Fischgrund J S, Mackay M, Herkowitz H N, Brower R, Montgomery D M, Kurz L T
William Beaumont Hospital, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal Oak, Michigan, USA.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Dec 15;22(24):2807-12. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199712150-00003.
This prospective study analyzed the influence of transpedicular instrumented on the operative treatment of patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis.
To determine whether the addition of transpedicular instrumented improves the clinical outcome and fusion rate of patients undergoing posterolateral fusion after decompression for spinal stenosis with concomitant degenerative spondylolisthesis.
Decompression is often necessary in the treatment of symptomatic patients who have degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. Results of recent studies demonstrated that outcomes are significantly improved if posterolateral arthrodesis is performed at the listhesed level. A meta-analysis of the literature concluded that adjunctive spinal instrumentation for this procedure can enhance the fusion rate, although the effect on clinical outcome remains uncertain.
Seventy-six patients who had symptomatic spinal stenosis associated with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were prospectively studied. All patients underwent posterior decompression with concomitant posterolateral intertransverse process arthrodesis. The patients were randomized to a segmental transpedicular instrumented or noninstrumented group.
Sixty-seven patients were available for a 2-year follow-up. Clinical outcome was excellent or good in 76% of the patients in whom instrumentation was placed and in 85% of those in whom no instrumentation was placed (P = 0.45). Successful arthrodesis occurred in 82% of the instrumented cases versus 45% of the noninstrumented cases (P = 0.0015). Overall, successful fusion did not influence patient outcome (P = 0.435).
In patients undergoing single-level posterolateral fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis, the use of pedicle screws may lead to a higher fusion rate, but clinical outcome shows no improvement in pain in the back and lower limbs.
本前瞻性研究分析了经椎弓根器械固定对退行性腰椎滑脱症和椎管狭窄症患者手术治疗的影响。
确定在伴有退行性腰椎滑脱症的椎管狭窄症减压术后行后外侧融合术的患者中,增加经椎弓根器械固定是否能改善临床疗效和融合率。
对于有症状的退行性腰椎滑脱症和椎管狭窄症患者,减压治疗通常是必要的。近期研究结果表明,如果在滑脱节段进行后外侧关节融合术,疗效会显著改善。一项文献荟萃分析得出结论,尽管该手术中辅助脊柱内固定对临床疗效的影响仍不确定,但可提高融合率。
对76例有症状的与退行性腰椎滑脱症相关的椎管狭窄症患者进行前瞻性研究。所有患者均接受后路减压并同时行后外侧横突间关节融合术。将患者随机分为节段性经椎弓根器械固定组或非器械固定组。
67例患者可进行2年随访。置入器械的患者中76%临床疗效为优或良,未置入器械的患者中这一比例为85%(P = 0.45)。器械固定组融合成功的病例占82%,非器械固定组为45%(P = 0.0015)。总体而言,成功融合对患者疗效无影响(P = 0.435)。
在因退行性腰椎滑脱症合并椎管狭窄症而行单节段后外侧融合术的患者中,使用椎弓根螺钉可能会提高融合率,但对腰背部和下肢疼痛的临床疗效并无改善。