Thomé Claudius, Leheta Olaf, Krauss Joachim K, Zevgaridis Dimitris
Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Mannheim, Faculty for Clinical Medicine of the Ruprecht-Karls-University of Heidelberg, Germany.
J Neurosurg Spine. 2006 Jan;4(1):1-9. doi: 10.3171/spi.2006.4.1.1.
The authors compare clinical outcome and fusion rates after iliac crest autograft (ICAG)- and rectangular titanium cage (RTC)-augmented fusion in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy (ACD).
One hundred consecutive patients with 127 levels of cervical disc disease refractory to conservative treatment were randomized into one of the two treatment groups (ICAG/RTC fusion). The visual analog scale was used by the patient to rate overall pain and head, neck, arm, and donor site pain separately. Myelopathy was documented according to Japanese Orthopaedic Association and Nurick grading systems. Outcome was analyzed using Odom criteria, the 36-Item Short Form (SF-36), and Patient Satisfaction Index scales. Fusion rates were assessed on standard and flexion-extension radiographs. Follow-up data of at least 12 months' duration were available for 95 patients. More residual overall pain after 12 months was documented in patients who underwent ICAG fusion (3.3 +/- 2.5 [ICAG] and 2.2 +/- 2.4 [RTC]; p < 0.05). Although arm and head pain were minimal in both groups, neck pain proved to be the predominant symptom (2.7 +/- 2.5 [ICAG] and 1.9 +/- 2.1 [RTC]), which resolved in only 67 and 48% of RTC- and ICAG-treated patients, respectively (p < 0.05). Myelopathy improved comparably in both groups. Regardless of increased pain in ICAG-treated patients, PSI and SF-36 scores were not significantly different between groups (only four [8%] of 47 ICAG-treated patients and five [10%] of 48 RTC-treated patients were unsatisfied). Good to excellent functional recovery according to Odom criteria was observed in 75 and 79% of ICAG- and RTC-treated patients, respectively. Fusion rates were 81 and 74%, respectively (p = 0.51).
Fusion rates and clinical outcome at 12 months after ACD were comparable between patients who underwent ICAG and RTC fusion. The use of rectangular cages, however, avoids donor site morbidity and reduces overall pain and, thus, seems to be an advantageous treatment alternative.
作者比较了接受颈椎前路椎间盘切除(ACD)患者在髂嵴自体骨移植(ICAG)和矩形钛笼(RTC)增强融合后的临床疗效和融合率。
将100例连续的、127个节段保守治疗无效的颈椎间盘疾病患者随机分为两个治疗组之一(ICAG/RTC融合)。患者使用视觉模拟量表分别对总体疼痛以及头部、颈部、手臂和供区疼痛进行评分。根据日本骨科协会和Nurick分级系统记录脊髓病情况。使用奥多姆标准、36项简明健康状况调查(SF-36)和患者满意度指数量表分析结果。在标准和屈伸位X线片上评估融合率。95例患者有至少12个月的随访数据。ICAG融合患者在术后12个月记录到更多的总体残留疼痛(ICAG组为3.3±2.5,RTC组为2.2±2.4;p<0.05)。虽然两组患者的手臂和头部疼痛均较轻,但颈部疼痛是主要症状(ICAG组为2.7±2.5,RTC组为1.9±2.1),在接受RTC和ICAG治疗的患者中,分别只有67%和48%的患者疼痛得到缓解(p<0.05)。两组患者的脊髓病改善情况相当。尽管ICAG治疗的患者疼痛增加,但两组之间的患者满意度指数和SF-36评分无显著差异(47例ICAG治疗患者中只有4例[8%]、48例RTC治疗患者中只有5例[10%]不满意)。根据奥多姆标准,ICAG和RTC治疗患者的功能恢复良好至优秀的比例分别为75%和79%。融合率分别为81%和74%(p = 0.51)。
接受ICAG和RTC融合的患者在ACD术后12个月的融合率和临床疗效相当。然而,使用矩形钛笼可避免供区并发症,并减轻总体疼痛,因此似乎是一种更具优势的治疗选择。