Department of Orthopedics, Xinqiao Hospital, Third Military Medical University, 183 Xinqiao Street, Shapingba District, Chongqing, 400037, China.
Eur Spine J. 2019 Oct;28(10):2380-2389. doi: 10.1007/s00586-019-06073-3. Epub 2019 Jul 22.
The surgical treatment of lower cervical facet dislocation is controversial. The objective of this study was to compare the surgical trauma and clinical results of a novel anterior-only approach and with those of the conventional posterior-anterior approach to obtain an optimal method to treat lower cervical facet dislocation.
From January 2012 to December 2017, 93 patients with lower cervical facet dislocations were enrolled in the study and divided into two groups as follows: 63 conventional patients who enrolled between January 2014 and December 2017 were included in the anterior-only approach group, and 30 conventional patients who enrolled between January 2012 and December 2013 were included in the posterior-anterior approach group. For the anterior-only approach group, two reduction techniques, including Caspar pins kyphotic paramedian distraction and anterior facetectomy, were used in sequence if the former technique failed. The parameters were as follows: the operation time, the intraoperative blood loss, the number of fixed segments, the fusion rate, and the improvement in the ASIA grade and JOA score.
All patients in the anterior-only approach group were successfully reduced by the two techniques. The mean operation time in the posterior-anterior approach group (274.0 ± 114.7 min) was significantly longer than that in the anterior-only approach group (88.6 ± 35.0 min) (p = 0.000). The mean blood loss during the surgery and the number of fixed segments in the posterior-anterior approach group (275.0 ± 183.2 ml; 1.4 ± 0.7, respectively) were significantly greater than those in the anterior-only approach group (92.5 ± 84.0 ml, p = 0.000; 1.2 ± 0.5, p = 0.030, respectively). A 100% fusion rate was observed in both groups after 12-month follow-up. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the improvement in the ASIA grade (p = 0.900) or JOA score (p = 0.717).
Compared with the conventional posterior-anterior approach, the novel anterior-only approach with two reduction techniques, including Caspar pins kyphotic paramedian distraction and anterior facetectomy, achieved a 100% reduction success rate and induced less surgical trauma, indicating that this method can be recommended as an alternative for lower cervical facet dislocation. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
下颈椎小关节脱位的手术治疗存在争议。本研究的目的是比较新型前路手术与传统前后路手术的手术创伤和临床结果,以获得治疗下颈椎小关节脱位的最佳方法。
2012 年 1 月至 2017 年 12 月,93 例下颈椎小关节脱位患者纳入本研究,并分为两组:2014 年 1 月至 2017 年 12 月期间纳入的 63 例常规患者纳入前路组,2012 年 1 月至 2013 年 12 月期间纳入的 30 例常规患者纳入前后路组。前路组采用两种复位技术,包括 Caspar 针过伸位偏侧撑开和前路小关节切除,如果前者复位失败,则采用后者。比较两组的手术时间、术中出血量、固定节段数、融合率、ASIA 分级和 JOA 评分改善情况。
前路组所有患者均通过两种技术成功复位。后路组的平均手术时间(274.0±114.7min)明显长于前路组(88.6±35.0min)(p=0.000)。后路组的术中出血量(275.0±183.2ml)和固定节段数(1.4±0.7)明显大于前路组(92.5±84.0ml,p=0.000;1.2±0.5,p=0.030)。两组患者在 12 个月随访时均达到 100%融合率。两组患者的 ASIA 分级(p=0.900)和 JOA 评分改善(p=0.717)差异均无统计学意义。
与传统前后路手术相比,新型前路手术联合 Caspar 针过伸位偏侧撑开和前路小关节切除两种复位技术可达到 100%的复位成功率,并减少手术创伤,可作为治疗下颈椎小关节脱位的替代方法。这些幻灯片可在电子补充材料中获取。