Yoo Hee Jun, Park Jin Hoon, Seong Han Yu, Roh Sung Woo
Department of Neurological Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Neurological Surgery, Gangneung Asan Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Gangneung, Korea.
Korean J Neurotrauma. 2017 Oct;13(2):124-129. doi: 10.13004/kjnt.2017.13.2.124. Epub 2017 Oct 31.
Posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy is used to relieve cervical nerve root compression caused by a laterally herniated soft cervical disc or spondylotic spur and its several advantages and disadvantages compared with anterior cervical discectomy were reported. We compared surgical results between soft ruptured disc and foraminal stenosis in posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy.
We performed a retrospective review of 47 patients performed single level posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy for cervical radiculopathy between 2004 and 2012. We divided these patients into two groups, Group A: 27 patients for ruptured disc and Group B: 20 patients for foraminal stenosis and analyzed the demographic factors, amount of medial facetectomy, postoperative instability with neck pain and clinical outcomes.
According to the modified Odom's criteria, laminoforaminotomy for the ruptured disc showed 92.6% excellent results and 7.4% good results. For the foraminal stenosis, it was 55.0% excellent and 25.0% good results, which was statistically significant. However when both groups were included, overall success rate showed 91.5%. The extent of medial facetectomy for ruptured disc (31.2%) was smaller than for stenosis (48.8%) and it was statistically significant. Thirteen patients complained of postoperative neck pain for 2 months. There was no instability on dynamic X-ray until the last follow up period and we had two cases complications (4.3%).
Although the extent of facetectomy for ruptured disc was smaller than it for stenosis, posterior laminoforaminotomy for the ruptured disc showed the better outcomes than foraminal stenosis.
后路颈椎板间孔切开术用于缓解外侧型软性颈椎间盘突出或骨赘导致的颈神经根受压,并报告了其与颈椎前路椎间盘切除术相比的若干优缺点。我们比较了后路颈椎板间孔切开术中软性椎间盘破裂和椎间孔狭窄的手术结果。
我们对2004年至2012年间因神经根型颈椎病接受单节段后路颈椎板间孔切开术的47例患者进行了回顾性研究。我们将这些患者分为两组,A组:27例软性椎间盘破裂患者;B组:20例椎间孔狭窄患者,并分析了人口统计学因素、内侧关节突切除量、术后颈部疼痛伴不稳定情况及临床结果。
根据改良的奥多姆标准,软性椎间盘破裂行板间孔切开术的优良率为92.6%,良好率为7.4%。对于椎间孔狭窄,优良率为55.0%,良好率为25.0%,差异有统计学意义。然而,当两组都纳入时,总体成功率为91.5%。软性椎间盘破裂的内侧关节突切除范围(31.2%)小于狭窄组(48.8%),差异有统计学意义。13例患者术后颈部疼痛2个月。直到最后随访期,动态X线检查均未发现不稳定情况,我们有2例并发症(4.3%)。
尽管软性椎间盘破裂的关节突切除范围小于狭窄组,但软性椎间盘破裂的后路板间孔切开术的效果优于椎间孔狭窄。