基于混合减压的手术策略治疗多节段胸黄韧带骨化:一项回顾性研究。

IF 2.3 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Asian Spine Journal Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-24 DOI:10.31616/asj.2024.0366
Cong Nie, Kaiwen Chen, Shenyan Gu, Feizhou Lyu, Jianyuan Jiang, Xinlei Xia, Chaojun Zheng
{"title":"基于混合减压的手术策略治疗多节段胸黄韧带骨化:一项回顾性研究。","authors":"Cong Nie, Kaiwen Chen, Shenyan Gu, Feizhou Lyu, Jianyuan Jiang, Xinlei Xia, Chaojun Zheng","doi":"10.31616/asj.2024.0366","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>A retrospective study design was adopted.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study investigated the surgical modification of laminectomy, including piecemeal and en bloc resections, and compared this hybrid approach with conventional en bloc laminectomy for treating multilevel thoracic ossification of the ligamentum flavum (TOLF).</p><p><strong>Overview of literature: </strong>En bloc laminectomy is the most commonly used method for managing symptomatic TOLF. However, this approach can easily cause intraoperative spinal cord irritation, dural tear, and cerebrospinal fluid leakage (CFL).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEPs) were recorded in 48 patients with TOLF (hybrid 20 vs. en bloc 28) during surgery. Patients were categorized based on MEP/SEP improvement, deterioration, or no change, and MEP/SEP improvement rates were measured in the improvement group. Furthermore, all patients were assessed using the Ashworth and modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incidences of both MEP/SEP improvement (21.4% vs. 25.0%, p=0.772) and deterioration (21.4% vs. 20.0%, p=0.904) were similar between the en bloc and hybrid laminectomy groups, and no difference in preoperative and postoperative clinical assessments was observed between the two groups (p>0.05). In four patients (4/28, 14.3%) undergoing en bloc laminectomy, MEP amplitudes initially increased after OLF removal but gradually decreased. This delayed MEP reduction did not occur in the hybrid laminectomy group. Furthermore, more patients undergoing en bloc laminectomy had CFL than those undergoing hybrid laminectomy (46.4% vs. 15.0%, p=0.023). In the improvement group, the hybrid laminectomy group exhibited higher MEP improvement rates in the bilateral abductor hallucis than the en bloc laminectomy group (left side: 213.4%±35.9% vs. 152.5%±41.0%, p=0.028; right side: 201.2%±32.0% vs. 145.2%±46.3%, p=0.043).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with en bloc laminectomy, hybrid laminectomy may be a safe and effective method for treating multilevel TOLF, potentially reducing intraoperative spinal cord irritation and CFL and causing relatively better functional recovery.</p>","PeriodicalId":8555,"journal":{"name":"Asian Spine Journal","volume":"19 1","pages":"74-84"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11895116/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hybrid decompression-based surgical strategy for treating multilevel thoracic ossification of the ligamentum flavum: a retrospective study.\",\"authors\":\"Cong Nie, Kaiwen Chen, Shenyan Gu, Feizhou Lyu, Jianyuan Jiang, Xinlei Xia, Chaojun Zheng\",\"doi\":\"10.31616/asj.2024.0366\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>A retrospective study design was adopted.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study investigated the surgical modification of laminectomy, including piecemeal and en bloc resections, and compared this hybrid approach with conventional en bloc laminectomy for treating multilevel thoracic ossification of the ligamentum flavum (TOLF).</p><p><strong>Overview of literature: </strong>En bloc laminectomy is the most commonly used method for managing symptomatic TOLF. However, this approach can easily cause intraoperative spinal cord irritation, dural tear, and cerebrospinal fluid leakage (CFL).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEPs) were recorded in 48 patients with TOLF (hybrid 20 vs. en bloc 28) during surgery. Patients were categorized based on MEP/SEP improvement, deterioration, or no change, and MEP/SEP improvement rates were measured in the improvement group. Furthermore, all patients were assessed using the Ashworth and modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incidences of both MEP/SEP improvement (21.4% vs. 25.0%, p=0.772) and deterioration (21.4% vs. 20.0%, p=0.904) were similar between the en bloc and hybrid laminectomy groups, and no difference in preoperative and postoperative clinical assessments was observed between the two groups (p>0.05). In four patients (4/28, 14.3%) undergoing en bloc laminectomy, MEP amplitudes initially increased after OLF removal but gradually decreased. This delayed MEP reduction did not occur in the hybrid laminectomy group. Furthermore, more patients undergoing en bloc laminectomy had CFL than those undergoing hybrid laminectomy (46.4% vs. 15.0%, p=0.023). In the improvement group, the hybrid laminectomy group exhibited higher MEP improvement rates in the bilateral abductor hallucis than the en bloc laminectomy group (left side: 213.4%±35.9% vs. 152.5%±41.0%, p=0.028; right side: 201.2%±32.0% vs. 145.2%±46.3%, p=0.043).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with en bloc laminectomy, hybrid laminectomy may be a safe and effective method for treating multilevel TOLF, potentially reducing intraoperative spinal cord irritation and CFL and causing relatively better functional recovery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"74-84\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11895116/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2024.0366\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2024.0366","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计:采用回顾性研究设计。目的:本研究探讨了椎板切除术的手术改良,包括分段和整体切除,并将这种混合入路与传统的整体椎板切除术治疗多节段胸黄韧带骨化(TOLF)进行比较。文献综述:整体椎板切除术是治疗症状性TOLF最常用的方法。然而,这种入路容易引起术中脊髓刺激、硬脑膜撕裂和脑脊液漏(CFL)。方法:记录48例TOLF患者(混合型20例,整体组28例)手术期间的运动诱发电位(MEPs)和体感诱发电位(SEPs)。根据MEP/SEP改善、恶化或无变化对患者进行分类,并测量改善组的MEP/SEP改善率。此外,所有患者均采用Ashworth评分和修改后的日本骨科协会评分进行评估。结果:MEP/SEP改善(21.4% vs. 25.0%, p=0.772)和恶化(21.4% vs. 20.0%, p=0.904)的发生率在整体和混合椎板切除术组之间相似,两组术前和术后临床评估无差异(p < 0.05)。在4例(4/28,14.3%)行整体椎板切除术的患者中,黄韧带骨化去除后MEP振幅最初升高,但逐渐下降。混合型椎板切除术组没有出现延迟的MEP降低。此外,接受整体椎板切除术的患者比接受混合椎板切除术的患者有更多的CFL(46.4%比15.0%,p=0.023)。在改善组中,混合椎板切除术组双侧外展幻觉的MEP改善率高于整体椎板切除术组(左侧:213.4%±35.9% vs. 152.5%±41.0%,p=0.028;右侧:201.2%±32.0%比145.2%±46.3%,p = 0.043)。结论:与整体椎板切除术相比,混合椎板切除术可能是一种安全有效的治疗多节段TOLF的方法,可减少术中脊髓刺激和CFL,功能恢复相对较好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hybrid decompression-based surgical strategy for treating multilevel thoracic ossification of the ligamentum flavum: a retrospective study.

