中国组织工程研究
中國組織工程研究
중국조직공정연구
Journal of Clinical Rehabilitative Tissue Engineering Research
2014年
40期
6451-6458
,共8页
张兆川%马超%吴德慧%吴继彬%戴维享%王兆红%韩猛%冯杰%刘光普
張兆川%馬超%吳德慧%吳繼彬%戴維享%王兆紅%韓猛%馮傑%劉光普
장조천%마초%오덕혜%오계빈%대유향%왕조홍%한맹%풍걸%류광보
植入物%脊柱植入物%椎旁肌间隙入路%胸腰椎%骨折%传统正中入路,GSS内固定系统%AF内固定系统
植入物%脊柱植入物%椎徬肌間隙入路%胸腰椎%骨摺%傳統正中入路,GSS內固定繫統%AF內固定繫統
식입물%척주식입물%추방기간극입로%흉요추%골절%전통정중입로,GSS내고정계통%AF내고정계통
thoracic vertebrae%lumbar vertebrae%fractures,bone%internal fixators%fol ow-up studies
背景:脊柱后路手术是胸腰段椎体骨折最常用的治疗方法,传统后路手术显露过程中,大范围椎旁肌的剥离和牵拉,容易发生腰椎手术失败综合征。<br> 目的:比较椎弓根螺钉椎旁肌间隙入路与传统后正中入路内固定修复胸腰椎骨折的复位情况及稳定性。<br> 方法:对62例无神经损伤胸腰椎骨折的患者进行回顾性分析,采用椎旁肌间隙入路并GSS内固定系统治疗22例,传统正中入路并GSS内固定系统治疗21例,传统正中入路并AF内固定系统治疗19例。通过比较3组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、术毕切口内残腔体积、腰背痛目测类比评分、切口并发症、伤椎高度、Cobb角等各项临床指标,对比3种内固定方案的治疗效果。<br> 结果与结论:3组患者手术时间、术中出血量、术毕切口内残腔体积、内固定后引流量比较,椎旁肌间隙入路并GSS内固定组优于传统正中入路并GSS内固定组及传统正中入路并AF内固定组(P<0.05)。3组内固定后3 d椎体高度、Cobb角比较,差异无显著性意义(P>0.05)。腰痛目测类比评分内固定后1周3组差异无显著性意义(P>0.05),内固定后3,6个月椎旁肌间隙入路并GSS内固定组明显低于传统正中入路并GSS内固定组及传统正中入路并AF内固定组。3组患者均未见切口感染。提示椎旁肌间隙入路显露方式与传统后入路显露方式比较,具有创伤小,出血少,术后恢复快、患者满意度高等优势,GSS内固定系统与AF内固定系统修复胸腰椎骨折内固定效果相近,但GSS内固定系统操作简单,具有省时、出血量少、固定牢靠和复位良好的优点,结合椎旁肌入路,是目前修复胸腰段脊柱骨折较好的方法之一。
揹景:脊柱後路手術是胸腰段椎體骨摺最常用的治療方法,傳統後路手術顯露過程中,大範圍椎徬肌的剝離和牽拉,容易髮生腰椎手術失敗綜閤徵。<br> 目的:比較椎弓根螺釘椎徬肌間隙入路與傳統後正中入路內固定脩複胸腰椎骨摺的複位情況及穩定性。<br> 方法:對62例無神經損傷胸腰椎骨摺的患者進行迴顧性分析,採用椎徬肌間隙入路併GSS內固定繫統治療22例,傳統正中入路併GSS內固定繫統治療21例,傳統正中入路併AF內固定繫統治療19例。通過比較3組患者的手術時間、術中齣血量、術後引流量、術畢切口內殘腔體積、腰揹痛目測類比評分、切口併髮癥、傷椎高度、Cobb角等各項臨床指標,對比3種內固定方案的治療效果。<br> 結果與結論:3組患者手術時間、術中齣血量、術畢切口內殘腔體積、內固定後引流量比較,椎徬肌間隙入路併GSS內固定組優于傳統正中入路併GSS內固定組及傳統正中入路併AF內固定組(P<0.05)。3組內固定後3 d椎體高度、Cobb角比較,差異無顯著性意義(P>0.05)。腰痛目測類比評分內固定後1週3組差異無顯著性意義(P>0.05),內固定後3,6箇月椎徬肌間隙入路併GSS內固定組明顯低于傳統正中入路併GSS內固定組及傳統正中入路併AF內固定組。3組患者均未見切口感染。提示椎徬肌間隙入路顯露方式與傳統後入路顯露方式比較,具有創傷小,齣血少,術後恢複快、患者滿意度高等優勢,GSS內固定繫統與AF內固定繫統脩複胸腰椎骨摺內固定效果相近,但GSS內固定繫統操作簡單,具有省時、齣血量少、固定牢靠和複位良好的優點,結閤椎徬肌入路,是目前脩複胸腰段脊柱骨摺較好的方法之一。
배경:척주후로수술시흉요단추체골절최상용적치료방법,전통후로수술현로과정중,대범위추방기적박리화견랍,용역발생요추수술실패종합정。<br> 목적:비교추궁근라정추방기간극입로여전통후정중입로내고정수복흉요추골절적복위정황급은정성。<br> 방법:대62례무신경손상흉요추골절적환자진행회고성분석,채용추방기간극입로병GSS내고정계통치료22례,전통정중입로병GSS내고정계통치료21례,전통정중입로병AF내고정계통치료19례。통과비교3조환자적수술시간、술중출혈량、술후인류량、술필절구내잔강체적、요배통목측류비평분、절구병발증、상추고도、Cobb각등각항림상지표,대비3충내고정방안적치료효과。<br> 결과여결론:3조환자수술시간、술중출혈량、술필절구내잔강체적、내고정후인류량비교,추방기간극입로병GSS내고정조우우전통정중입로병GSS내고정조급전통정중입로병AF내고정조(P<0.05)。3조내고정후3 d추체고도、Cobb각비교,차이무현저성의의(P>0.05)。요통목측류비평분내고정후1주3조차이무현저성의의(P>0.05),내고정후3,6개월추방기간극입로병GSS내고정조명현저우전통정중입로병GSS내고정조급전통정중입로병AF내고정조。3조환자균미견절구감염。제시추방기간극입로현로방식여전통후입로현로방식비교,구유창상소,출혈소,술후회복쾌、환자만의도고등우세,GSS내고정계통여AF내고정계통수복흉요추골절내고정효과상근,단GSS내고정계통조작간단,구유성시、출혈량소、고정뢰고화복위량호적우점,결합추방기입로,시목전수복흉요단척주골절교호적방법지일。
