Please wait a minute...

中国现代手术学杂志  2018, Vol. 22 Issue (4): 258-263    DOI: 10.16260/j.cnki.1009-2188.2018.04.005
  临床论著 |
微创可扩张通道辅助下OLIF入路治疗单节段腰椎不稳疗效分析#br#
岑毕文,吴亚鹏,王达义,尚晖,杨棋
十堰市太和医院(湖北医药学院附属医院)脊柱外科, 湖北十堰  442000
Minimally Invasive Channelassisted Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Singlesegment Lumbar Instability#br# #br#
CEN Biwen, WU Yapeng, WANG Dayi, SHANG Hui, YANG Qi#br#
Department of Spine Surgery, Taihe Hospital of Shiyan, Affiliated Hospital of Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, Hubei 442000, China
下载:  PDF (0KB) 
输出:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 [摘要]目的探讨OLIF入路微创可扩张通道辅助下治疗单节段腰椎不稳的疗效。方法回顾性分析我院2014年6月~2016年6月56例单节段腰椎不稳患者的临床资料,按治疗方式分为OLIF组和PLIF组,各28例,分别采用微创可扩张通道辅助下斜外侧入路椎间融合术入路(oblique lumbar interbody fusion, OLIF)和后路椎体融合术。记录并比较两组患者术前及术后1月、6月、12月的腰背疼痛VAS及ODI评分,分析两组术后并发症。结果OLIF组平均手术时间(225±35)min,出血量(105±22)ml;PLIF组平均手术时间(135±2)min,出血量(226±85)ml;两组手术时间、出血量比较均有统计学差异(P均<0.01)。两组患者均获得随访,平均13.5(12~16)月。两组患者术后12月VAS及ODI评分均较术前明显改善(P<0.01)。术前组间VAS及ODI评分比较无统计学差异 (P>0.05), 术后1月、 6月及12月组间VAS、ODI评分比较,OLIF组优于PLIF组(P<0.05)。所有患者均无下肢静脉血栓形成。OLIF组术后屈髋无力1例,无血管神经损伤、伤口感染、逆向射精及肠道损伤等并发症;PLIF组术后脑脊液漏3例,伤口感染1例,足下垂2例。两组并发症率比较有统计学差异 (3.6% vs. 21.4%, P<0.05)。
结论微创可扩张通道辅助下OLIF入路治疗单节段腰椎不稳创伤小,安全性高,出血少,手术并发症少,能明显改善患者腰部疼痛。

服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
岑毕文
吴亚鹏
王达义
尚晖
杨棋
关键词:  [关键词] 腰椎不稳  腰椎融合术  斜外侧入路椎间融合术  外科手术  微创性
    
Abstract: Abstract:ObjectiveTo study the efficacy of minimally invasive channelassisted oblique lumbar interbody fusion(OLIF) for singlesegment lumbar instability.MethodsThe clinical data of 56 patients with singlesegment lumbar instability who presented in our hospital from June 2014 to June 2016 were analyzed retrospectively. According to surgical procedure, they were divided into OLIF group and posterior lumbar vertebral interbody fusion (PLIF) group, with 28 cases for each group, and were performed miniinvasive channelassisted OLIF and PLIF. The VAS and ODI score were recorded and compared between two groups.ResultsThe operative time was (225±35)min and (135±2)min, and the blood loss was (105±22)ml and (226±85)ml in OLIF group and PLIF group respectively. There was statistic difference in operation time and blood loss volume between two groups (P<0.01). All cases were followed up for 12 to 16 months with an average time of 13.5 months. The VAS and ODI scores were improved 12 months after the surgery than before the surgery in both OLIF group and PLIF group, and the differences between the two groups were statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no statistical difference in both VAS and ODI before the surgery between two groups (P>0.05),while VAS and ODI of OLIF group were less than those of PLIF group in 1, 6 and 12 months after the surgery, and the differences

Key words:  Key words: lumbar instability    lumbar spinal fusion    oblique lumbar interbody fusion(OLIF)    surgical procedures, minimal invasive

               出版日期:  2018-08-26      发布日期:  2018-10-23      期的出版日期:  2018-08-26
ZTFLH:     
  R681.5  
基金资助: 
引用本文:    
岑毕文, 吴亚鹏, 王达义, 尚晖, 杨棋. 微创可扩张通道辅助下OLIF入路治疗单节段腰椎不稳疗效分析#br#[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2018, 22(4): 258-263.
CEN Biwen, WU Yapeng, WANG Dayi, SHANG Hui, YANG Qi. Minimally Invasive Channelassisted Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Singlesegment Lumbar Instability#br# #br#. Chinese Journal of Modern Operative Surgery, 2018, 22(4): 258-263.
链接本文:  
http://www.surgerychina.com/CN/10.16260/j.cnki.1009-2188.2018.04.005  或          http://www.surgerychina.com/CN/Y2018/V22/I4/258
[1] 李力, 董力军, 贾其余, 孔祥安. 两种不同手术入路行人工全膝关节置换术治疗中重度骨关节炎早期临床疗效观察#br#[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2018, 22(4): 248-253.
[2] 吴迟. 腋窝乳晕微创双切口切除术治疗甲状旁腺腺瘤疗效分析[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2018, 22(3): 174-178.
[3] 肖永杰,焦文仓. 钩刀微创治疗腕管综合征的临床观察[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2017, 21(4): 319-320.
[4] 李俊瑞, 孙静锋, 张业伟.  

CT显示腹腔多脂对肠癌手术影响的荟萃分析 [J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2016, 20(5): 321-326.

[1] . [J]. Chinese journal of modern operative surgery, 2017, 21(3): 168 -173 .
[2] . [J]. Chinese journal of modern operative surgery, 2017, 21(3): 174 -177 .
[3] . [J]. Chinese journal of modern operative surgery, 2017, 21(3): 178 -181 .
[4] . [J]. Chinese journal of modern operative surgery, 2017, 21(3): 182 -186 .
[5] . [J]. Chinese journal of modern operative surgery, 2017, 21(3): 187 -190 .
[6] . [J]. Chinese journal of modern operative surgery, 2017, 21(3): 191 -193 .
[7] . [J]. Chinese journal of modern operative surgery, 2017, 21(3): 194 -196 .
[8] . [J]. Chinese journal of modern operative surgery, 2017, 21(3): 197 -200 .
[9] . [J]. Chinese journal of modern operative surgery, 2017, 21(3): 201 -205 .
[10] . [J]. Chinese journal of modern operative surgery, 2017, 21(3): 206 -210 .
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed