Zeng Zhong-You, Wu Peng, Mao Ke-Ya, Sun De-Tao, Yan Wei-Feng, Chen Guo-Jun, Song Yong-Xing, Zhang Jian-Qiao, Tang Hong-Chao
Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2015 Apr;28(4):306-12.
To compare the advantages and disadvantages of unilateral pedicle screw fixation plus lumbar interbody fusion and unilateral pedicle screw fixation combined with contralateral translaminar facet screw fixation plus lumbar interbody fusion in treating single segmental lower lumbar vertebra diseases.
Sixty-two patients with single segmental lower lumbar vertebra disease who received treatment between January 2008 and June 2009. These patients were consisted of 16 males and 46 females, ranging in age from 27 to 72 years old, with a mean age of 51.6 years old. Among these patients, lumbar degenerative disease had in 22 patients, recurrence of lumbar intervertebral disc protrusion in 13 patients, lumbar intervertebral disc protrusion accompany with spinal canal stenosis in 12 patients, massive lumbar intervertebral disc protrusion in 5 patients and lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with degree I in 10 patients. The lesions occurred at L3,4 segment in 5 patients, at L4,5 segment in 42 patients, and at L5S1 segment in 15 patients. Thirty patients underwent unilateral pedicle screw fixation (unilateral screw fixation group, group A) and thirty-two patients received unilateral pedicle screw fixation combined with contralateral translaminar facet screw fixation (bilateral screw fixation group, group B). Lumbar interbody fusion with intervertebral cages was also performed in all patients. Incision length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative wound drainage were compared between two groups. Loosening or breakage of internal fixations, displacement of intervertebral cages and interbody fusion conditions were observed in each group. Preoperative and postoperative intervertebral height, coronal and sagittal Cobb angle and wound pain at 72 h after operation were compared between two groups. The Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scoring system was used to evaluate the cinical effects.
Neither wound infection, skin necrosis, nerve root or cauda equia injury, nor worsened neurological dysfunction in the lower limb occurred in each group. There were no significant differences in incision length, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative wound drainage between two groups. The operation time in group A was significantly shorter than that of group B (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in visual analogue scale value of the wound pain at postoperative 72 h between two groups (P > 0.05). All patients were followed up for 12-48 months,with a mean of 27.5 months. The intervertebral height of all patients had obviously recovered at 5 days after operation, furthermore, at the final follow-up, it still had well maintained. During follow-up, no pedicle screw and/or translaminar facet screw loosening, displacement or breakage and displacement of intervertebral cages were found. The lumbar interbody fusion rate was 96.7% and 96.9% in group A and group B, respectively, and there was no significant difference between two groups (P > 0.05). JOA score of all patients got obviously improved after operation (P < 0.05) and there was no significant difference between two groups (P > 0.05).
Both unilateral pedicle screw fixation plus lumbar interbody fusion and unilateral pedicle screw fixation combined with contralateral translaminar facet screw fixation plus lumbar interbody fusion have advantages of small incision, minimal invasion, simple operation, reliable stability, high interbody fusion rate,rapid recovery, encouraging clinical effects and less complications. Compared with unilateral pedicle screw fixation combined with contralateral translaminar facet screw fixation, the operation of unilateral pedicle screw fixation is simpler and can avoid using special equipments. Therefore, unilateral pedicle screw fixation plus lumbar interbody fusion can be used in treating single-segmental lower lumbar vertebra diseases under the precondition of strictly grasping indications for surgery and improving surgical skills.
比较单侧椎弓根螺钉固定联合腰椎椎间融合术与单侧椎弓根螺钉固定联合对侧经椎板关节突螺钉固定加腰椎椎间融合术治疗单节段下腰椎疾病的优缺点。
选取2008年1月至2009年6月间接受治疗的62例单节段下腰椎疾病患者。其中男性16例,女性46例,年龄27~72岁,平均年龄51.6岁。患者中,腰椎退变性疾病22例,腰椎间盘突出症复发13例,腰椎间盘突出症合并椎管狭窄12例,巨大腰椎间盘突出症5例,Ⅰ度腰椎退变性滑脱10例。病变位于L3、4节段5例,L4、5节段42例,L5S1节段15例。30例行单侧椎弓根螺钉固定(单侧螺钉固定组,A组),32例行单侧椎弓根螺钉固定联合对侧经椎板关节突螺钉固定(双侧螺钉固定组,B组)。所有患者均行椎间融合器腰椎椎间融合术。比较两组切口长度、手术时间、术中出血量及术后伤口引流量。观察每组内固定松动或断裂、椎间融合器移位及椎间融合情况。比较两组术前及术后椎间高度、冠状面和矢状面Cobb角及术后72 h伤口疼痛情况。采用日本骨科学会(JOA)评分系统评估临床疗效。
两组均未发生伤口感染、皮肤坏死、神经根或马尾神经损伤,下肢神经功能障碍也未加重。两组切口长度、术中出血量及术后伤口引流量比较,差异无统计学意义。A组手术时间明显短于B组(P<0.05)。两组术后72 h伤口疼痛视觉模拟评分值比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。所有患者均随访12~48个月,平均27.5个月。所有患者术后5 d椎间高度均明显恢复,且末次随访时仍维持良好。随访期间,未发现椎弓根螺钉和/或经椎板关节突螺钉松动、移位或断裂及椎间融合器移位。A组和B组腰椎椎间融合率分别为96.7%和96.9%,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。所有患者术后JOA评分均明显改善(P<0.05),两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
单侧椎弓根螺钉固定联合腰椎椎间融合术与单侧椎弓根螺钉固定联合对侧经椎板关节突螺钉固定加腰椎椎间融合术均具有切口小、创伤小、操作简单、稳定性可靠、椎间融合率高、恢复快、临床效果满意及并发症少等优点。与单侧椎弓根螺钉固定联合对侧经椎板关节突螺钉固定相比,单侧椎弓根螺钉固定操作更简单,且可避免使用特殊设备。因此,在严格掌握手术适应证并提高手术技巧的前提下,单侧椎弓根螺钉固定联合腰椎椎间融合术可用于治疗单节段下腰椎疾病。