CAJ | 학술논문

目的：研究外侧植骨融合(post lateral lumbar-fusion,PLF)和后方椎间融合(post lunbar interbody fusion，PLIF)术式联合椎弓根内固定系统治疗腰间椎滑落的临床效果。方法回顾性分析2007年1月至2012年1月于我院治疗的71例腰椎滑脱患者，以数字法随机分为观察组(36例)和对照组(35例)。观察组患者行PLIF治疗，对照组行PLF治疗，比较两组治疗前后的JOA评分、手术时间以及失血量等指标。结果观察组手术时间显著高于对照组，失血量多于对照组，差异均具有统计学意义(均P<0.05)；观察组患者术后2年滑脱率明显低于对照组，差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)；观察组患者术后1年融合率显著高于对照组，差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论对于治疗腰椎滑落，PLF与PLIF两种手术方式各有优势，PLF治疗方式具有手术时间短、出血量小的优点，而PLIF治疗方式内固定失败率低、融合率高，疗效更为明显。临床治疗中，可根据实际情况选择应用。
목적：연구외측식골융합(post lateral lumbar-fusion,PLF)화후방추간융합(post lunbar interbody fusion，PLIF)술식연합추궁근내고정계통치료요간추활락적림상효과。방법회고성분석2007년1월지2012년1월우아원치료적71례요추활탈환자，이수자법수궤분위관찰조(36례)화대조조(35례)。관찰조환자행PLIF치료，대조조행PLF치료，비교량조치료전후적JOA평분、수술시간이급실혈량등지표。결과관찰조수술시간현저고우대조조，실혈량다우대조조，차이균구유통계학의의(균P<0.05)；관찰조환자술후2년활탈솔명현저우대조조，차이구유통계학의의(P<0.05)；관찰조환자술후1년융합솔현저고우대조조，차이구유통계학의의(P<0.05)。결론대우치료요추활락，PLF여PLIF량충수술방식각유우세，PLF치료방식구유수술시간단、출혈량소적우점，이PLIF치료방식내고정실패솔저、융합솔고，료효경위명현。림상치료중，가근거실제정황선택응용。
Objective To study the clinical effect of post lateral lumbar-fusion (PLF) and post lunbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery modes combined with pedicle screw internal fixation system in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods 71 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis treated in our hospital from January 2007 to January 2012 were retrospectively analyzed, and according to the digital method were randomly divided into the observation group (36 cases) and control group (35 cases). The observation group were treated with PLIF, and the control group with PLF, and JOA score, operation time and volume of blood loss between two groups before and after treatment were compared. Results The operation time of the observation group was significantly higher than that of the control group, blood loss volume was higher than that of the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P <0.05). The detachment rate at 2 years after operation of patients in the observation group, was significantly lower than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The fusion rate of patients at 1 years after operation in the observation group was significantly higher than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusions For the treatment of lumbar slide, each operation mode of PLF and PLIF has advantages, of which PLF has the advantages of shorter operation time, smaller hemorrhage volume , while PLIF treatment has advantages of lower failure rate ,higher fusion rate and more obvious effect. In clinical treatment, either of them can be selected according to the actual situation.