Moh'd M Al Barbarawi, Ziad M Audat, Mohammed Z Allouh
{"title":"后外侧、后侧腰椎椎间和经椎间孔腰椎椎间固定技术治疗腰椎退变性椎间盘病的临床和影像学结果分析比较研究。","authors":"Moh'd M Al Barbarawi, Ziad M Audat, Mohammed Z Allouh","doi":"10.1186/s13013-015-0040-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Degenerative disc disease is a common cause of chronic and disabling back pain that requires surgical intervention, posterolateral and posterior instrumental fixation (PLF), posterior lumber interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumber interbody fusion (TLIF) are the techniques used to deal with such a problem.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the clinical and radiological outcome of the variable surgical techniques used to deal with Lumber degenerative disc disease and to recommend the technique of choice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>120 patients were treated between 2003 and 2010 at king Abdullah university hospital for lumber disc disease. The patients were divided into three groups: Group I (PLF n = 30 [59 levels]); Group II (PLIF n = 40 [70 levels]); and Group III (TLIF n = 50 [96 levels]). All patients had the same pre- and postoperative clinical and radiological evaluations (using Stanford score and local criteria and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI],). All cases had three months and then yearly for five years follow ups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no observed difference in the rates of intra-operative complications (Group I: 10 %; Group II: 8 %; Group III: 14 %; p = 0.566) and postoperative complications (Group I: 13.3 %, Group II:17.5 %, Group III: 18 % with p = 0.332). Among the groups. There was a vital decrease in the ODI scores over time (p < 0.005) but no major difference among the groups at different follow-up times. Radiographic fusion rates for Groups I, II and III were 90 %, 92.5 % and 94 %, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The surgical outcome of PLF, PLIF and TLIF used to treat degenerative disc disease is almost similar, there is no significant differences observed in complications and clinical outcomes. However, TILF may have better radiological outcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":21722,"journal":{"name":"Scoliosis","volume":"10 ","pages":"17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s13013-015-0040-0","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analytical comparison study of the clinical and radiological outcome of spine fixation using posterolateral, posterior lumber interbody and transforaminal lumber interbody spinal fixation techniques to treat lumber spine degenerative disc disease.\",\"authors\":\"Moh'd M Al Barbarawi, Ziad M Audat, Mohammed Z Allouh\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13013-015-0040-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Degenerative disc disease is a common cause of chronic and disabling back pain that requires surgical intervention, posterolateral and posterior instrumental fixation (PLF), posterior lumber interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumber interbody fusion (TLIF) are the techniques used to deal with such a problem.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the clinical and radiological outcome of the variable surgical techniques used to deal with Lumber degenerative disc disease and to recommend the technique of choice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>120 patients were treated between 2003 and 2010 at king Abdullah university hospital for lumber disc disease. The patients were divided into three groups: Group I (PLF n = 30 [59 levels]); Group II (PLIF n = 40 [70 levels]); and Group III (TLIF n = 50 [96 levels]). All patients had the same pre- and postoperative clinical and radiological evaluations (using Stanford score and local criteria and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI],). All cases had three months and then yearly for five years follow ups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no observed difference in the rates of intra-operative complications (Group I: 10 %; Group II: 8 %; Group III: 14 %; p = 0.566) and postoperative complications (Group I: 13.3 %, Group II:17.5 %, Group III: 18 % with p = 0.332). Among the groups. There was a vital decrease in the ODI scores over time (p < 0.005) but no major difference among the groups at different follow-up times. Radiographic fusion rates for Groups I, II and III were 90 %, 92.5 % and 94 %, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The surgical outcome of PLF, PLIF and TLIF used to treat degenerative disc disease is almost similar, there is no significant differences observed in complications and clinical outcomes. However, TILF may have better radiological outcome.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21722,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scoliosis\",\"volume\":\"10 \",\"pages\":\"17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s13013-015-0040-0\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scoliosis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13013-015-0040-0\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2015/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scoliosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13013-015-0040-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18
摘要
背景:椎间盘退行性疾病是慢性致残性背痛的常见原因,需要手术干预,后外侧和后路器械固定(PLF)、后路腰椎椎间融合术(PLIF)和经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(tliff)是处理这类问题的技术。目的:比较不同手术方法治疗腰椎间盘退行性疾病的临床和影像学结果,并推荐手术方法的选择。方法:对2003 ~ 2010年在阿卜杜拉国王大学医院治疗的120例腰椎间盘病患者进行回顾性分析。患者分为三组:第一组(PLF n = 30[59个水平]);II组(PLIF n = 40[70个级别]);第三组(TLIF n = 50[96个级别])。所有患者均进行相同的术前、术后临床和影像学评估(采用Stanford评分、局部标准和Oswestry残疾指数[ODI],)。所有病例都有三个月的随访,然后每年随访五年。结果:两组术中并发症发生率无明显差异(I组:10%;第二组:8%;第三组:14%;p = 0.566)和术后并发症(I组:13.3%,II组:17.5%,III组:18%,p = 0.332)。在这些群体中。结论:PLF、PLIF和TLIF治疗退行性椎间盘疾病的手术结果基本相似,并发症和临床结果无显著差异。然而,TILF可能有更好的放射预后。
Analytical comparison study of the clinical and radiological outcome of spine fixation using posterolateral, posterior lumber interbody and transforaminal lumber interbody spinal fixation techniques to treat lumber spine degenerative disc disease.
Background: Degenerative disc disease is a common cause of chronic and disabling back pain that requires surgical intervention, posterolateral and posterior instrumental fixation (PLF), posterior lumber interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumber interbody fusion (TLIF) are the techniques used to deal with such a problem.
Objective: To compare the clinical and radiological outcome of the variable surgical techniques used to deal with Lumber degenerative disc disease and to recommend the technique of choice.
Methods: 120 patients were treated between 2003 and 2010 at king Abdullah university hospital for lumber disc disease. The patients were divided into three groups: Group I (PLF n = 30 [59 levels]); Group II (PLIF n = 40 [70 levels]); and Group III (TLIF n = 50 [96 levels]). All patients had the same pre- and postoperative clinical and radiological evaluations (using Stanford score and local criteria and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI],). All cases had three months and then yearly for five years follow ups.
Results: There was no observed difference in the rates of intra-operative complications (Group I: 10 %; Group II: 8 %; Group III: 14 %; p = 0.566) and postoperative complications (Group I: 13.3 %, Group II:17.5 %, Group III: 18 % with p = 0.332). Among the groups. There was a vital decrease in the ODI scores over time (p < 0.005) but no major difference among the groups at different follow-up times. Radiographic fusion rates for Groups I, II and III were 90 %, 92.5 % and 94 %, respectively.
Conclusions: The surgical outcome of PLF, PLIF and TLIF used to treat degenerative disc disease is almost similar, there is no significant differences observed in complications and clinical outcomes. However, TILF may have better radiological outcome.