椎弓根螺钉提拉复位与椎间隙撑开复位治疗峡部裂型腰椎滑脱症的临床效果观察

目的:评价椎弓根螺钉提拉复位与椎间隙撑开复位治疗峡部裂型腰椎滑脱症的临床疗效。方法:68例峡部裂型腰椎滑脱症患者分别在两个医疗中心接受手术治疗。A组32例,L4滑脱5例,L5滑脱27例,术前滑移程度为35.8%±10.4%,JOA评分为17.2±1.6分,采用后路椎板减压,在滑脱椎体先置入提拉螺钉,通过螺钉间撑开、提拉复位后,椎间隙内填充自体碎骨粒后置入1枚椎间融合器。B组36例,L4滑脱6例,L5滑脱30例,术前滑移程度为36.1%±11.2%,JOA评分为17.9±1.4分,采用后路椎板减压,逐步撑开椎间隙、利用纤维环和周围韧带的张力部分复位后置入1枚椎间融合器,并在融合器内及其周围植入自体碎骨,再行椎弓根钉棒系统固定。比较两组患者临床疗效。结果:A组术中和术后并发症发生率为18.8%(6/32),B组为11.1%(4/36),两组比较无显著性差异(P0.05)。随访24～60个月,平均39个月。A组末次随访时滑移程度为3.4%±1.9%,滑脱复位率为90.5%,2年融合率为96.9%;末次随访时JOA评分为26.5±0.9分,临床疗效满意率为87.5%。B组末次随访时滑移10.3%±4.1%,滑脱复位率为71.5%,2年融合率为97.2%;末次随访时JOA评分为26.9±1.1分,临床疗效满意率为86.1%。两组之间临床疗效满意率、融合率无显著性差异(P0.05),但滑脱复位率有显著性差异(P0.001)。结论:椎弓根螺钉提拉复位法的复位效果优于椎间隙撑开复位法,但两种复位方法均能有效治疗峡部裂型腰椎滑脱症。     

延长固定节段结合短节段融合在中重度腰椎滑脱治疗中的应用

目的探讨延长固定节段结合短节段融合在中重度峡部裂型腰椎滑脱治疗中的手术技巧及疗效。方法对36例中重度峡部裂型腰椎滑脱患者行后路减压复位、椎间植骨融合,并包括滑脱椎近端相邻椎的延长节段钉棒系统固定术。通过影像学资料评估复位及植骨融合情况;采用JOA及VAS评分评价治疗效果。结果患者均获得随访,时间16~39个月。滑脱复位率91.8%~95.2%;椎间隙高度由术前4.7 mm±2.1 mm恢复至术后10.5 mm±2.4 mm;植骨融合率100%;JOA评分:术前7.9分±2.1分,术后3个月17.3分±3.9分,末次随访时24.5分±2.0分;VAS评分:术前7.5分±2.0分,术后3个月3.1分±1.4分,末次随访时1.8分±0.9分。参照JOA和VAS评分评价疗效,优20例,良13例,可2例,差1例,优良率91.7%。随访期间滑脱复位率及椎间隙高度无明显丢失。均无滑脱畸形加重,内固定松动,断钉断棒,感染及神经损害加重等现象。结论延长节段固定结合短节段融合治疗中重度峡部裂型腰椎滑脱症,可以达到理想的复位固定效果和可靠的骨性融合,临床疗效满意。     

Ⅲ、Ⅳ度腰椎滑脱症的手术策略与疗效观察

目的 探讨撑开椎间隙后椎弓根钉-棒系统复位、固定的方法在治疗Ⅲ、Ⅳ度腰椎滑脱的临床价值与疗效.方法 1999年3月至2006年5月,应用全椎板减压,用椎间撑开器撑开椎间隙后,再进行椎弓根钉-棒系统复位和固定治疗重度腰椎滑脱症22例,Ⅲ度滑脱14例,Ⅳ度滑脱8例.对所有病例进行定期随访,评估滑脱率、滑脱角、骶骨倾斜角和椎间隙后高等影像学指标,并采用临床Oswestry功能障碍评分评估临床疗效.结果 术后所有患者滑脱均有不同程度地复位:滑脱率由术前75.7%±3.2%恢复至术后1周12.4%±3.1%,末次随访为12.6%±3.2%;滑脱角由术前23.6°±3.9°改善至术后1周4.7°±0.5°,末次随访为4.8°±0.5°.滑脱率、滑脱角术前与术后比较差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.01),术后与末次随访比较差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).所有病例术后1年薄层螺旋CT扫描三维重建可见完全的骨小梁连接,达到骨性融合.临床Oswestry功能障碍评分由术前的平均(34.6±4.3)分降至术后12个月的平均(18.7±4.6)分,结果优良.2例术后神经根损伤症状经对症治疗后恢复,无其他并发症.结论 椎间隙撑开能方便有效地复位椎体滑脱和恢复腰椎的生理平衡,是治疗Ⅲ、Ⅳ度腰椎滑脱症的有效策略之一.     