BACKGROUND:Spinal posterior surgery is the most common treatment method for thoracolumbar fracture. During exposure of conventional posterior surgery, a wide-range stripping and pul ing of paraspinal muscles easily induced failure syndrome of lumbar surgery. <br> OBJECTIVE:To compare the reset conditions and stability of thoracolumbar fractures after treatment with pedicle screw paraspinal muscle approach and conventional posterior median approach fixation. <br> METHODA total of 62 patients with thoracolumbar fractures without nerve injury were retrospectively analyzed. 22 patients were treated with paraspinal muscle approach and general spine system. 21 patients were treated with conventional median approach and general spine system. 19 patients were treated with conventional median approach and AF internal fixation system. The therapeutic effects of the three kinds of fixation methods were compared by comparing clinical indexes in patients of the three groups, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, dead space volume, scores of the Visual Analogue Scale of back pain, wound complications, height of injured vertebrae and the Cobb angle. <br> RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:Operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage and dead space volume were better in the paraspinal muscle approach and general spine system group than in the conventional median approach and general spine system group and conventional median approach and AF internal fixation system group (P<0.05). No significant difference in height of injured vertebrae and the Cobb angle was detectable among the three groups at 3 days after fixation (P>0.05). No significant difference in scores of the Visual Analogue Scale of back pain was visible among the three groups at 1 week after fixation (P>0.05). The scores of the Visual Analogue Scale of back pain were apparently lower in the paraspinal muscle approach and general spine system group than in the conventional median approach and general spine system group and conventional median approach and AF internal fixation system group at 3 and 6 months after fixation. No incision infection was observed in patients of the three groups. These results suggested that compared with conventional posterior median approach, paraspinal muscle approach has some advantages, such as smal trauma, less bleeding, postoperative rapid recovery, and high degree of satisfaction. The effects of general spine system and AF internal fixation system in the repair of thoracolumbar fractures on internal fixation are similar, but general spine system has some advantages such as simple to be operated, save time, less bleeding, stable fixation and good reduction. General spine system combined with paraspinal muscle approach is a good method to repair thoracolumbar spine fracture.