中国组织工程研究
中國組織工程研究
중국조직공정연구
Journal of Clinical Rehabilitative Tissue Engineering Research
2013年
16期
3033-3040
,共8页
袁振超%陈远明%陈锋%刘万祥
袁振超%陳遠明%陳鋒%劉萬祥
원진초%진원명%진봉%류만상
生物材料%生物材料临床实践%腰椎滑脱症%植骨融合%人工骨%自体骨%同种异体骨%骨形成蛋白复合骨%骨移植%对比分析
生物材料%生物材料臨床實踐%腰椎滑脫癥%植骨融閤%人工骨%自體骨%同種異體骨%骨形成蛋白複閤骨%骨移植%對比分析
생물재료%생물재료림상실천%요추활탈증%식골융합%인공골%자체골%동충이체골%골형성단백복합골%골이식%대비분석
biomaterials%biomaterial clinical practice%lumbar spondylolisthesis%interbody fusion%artificial bone%autologous bone%allogeneic bone%bone morphogenetic protein composite bone%bone graft%comparative analysis
背景:椎间植骨融合术是治疗腰椎滑脱症的重要方法,不同植骨材料的植骨融合的效果不尽相同,值得观察探讨.
目的:探讨自体骨、同种异体骨、骨形成蛋白复合骨3种不同植骨材料在用于腰椎滑脱症椎间植骨时的优缺点.
方法:119例腰椎椎体间植骨患者,分为自体骨组40例、同种异体骨组41例、骨形成蛋白复合骨组38例,进行腰椎融合分别植入自体骨、同种异体骨和骨形成蛋白复合骨,比较融合后不同时间点的椎间隙高度、植骨融合率和远期临床疗效.
结果与结论:自体骨组、骨形成蛋白复合骨组对椎间隙高度维持显著优于同种异体骨组;3组融合速度骨形成蛋白复合骨组最快,自体骨组次之,同种异体骨组融合慢,自体骨组、骨形成蛋白复合骨组显著优于同种异体骨组(P <0.05),骨形成蛋白复合骨组在术后9个月及12个月显著优于自体骨组(P <0.05);Nakai评分标准3组间的优良率比较有显著性差异(P <0.05),自体骨组、骨形成蛋白复合骨组显著优于同种异体骨组(P <0.05).结果表明骨形成蛋白复合骨在椎间隙高度维持、植骨融合率及临床疗效等效于自体骨,优于同种异体骨.
揹景:椎間植骨融閤術是治療腰椎滑脫癥的重要方法,不同植骨材料的植骨融閤的效果不儘相同,值得觀察探討.
目的:探討自體骨、同種異體骨、骨形成蛋白複閤骨3種不同植骨材料在用于腰椎滑脫癥椎間植骨時的優缺點.
方法:119例腰椎椎體間植骨患者,分為自體骨組40例、同種異體骨組41例、骨形成蛋白複閤骨組38例,進行腰椎融閤分彆植入自體骨、同種異體骨和骨形成蛋白複閤骨,比較融閤後不同時間點的椎間隙高度、植骨融閤率和遠期臨床療效.
結果與結論:自體骨組、骨形成蛋白複閤骨組對椎間隙高度維持顯著優于同種異體骨組;3組融閤速度骨形成蛋白複閤骨組最快,自體骨組次之,同種異體骨組融閤慢,自體骨組、骨形成蛋白複閤骨組顯著優于同種異體骨組(P <0.05),骨形成蛋白複閤骨組在術後9箇月及12箇月顯著優于自體骨組(P <0.05);Nakai評分標準3組間的優良率比較有顯著性差異(P <0.05),自體骨組、骨形成蛋白複閤骨組顯著優于同種異體骨組(P <0.05).結果錶明骨形成蛋白複閤骨在椎間隙高度維持、植骨融閤率及臨床療效等效于自體骨,優于同種異體骨.
배경:추간식골융합술시치료요추활탈증적중요방법,불동식골재료적식골융합적효과불진상동,치득관찰탐토.
목적:탐토자체골、동충이체골、골형성단백복합골3충불동식골재료재용우요추활탈증추간식골시적우결점.
방법:119례요추추체간식골환자,분위자체골조40례、동충이체골조41례、골형성단백복합골조38례,진행요추융합분별식입자체골、동충이체골화골형성단백복합골,비교융합후불동시간점적추간극고도、식골융합솔화원기림상료효.
결과여결론:자체골조、골형성단백복합골조대추간극고도유지현저우우동충이체골조;3조융합속도골형성단백복합골조최쾌,자체골조차지,동충이체골조융합만,자체골조、골형성단백복합골조현저우우동충이체골조(P <0.05),골형성단백복합골조재술후9개월급12개월현저우우자체골조(P <0.05);Nakai평분표준3조간적우량솔비교유현저성차이(P <0.05),자체골조、골형성단백복합골조현저우우동충이체골조(P <0.05).결과표명골형성단백복합골재추간극고도유지、식골융합솔급림상료효등효우자체골,우우동충이체골.
@@@@BACKGROUND:Interbody fusion is an important method for lumbar spondylolisthesis. The effects of different bone materials require further studies. @@@@OBJECTIVE:To compare the effects of autologous bone, al ogeneic bone, bone morphogenetic protein composite bone in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. @@@@METHODS:Total y 119 cases of lumbar spondylolisthesis were selected and randomly divided into three groups:autologous bone group (40 cases), al ogeneic bone group (41 cases), bone morphogenetic protein composite bone group (38 cases). Intervertebral height and fusion rate were compared after fusion as wel as long-term clinical efficacy. @@@@RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:Compared with the al ogeneic bone group, autologous bone group and bone morphogenetic protein composite bone group were better in the maintenance of intervertebral height. Postoperative fusion rates were ranked as fol ows:composite bone group>autologous bone group>al ogeneic bone group (P<0.05). At 9 and 12 months postoperatively, the fusion rates in the composite bone group were better than those in the autologous bone group (P<0.05). Nakai scores in the autologous bone and composite bone groups were superior to that in the al ogeneic bone group (P<0.05). There was a significant difference in Nakai scores among the three groups (P<0.05). These findings indicate that bone morphogenetic protein composite bone is similar to autologous bone but superior to al ogeneic bone in the maintenance of intervertebral height, fusion rate and clinical efficacy.