成人腰椎峡部裂型滑脱症的微创治疗

目的 探讨成人腰椎峡部裂型滑脱症的微创外科治疗方法与临床效果.方法 成人峡部裂型腰椎滑脱症患者21例,男12例,女9例;年龄29～73岁,平均51.7岁;L4.5滑脱7例,L5S1滑脱14例;双侧峡部裂19例,单侧2例.根据Meyerding分级:Ⅰ度滑脱13例,Ⅱ度滑脱7例,Ⅲ度滑脱1例.患者全麻,经后路双侧旁中央26 mm切口,在内镜辅助下行单侧或双侧椎管减压、椎间植骨cage融合、新型Sextant-R经皮椎弓根螺钉系统复位与内固定.结果 平均手术时间170 min,平均出血量160 ml,平均卧床时间7.5 d,平均住院时间19 d.20例患者获得随访,随访时间4～32个月,平均12.5个月.术后1年随访17例,患者VAS腰痛评分从术前平均(6.0±2.6)分降至(2.9±2.5)分;VAS腿痛评分从术前平均(6.7±3.3)分降至(2.8±1.6)分;Oswestry功能指数从术前平均44.3%降至27.1%;Nakai分级优良率90%.矢状面X线片腰椎滑脱率从术前35.5%±2.5%降至8.3%±7.5%,滑脱椎的腰前凸角从术前平均11.5°±1.7°增至16.8°±9.5°,椎间隙平均高度从术前(5.4±2.5)mm增至(9.1±3.0)mm.根据Lenke动态X线片评估标准:13例(76%)椎间骨性融合、2例(12%)椎间部分骨性融合、2例(12%)椎间无明显骨性融合.3例发生并发症.结论 内镜辅助下后路腰椎管减压、椎间植骨cage融合及经皮椎弓根螺钉系统复位与内固定治疗成人峡部裂型腰椎滑脱症手术创伤小,近期临床疗效好.     

成人峡部裂性腰椎滑脱合并椎间盘突出的手术治疗

目的评价自体小关节骨质及Cage后路椎间植骨融合椎弓根内固定治疗成人峡部裂性腰椎滑脱合并椎间盘突出的手术疗效。方法37例峡部裂性腰椎滑脱合并椎间盘突出采用上述方法治疗,平均随访27个月,评价其术前及随访时JOA评分、影像学结果及手术并发症。结果骨性融合率97.30%,优良率94.59%,无严重并发症发生。结论小关节切除、自体小关节骨质及Cage后路椎间植骨融合及椎弓根内固定治疗成人峡部裂性腰椎滑脱合并椎间盘突出有良好的临床疗效。     

纹式终板处理自体骨植骨融合治疗峡部裂型腰椎滑脱

目的探讨采用纹式终板处理自体骨植骨融合治疗峡部裂型腰椎滑脱的临床疗效。方法采用纹式终板处理自体骨植骨融合治疗34例峡部裂型腰椎滑脱患者,记录手术时间及术中出血量,应用JOA评分评估手术效果,测量术后及末次随访时的椎间隙高度,评估骨融合情况。结果手术时间120～250(173. 33±35. 96) min,术中出血量100～600(378. 57±157. 77) ml。患者均获得随访,时间7～20(14. 71±3. 59)个月。随访期间X线及CT检查评估显示,所有患者未出现内固定松动、断裂或椎体再滑脱。JOA评分:术前为6～20(13. 27±2. 96)分,术后为16～24(21. 42±1. 67)分,末次随访为18～25(23. 69±1. 31)分,术后较术前、末次随访较术后均明显改善(P 0. 05);滑脱复位率:术后为80. 13%,末次随访时为77. 90%。结论纹式终板处理自体骨植骨融合手术治疗峡部裂型腰椎滑脱症疗效确切,骨融合率高。     

