中国医药导报
中國醫藥導報
중국의약도보
CHINA MEDICAL HERALD
2015年
15期
84-87
,共4页
退行性改变%腰椎管狭窄症%减压%内固定
退行性改變%腰椎管狹窄癥%減壓%內固定
퇴행성개변%요추관협착증%감압%내고정
Degeneration%Lumbar spinal stenosis%Decompression%Fixation
目的：比较单纯减压治疗和减压内固定融合术治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症术后近期效果。方法选择2010年6月~2014年1月内蒙古医科大学附属医院收治的退行性腰椎管狭窄症患者48例，按照治疗方式分为对照组(22例)与观察组(26例)，对照组患者实施单纯减压治疗，观察组患者实施减压联合融合内固定术治疗，比较两组手术指标，治疗前、后日本骨科协会评估治疗分数(JOA)评分、视觉模拟评分(VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)。结果对照组手术时间和术中出血量[(92.39±15.49)min、(138.83±21.17)mL]少于观察组[(131.49±21.54)min、(277.38±34.19)mL]，差异有高度统计学意义(P<0.01)。观察组术前JOA评分、术后JOA评分、优良率分别为(4.19±0.85)分、(20.43±3.57)分、80.77%，与对照组比较[(4.64±1.02)分、(21.08±4.33)分、81.82%]，差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。观察组术后VAS评分、ODI均低于术前，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)；且观察组术后低于对照组[(1.41±0.37)分、(16.68±3.55)%比(3.38±0.39)分、(26.39±4.05)%]，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论单纯减压治疗和减压内固定融合术治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症近期疗效相近，单纯减压治疗创伤更小，减压内固定融合术治疗利于改善患者疼痛症状及生活质量。
目的：比較單純減壓治療和減壓內固定融閤術治療退行性腰椎管狹窄癥術後近期效果。方法選擇2010年6月~2014年1月內矇古醫科大學附屬醫院收治的退行性腰椎管狹窄癥患者48例，按照治療方式分為對照組(22例)與觀察組(26例)，對照組患者實施單純減壓治療，觀察組患者實施減壓聯閤融閤內固定術治療，比較兩組手術指標，治療前、後日本骨科協會評估治療分數(JOA)評分、視覺模擬評分(VAS)、Oswestry功能障礙指數(ODI)。結果對照組手術時間和術中齣血量[(92.39±15.49)min、(138.83±21.17)mL]少于觀察組[(131.49±21.54)min、(277.38±34.19)mL]，差異有高度統計學意義(P<0.01)。觀察組術前JOA評分、術後JOA評分、優良率分彆為(4.19±0.85)分、(20.43±3.57)分、80.77%，與對照組比較[(4.64±1.02)分、(21.08±4.33)分、81.82%]，差異無統計學意義(P>0.05)。觀察組術後VAS評分、ODI均低于術前，差異有統計學意義(P<0.05)；且觀察組術後低于對照組[(1.41±0.37)分、(16.68±3.55)%比(3.38±0.39)分、(26.39±4.05)%]，差異有統計學意義(P<0.05)。結論單純減壓治療和減壓內固定融閤術治療退行性腰椎管狹窄癥近期療效相近，單純減壓治療創傷更小，減壓內固定融閤術治療利于改善患者疼痛癥狀及生活質量。
목적：비교단순감압치료화감압내고정융합술치료퇴행성요추관협착증술후근기효과。방법선택2010년6월~2014년1월내몽고의과대학부속의원수치적퇴행성요추관협착증환자48례，안조치료방식분위대조조(22례)여관찰조(26례)，대조조환자실시단순감압치료，관찰조환자실시감압연합융합내고정술치료，비교량조수술지표，치료전、후일본골과협회평고치료분수(JOA)평분、시각모의평분(VAS)、Oswestry공능장애지수(ODI)。결과대조조수술시간화술중출혈량[(92.39±15.49)min、(138.83±21.17)mL]소우관찰조[(131.49±21.54)min、(277.38±34.19)mL]，차이유고도통계학의의(P<0.01)。관찰조술전JOA평분、술후JOA평분、우량솔분별위(4.19±0.85)분、(20.43±3.57)분、80.77%，여대조조비교[(4.64±1.02)분、(21.08±4.33)분、81.82%]，차이무통계학의의(P>0.05)。관찰조술후VAS평분、ODI균저우술전，차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)；차관찰조술후저우대조조[(1.41±0.37)분、(16.68±3.55)%비(3.38±0.39)분、(26.39±4.05)%]，차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)。결론단순감압치료화감압내고정융합술치료퇴행성요추관협착증근기료효상근，단순감압치료창상경소，감압내고정융합술치료리우개선환자동통증상급생활질량。
Objective To compare the short-term effect on simple decompression therapy and decompression with fixa-tion therapy in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, and provide a reference for clinical treatment. Methods From June 2010 to January 2014, in Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University, 48 patients with degenerative lum-bar spinal stenosis were selected and divided into control group (22 cases) and observation group (26 cases), accord-ing to the treatment, the control group were given simple decompression therapy, and observation group were given de-compression with fixation therapy. The Operation indicator, JOA score, leg pain VAS score, ODI before and after the treatment in two groups were compared. Results Operation time and blood loss [(92.39±15.49) min, (138.83±21.17) mL] in control group were less than those in observation group [(131.49±21.54) min, (277.38±34.19) mL], the differences were statistically significant (P<0.01). The preoperative JOA score, postoperative JOA score, excellent rates in observation group [(4.19±0.85) score, (20.43±3.57) score, 80.77%] were compared with those in control group [(4.64±1.02) score, (21.08±4.33) score, 81.82%], the differences were not statistically significant (P> 0.05). The postoperative VAS and ODI were less than preoperative, the differences were statistically significant (P< 0.05), and postoperative VAS and ODI in control group were less than those in observation group [(1.41±0.37) score, (16.68±3.55)% vs (3.38±0.39) score, (26.39±4.05)%], the differences were statistically significant (P< 0.05). Conclusion Simple decompression therapy and decompression with fixation therapy has the similar clinical effect of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. And simple decompression therapy has less truma, but decompression with fixation therapy is helpful to improve pain performance and life quality.
