Kwon Brian K, Fisher Charles G, Boyd Michael C, Cobb John, Jebson Hilary, Noonan Vanessa, Wing Peter, Dvorak Marcel F
Combined Neurosurgical and Orthopaedic Spine Program, Department of Orthopaedics University of British Columbia; V anada.
J Neurosurg Spine. 2007 Jul;7(1):1-12. doi: 10.3171/SPI-07/07/001.
Unilateral facet injuries can be treated with either anterior or posterior fixation techniques with reportedly good outcomes. The two approaches have not been directly compared, however, and consensus is lacking as to which is the optimal method. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether acute postoperative morbidity differed between anteriorly and posteriorly treated patients with unilateral facet injuries.
Forty-two patients were prospectively randomized to undergo either anterior cervical discectomy and fusion or posterior fixation. The primary outcome measure was the postoperative time required to achieve a predefined set of discharge criteria. Secondary outcome measures included postoperative pain, wound infections, radiographically demonstrated fusion and alignment, and patient-reported outcome measures.
The median time to achieve the discharge criteria was 2.75 and 3.5 days for anterior and posterior groups, respectively, a difference that did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.096). Compared with those treated using posterior fixation, anteriorly treated patients exhibited somewhat less postoperative pain, a lower rate of wound infection, a higher rate of radiographically demonstrated union, and better radiographically proven alignment. Nonetheless, the anterior approach was accompanied by a risk of swallowing difficulty in the early postoperative period. Patient-reported outcome measures did not reveal a difference between anterior and posterior fixation procedures.
This prospective randomized controlled trial provided level 1 evidence that both the anterior and posterior fixation approaches appear to be valid treatment options. Although statistical significance was not reached in the primary outcome measure, some secondary outcome measures favored anterior fixation and others favored posterior treatment for unilateral facet injuries.
单侧小关节损伤可采用前路或后路固定技术进行治疗,据报道效果良好。然而,这两种方法尚未进行直接比较,对于哪种是最佳方法也缺乏共识。本研究的主要目的是确定单侧小关节损伤患者前路和后路治疗后的急性术后发病率是否存在差异。
42例患者被前瞻性随机分为接受颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术或后路固定术。主要结局指标是达到一组预定义出院标准所需的术后时间。次要结局指标包括术后疼痛、伤口感染、影像学显示的融合和对线情况以及患者报告的结局指标。
前路组和后路组达到出院标准的中位时间分别为2.75天和3.5天,差异无统计学意义(p = 0.096)。与后路固定治疗的患者相比,前路治疗的患者术后疼痛稍轻,伤口感染率较低,影像学显示融合率较高,影像学证实的对线情况较好。尽管如此,前路手术在术后早期有吞咽困难的风险。患者报告的结局指标未显示前路和后路固定手术之间存在差异。
这项前瞻性随机对照试验提供了1级证据,表明前路和后路固定方法似乎都是有效的治疗选择。尽管在主要结局指标上未达到统计学意义,但一些次要结局指标支持前路固定,而另一些则支持单侧小关节损伤的后路治疗。