RF-Ⅱ系统内固定手术治疗腰椎弓峡部裂性腰椎滑脱

目的 探讨RF-Ⅱ系统内固定手术治疗腰椎弓峡部裂性腰椎滑脱的疗效。方法 采用椎管开窗减压、RF-Ⅱ系统复位内固定、横突间植骨融合或椎间植骨融合术治疗腰椎滑脱52例。结果 37例完全复位，15例部分复位。术后随访49例，随访时间平均4年，优良率83．7％。结论 RF-Ⅱ系统纵向撑开力大，能恢复椎间隙高度；复位拉力大，能使滑脱的椎体复位；固定可靠，能明显提高脊椎融合率；是治疗腰椎弓峡部裂性腰椎滑脱的有效方法之一。     

短节段椎弓根螺钉后路椎间植骨治疗重症峡部裂型腰椎滑脱症

[目的]探讨应用短节段椎弓根螺钉系统内固定并后路椎间植骨融合治疗重症峡部裂型腰椎滑脱症的疗效和手术技巧.[方法]2005年1月～2007年1月,对51例重症峡部裂型腰椎滑脱患者行短节段椎弓根螺钉后路椎间植骨融合术,年龄25～67岁,平均41岁;术前滑脱程度按Meyerding分级标准均大于33%,平均为42%,均有不同程度的神经根受损症状.通过术前、术后脊柱正、侧位X线片和Beaujon functional score(BFS)评分,分析临床疗效,评价治疗效果.[结果]51例患者均获随访,随访时间为2～3年10个月,平均2年8个月.术后平均滑脱复位率92%;椎间隙高度由术前平均4.9 mm恢复至术后的10.3 mm;植骨融合率100%,平均融合时间4个月;BFS评分由术前平均8.1分升至术后2年的17.9分,疗效优良率为91%.随访期间滑脱复位率、椎间隙高度无明显丢失.[结论]短节段椎弓根螺钉系统内固定后路椎间植骨融合术可以用于治疗重症峡部裂型腰椎滑脱症,能保留更多的腰椎运动单元.     

椎间融合器加提拉复位系统治疗腰椎滑脱症

目的探讨应用椎体提拉复位系统(spondylolisthesis reducation system,SRS)加单侧椎间融合器融合治疗峡部不连性腰椎滑脱症的疗效。方法自1998年2月至2005年6月治疗36例峡部不连性腰椎滑脱患者,手术对椎管和神经根管进行减压,用SRS对椎体进行复位内固定,后方斜向单个椎间融合器植入椎间融合,并在峡部植骨。按椎体复位、JOA评分、融合及内固定稳定程度和椎间隙高度变化等进行疗效评价。结果36例患者获6个月~7年的随访,手术完全复位35例,JOA评分平均26.8分,椎体全部融合,无内固定松动,椎间高度变化平均为1.7 mm。结论SRS加单侧椎间融合器是治疗峡部不连性腰椎滑脱症的有效方法。     

后路单枚椎间融合器附加椎弓根螺钉治疗峡部型腰椎滑脱症的疗效观察

目的探讨单枚CAGE椎间融合器后路斜向植入附加椎弓根螺钉治疗峡部型腰椎滑脱症的临床疗效。方法对12例Ⅱ°～Ⅲ°峡部型腰椎滑脱症患者行CAGE后路斜向植入椎体间融合术附加短节段椎弓根螺钉内固定术。结果所有患者术后滑脱有不同程度复位,椎间隙增高,滑脱角改善;随访12～28个月,平均20个月,矫正程度无丢失,CAGE无下陷、滑移,椎间隙高度无丢失,所有病例术后12～18月均获骨性愈合。结论CAGE椎间融合器能使滑脱椎体间接复位,直接撑开椎体前中柱,恢复椎间隙高度,维持腰椎的生理弧度,提高融合率;椎弓根螺钉系统有直接复位滑脱椎体,两者结合能提供内在稳定和支撑作用,疗效满意,适用于峡部型腰椎滑脱症的治疗。     

