中国实用神经疾病杂志
中國實用神經疾病雜誌
중국실용신경질병잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF PRACTICAL NERVOUS DISEASES
2015年
3期
24-25
,共2页
椎间孔入路腰椎融合术%后路椎间融合术%腰椎退变%神经功能
椎間孔入路腰椎融閤術%後路椎間融閤術%腰椎退變%神經功能
추간공입로요추융합술%후로추간융합술%요추퇴변%신경공능
TLIF%PLIF%Lumbar Degenerative disease%Neurological
目的：探讨椎间孔入路腰椎融合术（TLIF）与后路椎间融合术（PLIF）在腰椎退行性疾病治疗中对患者术后神经功能恢复的影响。方法224例腰椎退行性疾病患者根据手术方式分为TLIF组（n＝98）及PLIF组（n＝126），对比2组临床效果、术后神经功能损伤及术后3个月时神经功能JOA评分。结果2组有效率（TLIF组90.8％，PLIF组89.7％）比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；TLIF组术后神经根损伤发生率5.1％，显著低于PLIF组的19.8％（P＜0.01）；2组术前JOA评分比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05），术后均显著增高（P＜0.01），术后1周TLIF组显著高于PLIF组（P＜0.01），术后3个月2组比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 TLIF与PLIF在腰椎退行性疾病的外科治疗中均具有良好效果，虽然手术方式不同，但术后远期神经功能恢复情况并无明显区别，应密切结合病人的病情选择合适的手术方式。
目的：探討椎間孔入路腰椎融閤術（TLIF）與後路椎間融閤術（PLIF）在腰椎退行性疾病治療中對患者術後神經功能恢複的影響。方法224例腰椎退行性疾病患者根據手術方式分為TLIF組（n＝98）及PLIF組（n＝126），對比2組臨床效果、術後神經功能損傷及術後3箇月時神經功能JOA評分。結果2組有效率（TLIF組90.8％，PLIF組89.7％）比較差異無統計學意義（P＞0.05）；TLIF組術後神經根損傷髮生率5.1％，顯著低于PLIF組的19.8％（P＜0.01）；2組術前JOA評分比較差異無統計學意義（P＞0.05），術後均顯著增高（P＜0.01），術後1週TLIF組顯著高于PLIF組（P＜0.01），術後3箇月2組比較差異無統計學意義（P＞0.05）。結論 TLIF與PLIF在腰椎退行性疾病的外科治療中均具有良好效果，雖然手術方式不同，但術後遠期神經功能恢複情況併無明顯區彆，應密切結閤病人的病情選擇閤適的手術方式。
목적：탐토추간공입로요추융합술（TLIF）여후로추간융합술（PLIF）재요추퇴행성질병치료중대환자술후신경공능회복적영향。방법224례요추퇴행성질병환자근거수술방식분위TLIF조（n＝98）급PLIF조（n＝126），대비2조림상효과、술후신경공능손상급술후3개월시신경공능JOA평분。결과2조유효솔（TLIF조90.8％，PLIF조89.7％）비교차이무통계학의의（P＞0.05）；TLIF조술후신경근손상발생솔5.1％，현저저우PLIF조적19.8％（P＜0.01）；2조술전JOA평분비교차이무통계학의의（P＞0.05），술후균현저증고（P＜0.01），술후1주TLIF조현저고우PLIF조（P＜0.01），술후3개월2조비교차이무통계학의의（P＞0.05）。결론 TLIF여PLIF재요추퇴행성질병적외과치료중균구유량호효과，수연수술방식불동，단술후원기신경공능회복정황병무명현구별，응밀절결합병인적병정선택합괄적수술방식。
Objective To discuss the influence of TLIF and PLIF on postoperative neurologic recovery in patients with lumbar degenerative disease .Methods 224 patients with lumbar degenerative disease were divided into the TLIF group (n=98) and the PLIF group (n=126) ,then the clinical results ,postoperative neurological injury and JOA score 3 months postoper‐ative were contrasted between the two groups .Results There was no significantly difference in the effective rate(TLIF group 90.8% and PLIF group 89.7% ) between the two groups(P> 0.05);the incidence of postoperative neurologic injury in the TLIF group was 5.1% ,significantly lower than 19.8% in the PLIF group(P<0.01);there was no significantly difference in JOA score preoperation(P>0.05) ,but significantly improved 1week after the surgery in the two groups(P<0.01) ,and TLIF group was significantly higher than the PLIF group(P<0.01) ,no significantly difference between the two groups 3 months af‐ter the surgery(P> 0.05).Conclusion TLIF and PLIF have good results in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases ,al‐though different surgical methods ,but there is no significant difference between the long‐term postoperative recovery of neuro‐logical function ,and therefore should be closely combined with the patient's condition to select the appropriate surgical ap‐proach.
