Sucato Daniel J, Elerson Emily
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Texas at Southwestern Medical Center, Texas Scottish Rite Hospital, Dallas, Texas 75219, USA.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Sep 15;28(18):2176-80. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000084641.96288.8D.
Retrospective review of all patients who had a single stage thoracoscopic anterior release and spine fusion followed by a posterior spinal fusion with posterior instrumentation.
To analyze the results and complications of patients undergoing a thoracoscopic anterior release and fusion comparing those performed prone with those in the lateral position.
The lateral position has traditionally been used when performing a thoracoscopic anterior spinal release and fusion during a single-stage anterior spinal release and fusion/posterior spinal fusion with instrumentation. Although some have reported the thoracoscopic technique in the prone position, there are no direct comparison studies between the prone and lateral position.
A retrospective review was performed of all patients who had a single stage thoracoscopic anterior spinal release and fusion and posterior spinal fusion with instrumentation from a single institution. The medical record was reviewed to determine demographic data, positioning of the patient, levels fused, anesthesia time, operative time, chest tube drainage, and complications. Radiographs were reviewed to determine preoperative curve magnitude and postoperative curve correction. The Student t test was used to compare groups and statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05.
There were 16 patients in the prone group and 27 in the lateral group. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis was the most common diagnosis in both groups. All patients had a single-stage thoracoscopic anterior spinal release and fusion/posterior spinal fusion with instrumentation. In the prone group, the patient was positioned prone on a Hall-Relton frame or roll (small patients) for both the anterior spinal release and fusion and posterior spinal fusion with instrumentation. There were no significant differences between the prone and lateral groups with respect to age, gender, height, weight, and curve magnitude (73.8 degrees vs. 71.5 degrees ). There were fewer fused anterior levels in the prone group (5.3 vs. 6.2) (P = 0.05). When analyzing parameters that reflect potential difficulties imposed by the prone position, there were no statistically significant differences noted between groups, although there was a trend toward less anterior operative time per disc (24.3 vs. 25.9 minutes/disc), greater blood loss/anterior disc level (33.5 vs. 26.8 cc/disc), greater total chest tube drainage (445 vs. 419 cc), and less days with the chest tube in place (2.2 vs. 2.3 days) for the prone group when compared to the lateral group. There were statistically significant differences between the prone and lateral groups with respect to anesthesia preparation time (42.8 vs. 64.8 minutes), delay between the completion of the anterior procedure and the start of the posterior procedure (11.8 vs. 69.5 minutes), and the incidence of complications related to the use of single-lung ventilation (0 vs. 14.8%)(P < 0.05). Patients in the prone group required less time on oxygen after surgery (34.8 vs. 51.6 hours) and were discharged home earlier (4.6 vs. 5.5 days) (P < 0.05).
A thoracoscopic anterior spinal release and fusion in the prone position appears to achieve the same results as when performed in the lateral position for pediatric spinal deformity. The prone position saves time in the operating room due to decreasing the time needed by the anesthesiologists and the transition time between the anterior and posterior procedures. Potentially serious complications related to single-lung ventilation are avoided with bilateral-lung ventilation in the prone position.
对所有接受一期胸腔镜前路松解和脊柱融合术,随后进行后路脊柱融合及后路内固定的患者进行回顾性研究。
分析接受胸腔镜前路松解和融合术的患者的结果及并发症,比较俯卧位与侧卧位手术的情况。
在一期前路脊柱松解融合术/后路脊柱融合及内固定术中,传统上采用侧卧位进行胸腔镜前路脊柱松解和融合术。尽管有人报道了俯卧位的胸腔镜技术,但尚无俯卧位与侧卧位之间的直接对比研究。
对来自单一机构的所有接受一期胸腔镜前路脊柱松解融合术及后路脊柱融合内固定术的患者进行回顾性研究。查阅病历以确定人口统计学数据、患者体位、融合节段、麻醉时间、手术时间、胸腔闭式引流量及并发症情况。复查X线片以确定术前侧弯角度及术后侧弯矫正情况。采用学生t检验比较两组数据,统计学显著性定义为P < 0.05。
俯卧位组有16例患者,侧卧位组有27例患者。青少年特发性脊柱侧弯是两组中最常见的诊断。所有患者均接受了一期胸腔镜前路脊柱松解融合术/后路脊柱融合及内固定术。在俯卧位组,患者在进行前路脊柱松解融合术及后路脊柱融合内固定术时均俯卧于Hall-Relton框架或滚轴(体型较小的患者)上。俯卧位组和侧卧位组在年龄、性别、身高、体重及侧弯角度(73.8度对71.5度)方面无显著差异。俯卧位组融合的前路节段较少(5.3个对6.2个)(P = 0.05)。在分析反映俯卧位可能带来困难的参数时,两组之间无统计学显著差异,尽管与侧卧位组相比,俯卧位组每个椎间盘的前路手术时间有减少趋势(24.3分钟/椎间盘对25.9分钟/椎间盘)、每个前路椎间盘节段的失血量更多(33.5毫升/椎间盘对26.8毫升/椎间盘)、胸腔闭式引流总量更多(445毫升对419毫升)、胸腔闭式引流管留置天数更少(2.2天对2.3天)。俯卧位组和侧卧位组在麻醉准备时间(42.8分钟对64.8分钟)、前路手术完成至后路手术开始的间隔时间(11.8分钟对69.5分钟)以及与单肺通气相关的并发症发生率(0对14.8%)方面存在统计学显著差异(P < 0.05)。俯卧位组患者术后吸氧时间较短(34.8小时对51.6小时)且出院较早(4.6天对5.5天)(P < 0.05)。
对于小儿脊柱畸形,俯卧位胸腔镜前路脊柱松解融合术似乎与侧卧位手术效果相同。由于减少了麻醉医生所需时间以及前后路手术之间的转换时间,俯卧位节省了手术室时间。俯卧位双侧肺通气避免了与单肺通气相关的潜在严重并发症。