Suppr超能文献

前路颈椎间盘切除不融合术:长期疗效

Anterior cervical discectomy without fusion: long-term results.

作者信息

Robertson J T, Johnson S D

出版信息

Clin Neurosurg. 1980;27:440-9. doi: 10.1093/neurosurgery/27.cn_suppl_1.440.

Abstract

The long-term follow-up of patients operated by one surgeon by simple anterior discectomy without fusion have been presented. The results are much better in patients with soft extruded discs than with painful discs or degenerative discs with varying degrees of radiculopathy or myelopathy. The same statement can be made for the posterior approach. The anterior approach appears to be superior for soft central extruded discs compressing the spinal cord. There appears to be a greater incidence of another disc at an adjacent level with the anterior approach than when the operation is done posteriorly. The anterior operation is an easier surgical procedure than the posterior operation in the average surgeon's hands; otherwise, it would not be as popular as it is. Interbody fusion has no long-term advantages over simple discectomy. Complications of the anterior approach, particularly with fusion, appear greater than the limited posterior approach. Rather than continue the controversy over the anterior vs. the posterior approach, it is recommended that each surgical case be evaluated to determine the preferred approach. With the passage of time, I have preferred to operate the C4, 5, and 6 ruptured discs anteriorly, as well as all central discs or hard central cervical spondylotic bars. This seems preferable to the extensive laminectomy recommended by many for spondylotic myelopathy. However, the anterior approach has been limited to two spaces rather than multiple spaces. On the rare occasions when an extensive decompression of the cervical canal is indicated, the posterior approach has been chosen. In addition, the C7 or rare T1 soft ruptured disc have been done posteriorly. When there is a doubt about the diagnosis, e.g., when a tumor is suspected or a multiple root defect associated with atypical findings on myelography, the posterior approach is preferred.

摘要

本文报告了由一位外科医生采用单纯前路椎间盘切除术且不进行融合手术的患者的长期随访情况。对于软性椎间盘突出的患者,其结果要比伴有疼痛性椎间盘或不同程度神经根病或脊髓病的退变椎间盘患者好得多。后路手术也是如此。对于压迫脊髓的软性中央型椎间盘突出,前路手术似乎更具优势。与后路手术相比,前路手术相邻节段出现另一处椎间盘病变的发生率似乎更高。在普通外科医生手中,前路手术比后路手术操作更简便;否则,它不会像现在这样受欢迎。椎间融合术与单纯椎间盘切除术相比并无长期优势。前路手术的并发症,尤其是融合手术的并发症,似乎比有限的后路手术更多。与其继续在前路手术和后路手术之间争论不休,建议对每个手术病例进行评估以确定首选的手术方式。随着时间的推移,我更倾向于对C4、5和6节段的破裂椎间盘进行前路手术,以及所有中央型椎间盘或坚硬的中央型颈椎病骨桥。这似乎比许多人推荐的用于脊髓型颈椎病的广泛椎板切除术更可取。然而,前路手术仅限于两个节段而非多个节段。在极少数需要对颈椎管进行广泛减压的情况下,会选择后路手术。此外,C7或罕见的T1节段软性破裂椎间盘则采用后路手术。当对诊断存在疑问时,例如怀疑有肿瘤或脊髓造影显示非典型表现并伴有多根神经根缺损时,首选后路手术。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验