Suppr超能文献

用于L5/S1融合手术的前路腰椎椎间融合术(ALIF)或经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(TLIF)——恢复生理对线的最佳方法是什么?

Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) or Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) for Fusion Surgery in L5/S1 - What Is the Best Way to Restore a physiological Alignment?

作者信息

Platz Uwe, Halm Henry, Thomsen Björn, Pecsi Ferenc, Köszegvary Mark, Bürger Nina, Berlin Clara, Quante Markus

机构信息

UniversitätsCentrum für Orthopädie, Unfall- und Plastische Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany.

Wirbelsäulenchirurgie mit Skoliosezentrum, Schön Klinik Neustadt, Neustadt in Holstein, Germany.

出版信息

Z Orthop Unfall. 2022 Dec;160(6):646-656. doi: 10.1055/a-1560-3106. Epub 2021 Sep 8.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective single center cohort study with prospective collected data from an institutional spine registry.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether restoration of lordosis L5/S1 is possible with both anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and to find out which technique is superior to recreate lordosis in L5/S1.

METHODS

Seventy-seven patients with ALIF and seventy-nine with TLIF L5/S1 were included. Operation time, estimated blood loss), and complications were evaluated. Segmental lordosis L5/S1 and L4/5, overall lordosis, and proximal lordosis (L1 to L4) were measured in X-rays before and after surgery. Oswesery disability index and EQ-5D were assessed before surgery, and 3 and 12 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Mean operation time was 176.9 minutes for ALIF and 195.7 minutes for TLIF (p = 0.048). Estimated blood loss was 249.2 cc for ALIF and 362.9 cc for TLIF (p = 0.005). In terms of complications, only a difference in dural tears were found (TLIF 6, ALIF none; p = 0.014). Lordosis L5/S1 increased in the ALIF group (15.8 to 24.6°; p < 0.001), whereas no difference was noted in the TLIF group (18.4 to 19.4°; p = 0.360). Clinical results showed significant improvement in the Oswesery disability index (ALIF: 43 to 21.9, TLIF: 45.2 to 23.0) and EQ-5D (ALIF: 0.494 to 0.732, TLIF: 0.393 to 0.764) after 12 months in both groups, without differences between the groups.

CONCLUSION

ALIF and TLIF are comparable methods for performing fusion at L5/S1, with good clinical outcomes and comparable rates of complications. However, there is only a limited potential for recreating lordosis at L5/S1 with a TLIF.

摘要

研究设计

一项回顾性单中心队列研究,其数据前瞻性收集自一个机构脊柱登记处。

目的

确定前路腰椎椎间融合术(ALIF)和经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(TLIF)是否都能恢复L5/S1节段的前凸,并找出哪种技术在重建L5/S1节段前凸方面更具优势。

方法

纳入77例行L5/S1节段ALIF手术的患者和79例行L5/S1节段TLIF手术的患者。评估手术时间、估计失血量及并发症情况。在术前和术后X线片上测量L5/S1和L4/5节段的节段性前凸、整体前凸以及近端前凸(L1至L4)。在术前、术后3个月和12个月评估奥斯威斯利功能障碍指数和EQ-5D量表。

结果

ALIF组的平均手术时间为176.9分钟,TLIF组为195.7分钟(p = 0.048)。ALIF组的估计失血量为249.2 cc,TLIF组为362.9 cc(p = 0.005)。在并发症方面,仅发现硬膜撕裂存在差异(TLIF组6例,ALIF组无;p = 0.014)。ALIF组L5/S1节段的前凸增加(从15.8°至24.6°;p < 0.001),而TLIF组未发现差异(从18.4°至19.4°;p = 0.360)。临床结果显示,两组在术后12个月时,奥斯威斯利功能障碍指数(ALIF组:从43降至21.9,TLIF组:从45.2降至23.0)和EQ-5D量表(ALIF组:从0.494升至0.732,TLIF组:从0.393升至0.764)均有显著改善,两组之间无差异。

结论

ALIF和TLIF是在L5/S1节段进行融合的可比方法,临床效果良好,并发症发生率相当。然而,TLIF重建L5/S1节段前凸的潜力有限。

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