段退变情况。结果 49 例患者随访超过 24 个月,Bryan 组 18 例,ACDF 组 31 例。两组患者性别、年龄、疾病类型等人口学资料的差异无统计学意义。两组患者术后 JOA、NDI、VAS 评分均较术前有明显改善。两组间各时间节点比较仅末次随访时 VAS 评分的差异有统计学意义。Bryan 组术后轴性症状发生率、颈椎活动度和未手术节段活动度分别为 11.1%、35.5°±5.9°和 7.3°±1.4°,ACDF 组分别为 45.2%、24.5°±6.2°、10.1°±1.6°,差异均有统计学意义。Bryan 组患者邻近节段无明显退变,ACDF 组 2 例出现退变,但无需再次手术。结论 应用 Bryan 间盘置换术治疗跳跃型多节段颈椎病,可有效改善神经功能,保留颈椎整体活动度,减少未手术节段活动度的代偿性增加,从而降低邻近节段退变及轴性症状发生率。