非椎间隙狭窄型峡部裂腰椎滑脱症的手术治疗

目的：探讨非椎间隙狭窄型峡部裂腰椎滑脱的手术治疗。方法对50例非椎间隙狭窄型峡部裂型腰椎滑脱患者采用短节段固定加椎板、横突间后外侧植骨融合的手术方法进行治疗。结果50例患者症状改善优良率达96％,植骨融合率100％。结论短节段内固定加后外侧植骨融合的手术方法具有手术时间短,不暴露椎管,避免对神经根及硬脊膜的误伤,出血少,费用低等优点。是治疗非椎间隙狭窄型峡部裂腰椎滑脱的一种有效方法。     

BAK椎间融合器治疗轻度腰椎峡部型滑脱症

自1997年4月～1998年4月间,以多孔螺纹状椎间融合器(BAK)行后路腰椎椎体融合术(PLIF)治疗8例轻度L_5/S_1峡部型滑脱症病人。患者主要症状为反复发作的下腰痛,伴有一侧(5例)或双侧(3例)的下肢疼痛。术前侧位X线片显示腰5椎体轻度向前滑脱(15％～30％滑移程度),且该椎间隙高度较邻近之正常间隙降低30％以上;斜位片示峡部裂隙6例(其中1例为单侧)、峡部细长2例。双侧症状者行后前向双枚BAK椎间融合器PLIF。术后平均随访12月,皆达到临床融合。所有患者均无融合器的移位,患者主观满意率100％。作者认为,BAK椎间融合器植入行后路腰椎椎体间融合术,能充分完成后路减压、保证可靠的融合,且无需应用附加内固定,不失为一种比较理想的治疗轻度腰椎峡部型滑脱手术方法。     

腰5椎体Ⅱ度以上峡部裂性滑脱的手术策略

目的探讨腰5椎体Ⅱ度以上峡部裂性滑脱的手术治疗策略。方法 2003年8月～2008年10月,应用经椎间孔腰椎间融合（transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF）技术,以小关节突为中心椎管减压、椎间隙松解撑开复位、椎弓根钉棒系统补充复位固定、椎间隙打压植骨联合椎间融合器技术治疗腰5椎体Ⅱ度以上峡部裂性滑脱26例。结果经18～36个月（平均30个月）随访,滑脱椎体复位无丢失,椎间隙高度维持良好,下腰椎生理弧度恢复正常,椎弓根螺钉无断裂、松动,融合器无移位、沉降。25例获骨性融合。根据NaKai评分标准,优良率为84.6%。结论采用TLIF技术治疗腰5椎体Ⅱ度以上滑脱,神经根管减压是影响疗效的关键因素,滑脱椎体复位有利于神经根减压以及椎间融合率的提高,椎体间融合是维持长期疗效的基础。     

椎间植骨融合加SRS 系统治疗腰椎滑脱症

目的 探讨运用Spondylolisthesis Reduction System(SRS)提拉复位系统加环锯取髂骨于椎体间行单侧或双侧植骨融合治疗峡部不连性腰椎滑脱症。方法 临床共治疗43例腰椎峡部不连性滑脱病人，按手术复位，症状改善，骨性融合，内固定材料牢固情况进行疗效评价。结果 43例患者获得1～5年(平均3年2个月)随访，按我们自拟疗效标准，优33例，良7例，可3例，无症状加重病例。完全复位38例。无内固定松动断裂发生。结论 环锯椎间植骨融合加SRS系统，能达到很好的复位及牢固的固定，从而达到椎间的骨性融合。手术操作简便，效果满意，如能采取双侧椎间同时植骨，增加融合面积，效果更佳。     

腰椎滑脱手术中复位困难的临床治疗研究

目的评价运用脊柱滑脱复位固定系统(SRS)加新型椎体复位系统治疗峡部不连性腰椎滑脱症的治疗效果。方法临床共治疗62例腰椎峡部不连性滑脱,按症状改善、骨性融合、内固定材料牢固情况进行疗效评价。结果62例获得1～5年随访(平均2年5个月),优47例,良12例,可3例,无症状加重患者。无内固定松动断裂发生。结论SRS系统治疗峡部不连性腰椎滑脱症,结合应用新型椎体复位系统能达到很好的复位及牢固的固定。手术操作简便,2次减压法效果满意。     

椎弓根器械复位固定后两种不同融合方法对腰椎峡部裂型滑脱的疗效比较

目的观察比较椎弓根器械复位固定后两种不同融合法PLF与PLIF对峡部裂型滑脱的疗效。方法Ⅱ度以内腰椎峡部裂型滑脱共47例,一组22例,椎弓根器械复位固定后行PLF(PLF组);另一组25例,椎弓根器械复位固定后行PLIF(PLIF组)。对两组的临床疗效(ODI评分)、X线影像学结果(包括:滑脱矫正、滑脱节段椎间隙高度改变、滑脱节段前突角改变及骨融合)及并发症进行对比观察。结果术后即刻X线影像学结果,包括:滑脱矫正、滑脱节段椎间盘高度、滑脱节段前突角,两组间无显著差异(P>0.05);术后2年随访时,滑脱矫正及滑脱节段椎间隙高度的维持上PLIF组优于PLF组(P<0.05),骨融合率及滑脱节段前突角两组间无显著差异(P>0.05),但两组间临床疗效(ODI评分)及并发症发生率无显著差异(P>0.05),内固定失败率PLF组高于PLIF组。结论椎弓根器械复位固定并PLF与PLIF都是治疗Ⅱ度以内腰椎峡部裂型滑脱的有效方法,PLIF在对滑脱矫形的维持及结构的稳定上具有优越的力学性能,PLF后期易出现矫正丢失及内固定失败,但临床疗效不受明显影响。     

Direct repair of defect in lumbar spondylolysis and mild isthmic spondylolisthesis by bone grafting, with or without facet joint fusion

Forty-six patients with lumbar spondylolysis and mild isthmic spondylolisthesis were managed with direct repair of the defect with or without facet joint fusion in the affected segment. There were 24 males and 22 females, ranging in age from 15 to 56 years (average, 38.2 years). These patients had experienced clinical symptoms due to spondylolysis for between 4 months and 20 years (average, 5.3 years). Of 46 patients, 28 had no spondylolisthesis, 11 had Meyerding grade I vertebral slippage and 7 had grade II. Direct repair of 98 defects was performed on these patients. Twenty-six patients, in whom the disc adjacent to the defect was determined as degenerative by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), simultaneously underwent facet joint fusion; 17 in one segment and 9 in two segments. The average period of follow-up was 50 months (24-92 months). Ninety-four defects achieved bony healing. As a result, 28 patients were graded as having an excellent outcome, 15 good, and 3 fair. Bone grafting in the defects achieves union between the loose lamina and the anterior element of lumbar vertebrae, and reconstructs the anatomic structure and physiologic functions of the lumbar vertebrae. There was no significant difference in outcome between the spondylolytic/spondylolisthetic patients with non-degenerative disc, who were treated with direct repair of defect only, and those with degenerative disc, who additionally underwent a fusion procedure (P > 0.05). The present series demonstrates a satisfactory result and a high rate of bony healing of the pars defect by this operative procedure in patients with lumbar spondylolysis and mild isthmic spondylolisthesis. Preoperative assessment of the disc degeneration with MRI is of great assistance in making the protocol choice of whether to opt for fusion.     

Anterior spondylodesis for spondylolisthesis: Isthmic and degenerative types

Summary We studied the influence of instability of the spondylolisthesic segment upon anterior interbody fusion (AIF) rates. A one-level AIF of the lumbar spine by the modified extraperitoneal Bailey-Badgley fusion construct was performed in 26 patients with chronic or recurring acute low-back pain and/or other symptoms due to grades I and II spondylolisthesis. Sixteen were degenerative type, and 10 were isthmic type. Seventeen were female and 9, male. The average age was 41.2 years. The number of cases of spondylolisthesis at the level of L4–5 and L5-S1 as 18 and 8, respectively. In the 16 cases of degenerative type, 13 were grade I slip, and 3 were grade II slip, while in the 10 cases of isthmic type, 8 were grade I slip, and 2 were grade II slip. The average postoperative follow-up was 6 years (range 2–10 years). Solid fusion was obtained in 15 (93.8%) of the cases of degenerative spondylolisthesis and in 6 of the cases of isthmic type. Thus, the overall fusion rate was 80.7% (21 cases). However, some graft crumbling and redisplacement developed in 1 of the cases of degenerative type and 6 of the cases of isthmic type. Non-union developed in 4 (57.1%) of those 7 cases of graft crumbling (3 isthmic and 1 degenerative type). Fusion took 7 months on average (range 5–9 months). It is hypothesised that the isthmic-type spondylolisthesis has more instability than the degenerative one. Therefore, AIF in the case of degenerative spondylolisthesis is a useful procedure, while in the isthmic type it is not advisable as a routine procedure.     

Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2

Minimally invasive lumbar fusion techniques have only recently been developed. The goals of these procedures are to reduce approach-related soft tissue injury, postoperative pain and disability while allowing the surgery to be conducted in an effective manner. There have been no prospective clinical reports published on the comparison of one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in low-grade spondylolisthesis performed with an independent blade retractor system or a traditional open approach. A prospective clinical study of 85 consecutive cases of degenerative and isthmic lower grade spondylolisthesis treated by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MiTLIF) or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) was done. A total of 85 patients suffering from degenerative spondylolisthesis (n = 46) and isthmic spondylolisthesis (n = 39) underwent one-level MiTLIF (n = 42) and OTLIF (n = 43) by two experienced surgeons at one hospital, from June 2006 to March 2008 (minimum 13-month follow-up). The following data were compared between the two groups: the clinical and radiographic results, operative time, blood loss, transfusion needs, X-ray exposure time, postoperative back pain, length of hospital stay, and complications. Clinical outcome was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index. The operative time, clinical and radiographic results were basically identical in both groups. Comparing with the OTLIF group, the MiTLIF group had significantly lesser blood loss, lesser need for transfusion, lesser postoperative back pain, and shorter length of hospital stay. The radiation time was significantly longer in MiTLIF group. One case of nonunion was observed from each group. Minimally invasive TLIF has similar surgical efficacy with the traditional open TLIF in treating one-level lower grade degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis. The minimally invasive technique offers several potential advantages including smaller incisions, less tissue trauma and quicker recovery. However, this technique needs longer X-ray exposure time.     

单侧椎弓根钉固定结合单枚融合器治疗腰椎不稳症

目的：探讨经椎间孔入路单侧椎弓根钉固定结合单枚融合器治疗腰椎不稳症的临床疗效。方法：回顾性分析2009年至2012年收治且获得8个月以上随访腰椎不稳症50例,均有顽固性或反复下腰痛,有单侧或单侧为主的下肢放射痛,X线片及CT片显示腰椎不稳。采用经椎间孔入路单枚融合器椎间融合,结合单侧或双侧椎弓根钉固定治疗。根据固定方法不同,分为单侧固定组和双侧固定组。单侧固定组20例22间隙,男8例,女12例;年龄26-66岁;峡部裂性Ⅰ度滑脱2例,退行性滑脱8例,腰椎间盘突出症10例;融合部位L3,41例,L4,512例,L5S19例。双侧固定组30例30间隙,男14例,女16例;年龄41-62岁;峡部裂型Ⅰ度滑脱4例,退行性滑脱14例,腰椎间盘突出症12例;融合部位L3,43例,L4,515例,L5S112例。分析两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、并发症情况,并对其椎间隙高度、前凸角的变化、融合率及临床疗效等进行比较。结果：两组患者术后切口均Ⅰ期愈合,腰痛基本消失,下肢放射痛均消失,无感染、硬脊膜损伤等发生。单侧固定组术后无医源性神经症状,双侧固定组术后1例足下垂。所有患者获得随访,时间8-18个月,平均（10.8±4.3）个月。临床疗效按照JOA评分好转率（RIS）评定,两组均获得较好临床疗效,且两组融合率比较差异无统计学意义,两种内固定治疗方法均能有效增加病变椎间隙高度。单侧固定组较双侧固定组手术时间更短,术中出血和术后引流量更少。结论：只要严格掌握手术适应证,注意手术操作技巧,经椎间孔入路单枚融合器加单侧椎弓根钉治疗腰椎不稳症具有创伤小、出血少、恢复快、经济实用等优点。