Study design: A retrospective study design was adopted.

Purpose: This study investigated the surgical modification of laminectomy, including piecemeal and en bloc resections, and compared this hybrid approach with conventional en bloc laminectomy for treating multilevel thoracic ossification of the ligamentum flavum (TOLF).

Overview of literature: En bloc laminectomy is the most commonly used method for managing symptomatic TOLF. However, this approach can easily cause intraoperative spinal cord irritation, dural tear, and cerebrospinal fluid leakage (CFL).

Methods: Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEPs) were recorded in 48 patients with TOLF (hybrid 20 vs. en bloc 28) during surgery. Patients were categorized based on MEP/SEP improvement, deterioration, or no change, and MEP/SEP improvement rates were measured in the improvement group. Furthermore, all patients were assessed using the Ashworth and modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scores.

Results: The incidences of both MEP/SEP improvement (21.4% vs. 25.0%, p=0.772) and deterioration (21.4% vs. 20.0%, p=0.904) were similar between the en bloc and hybrid laminectomy groups, and no difference in preoperative and postoperative clinical assessments was observed between the two groups (p>0.05). In four patients (4/28, 14.3%) undergoing en bloc laminectomy, MEP amplitudes initially increased after OLF removal but gradually decreased. This delayed MEP reduction did not occur in the hybrid laminectomy group. Furthermore, more patients undergoing en bloc laminectomy had CFL than those undergoing hybrid laminectomy (46.4% vs. 15.0%, p=0.023). In the improvement group, the hybrid laminectomy group exhibited higher MEP improvement rates in the bilateral abductor hallucis than the en bloc laminectomy group (left side: 213.4%±35.9% vs. 152.5%±41.0%, p=0.028; right side: 201.2%±32.0% vs. 145.2%±46.3%, p=0.043).

Conclusions: Compared with en bloc laminectomy, hybrid laminectomy may be a safe and effective method for treating multilevel TOLF, potentially reducing intraoperative spinal cord irritation and CFL and causing relatively better functional recovery.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Asian Spine Journal
Asian Spine Journal ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
108
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信