Suppr超能文献

多节段颈椎病脊髓病手术治疗中 3 种重建技术的比较。

Comparison of 3 reconstructive techniques in the surgical management of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Changzheng Hospital, Shanghai, China.

出版信息

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Nov 1;37(23):E1450-8. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826c72b4.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective comparative study was performed in patients with 3-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes, radiological parameters, and complication incidence of 3 reconstructive techniques after the anterior decompression of multilevel CSM.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There has been growing interest in combination of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) for the treatment of multilevel CSM in recent years. However, the clinical efficacy and radiological outcomes of the hybrid decompression and fusion (HDF) have rarely been investigated.

METHODS

A total of 180 consecutive patients with 3-level CSM undergoing the anterior decompression and fusion procedures from January 2003 to July 2010 were retrospectively investigated. According to various reconstructive techniques, the patients were divided into 3 groups: HDF, ACDF, and ACCF groups. The clinical effects and improvements of cervical and segmental lordosis in each group were assessed. In addition, the fusion rate, postoperative complications, and radiographical adjacent-level changes regarding each group were also evaluated.

RESULTS

No statistical differences in clinical effects, restoration of cervical lordosis, and incidences of postoperative complications were found between the HDF and ACDF groups (P > 0.05). The ACCF group has achieved clinical effects similar to the ACDF or HDF group (P > 0.05), but it had more bleeding, lower fusion rate, and higher incidences of postoperative complications compared with the ACDF or HDF group (P < 0.05). The improvements of the cervical and segmental lordosis in the ACCF group were significantly less than the ACDF or HDF group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in radiographical adjacent-level changes among the 3 groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The HDF can be considered an effective and safe alternative procedure compared with ACDF in the treatment of the multilevel CSM, and ACCF should be the last option.

摘要

研究设计

对 3 水平颈椎脊髓病(CSM)患者进行了回顾性对比研究。

目的

比较 3 种重建技术在前路减压多节段 CSM 后临床效果、影像学参数和并发症发生率。

背景资料概要

近年来,人们对前路颈椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)和前路颈椎椎体次全切除融合术(ACCF)联合治疗多节段 CSM 的兴趣日益浓厚。然而,混合减压融合术(HDF)的临床疗效和影像学结果鲜有报道。

方法

回顾性调查了 2003 年 1 月至 2010 年 7 月期间接受前路减压融合术的 180 例 3 水平 CSM 连续患者。根据不同的重建技术,将患者分为 3 组:HDF 组、ACDF 组和 ACCF 组。评估每组的临床疗效和颈椎及节段前凸角度的改善情况。此外,还评估了各组的融合率、术后并发症和影像学相邻节段变化。

结果

HDF 组和 ACDF 组在临床疗效、颈椎前凸角度的恢复和术后并发症发生率方面无统计学差异(P > 0.05)。ACCF 组的临床疗效与 ACDF 组或 HDF 组相似(P > 0.05),但与 ACDF 组或 HDF 组相比,出血量更大、融合率更低、术后并发症发生率更高(P < 0.05)。ACCF 组颈椎和节段前凸角度的改善明显小于 ACDF 组或 HDF 组(P < 0.05)。3 组影像学相邻节段变化无统计学差异(P > 0.05)。

结论

与 ACDF 相比,HDF 是治疗多节段 CSM 的一种有效、安全的替代方法,而 ACCF 应作为最后选择。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验