Wild Michael H, Glees Markus, Plieschnegger Corinna, Wenda Klaus
Klinik für Unfall- und Handchirurgie, Heinrich Heine Universitätsklinikum, Moorenstrasse 5, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007 Jul;127(5):335-43. doi: 10.1007/s00402-006-0264-9. Epub 2006 Dec 13.
It is well known that during posterior stabilization of the spinal column conventionally open methods are predominantly used. However, in this study a minimally invasive method was chosen to decrease the morbidity of the operative access and to protect the paravertebral musculature, which serves as an important spine-stabilizing factor during posterior stabilization. The aims of this retrospective non-randomized case-control study were to compare the clinical and radiological results of minimally invasive on the one hand and conventionally open posterior surgery on the other with each other and to measure the loss of correction after purely posterior stabilization.
Twenty-one consecutive non-randomized patients with thoracolumbar vertebral body fractures, which had been stabilized posteriorly without any intervertebral body fusion between 1996 and 1997, and without any neurological symptoms, were examined retrospectively more than 5 years after trauma. Eleven patients had been treated conventionally open and 10 patients minimally invasive. As methods of evaluation, the intra- and postoperative amount of blood loss, the X-ray time, the Hannover-Spine-Score, the SF-36 Health Questionnaire and radiological assessment of the bisegmental wedge and vertebral body angle were made use of.
The blood loss was significantly lower among those patients who had been operated in a minimally invasive way. The operating time, the time of X-ray exposure and the loss of correction were identical in both groups. The first year after implant removal, the loss of correction was the highest with 2.1 degrees for the body angle and 6.86 degrees for the bisegmental wedge angle. Neither in the Hannover-Spine-Score nor in the SF-36 Health Questionnaire did both groups show a difference. A correlation between the loss of correction and the clinical results could not be demonstrated.
The minimally invasive posterior stabilization leads to lower blood loss in comparison to the conventionally open method and can be carried out without any special effort limited to A-fractures without any neurological symptoms.
众所周知,在脊柱后路稳定手术中,传统上主要采用开放手术方法。然而,在本研究中,我们选择了一种微创方法,以降低手术入路的发病率,并保护椎旁肌肉组织,该组织在脊柱后路稳定手术中是一个重要的脊柱稳定因素。这项回顾性非随机病例对照研究的目的是,一方面比较微创与传统开放后路手术的临床和影像学结果,另一方面测量单纯后路稳定术后的矫正丢失情况。
回顾性研究了1996年至1997年间连续21例非随机的胸腰椎椎体骨折患者,这些患者均接受了后路稳定手术,未进行任何椎体间融合,且无任何神经症状,在创伤后5年以上进行了检查。11例患者接受了传统开放手术,10例患者接受了微创手术。作为评估方法,使用了术中及术后失血量、X线检查时间、汉诺威脊柱评分、SF-36健康问卷以及双节段楔形角和椎体角的影像学评估。
微创方式手术的患者失血量明显较低。两组的手术时间、X线暴露时间和矫正丢失情况相同。取出植入物后的第一年,矫正丢失最高,椎体角为2.1度,双节段楔形角为6.86度。在汉诺威脊柱评分和SF-36健康问卷中,两组均未显示出差异。未发现矫正丢失与临床结果之间存在相关性。
与传统开放方法相比,微创后路稳定手术导致失血量更低,并且可以在不做任何特殊努力的情况下,仅适用于无任何神经症状的A型骨折。