4种手术方法治疗1级腰椎滑脱的效果比较

Q Medicine
S. Fariborz, Mohammad Gharedaghi, A. Khosravi, M. Samini
{"title":"4种手术方法治疗1级腰椎滑脱的效果比较","authors":"S. Fariborz, Mohammad Gharedaghi, A. Khosravi, M. Samini","doi":"10.1097/WNQ.0000000000000197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction:There are 3 ways for the treatment of patients for spondylolisthesis grade 1 in lumbosacral region associating with lumbar disk herniation or lumbar stenosis: pedicular screw fixation method alone; pedicular screw with insertion of trans lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), or with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Interestingly, all methods have associated with satisfactory results. However, which method is superior for the treatment of such patients still has remained controversial. Materials and Methods:Patients with clinical signs and symptoms of disk herniation or lumbar canal stenosis and also spondylolysthesis grade 1 were selected, who had randomly undergone pedicle screw and posterior fusion surgery, pedicle screw and TLIF surgery, pedicle screw and PLIF surgery, or without instrumentation and fusion, in neurosurgery section in Mashhad, from 2009 to 2011. Afterwards, clinical symptoms, radiologic study results, amount of fusion in terms of Brantigan and Stefee indices, and functional improvement by Oswestry Disability Index were recorded after 6 and 12 months from surgery, respectively. Results:Of 120 patients who were analyzed in 4 treatment groups, age and sex distribution was matched. Also, L4-L5 involvement was more common in 3 groups with a normal distribution. Statistically, Oswestry Disability Index had a significant reduction after operation, and no significant differences were observed among the 3 study groups. These groups showed no significant variation in degree of fusion and Brantigan and Stefee index, but in the group which had been undergone surgery without instrumentation and fusion, the difference was significant. Conclusions:After a 12-month follow-up, the 3 procedures of TLIF, PLIF, and posterior fusion pedicle screw did not show any difference in functional improvement of the patients, degree of fusion, and complications significantly, whereas all of them had a significant preference rather than the fourth group, in which no instrumentation and fusion was applied.","PeriodicalId":56275,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgery Quarterly","volume":"26 1","pages":"14–18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/WNQ.0000000000000197","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Results of 4 Methods of Surgery in Grade 1 Lumbosacral Spondylolisthesis\",\"authors\":\"S. Fariborz, Mohammad Gharedaghi, A. Khosravi, M. Samini\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/WNQ.0000000000000197\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction:There are 3 ways for the treatment of patients for spondylolisthesis grade 1 in lumbosacral region associating with lumbar disk herniation or lumbar stenosis: pedicular screw fixation method alone; pedicular screw with insertion of trans lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), or with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Interestingly, all methods have associated with satisfactory results. However, which method is superior for the treatment of such patients still has remained controversial. Materials and Methods:Patients with clinical signs and symptoms of disk herniation or lumbar canal stenosis and also spondylolysthesis grade 1 were selected, who had randomly undergone pedicle screw and posterior fusion surgery, pedicle screw and TLIF surgery, pedicle screw and PLIF surgery, or without instrumentation and fusion, in neurosurgery section in Mashhad, from 2009 to 2011. Afterwards, clinical symptoms, radiologic study results, amount of fusion in terms of Brantigan and Stefee indices, and functional improvement by Oswestry Disability Index were recorded after 6 and 12 months from surgery, respectively. Results:Of 120 patients who were analyzed in 4 treatment groups, age and sex distribution was matched. Also, L4-L5 involvement was more common in 3 groups with a normal distribution. Statistically, Oswestry Disability Index had a significant reduction after operation, and no significant differences were observed among the 3 study groups. These groups showed no significant variation in degree of fusion and Brantigan and Stefee index, but in the group which had been undergone surgery without instrumentation and fusion, the difference was significant. Conclusions:After a 12-month follow-up, the 3 procedures of TLIF, PLIF, and posterior fusion pedicle screw did not show any difference in functional improvement of the patients, degree of fusion, and complications significantly, whereas all of them had a significant preference rather than the fourth group, in which no instrumentation and fusion was applied.\",\"PeriodicalId\":56275,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurosurgery Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"14–18\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/WNQ.0000000000000197\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurosurgery Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/WNQ.0000000000000197\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgery Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/WNQ.0000000000000197","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

导语:腰骶区1级滑脱伴腰椎间盘突出或腰椎管狭窄患者的治疗方法有3种:单纯椎弓根螺钉固定术;椎弓根螺钉置入经腰椎椎间融合术(tliff)或后路腰椎椎间融合术(PLIF)。有趣的是,所有的方法都有令人满意的结果。然而,哪种方法更适合治疗此类患者仍存在争议。材料与方法:选取2009 - 2011年马什哈德神经外科随机行椎弓根螺钉与后路融合术、椎弓根螺钉与TLIF术、椎弓根螺钉与PLIF术或未行内固定融合术的临床症状和体征为椎间盘突出或腰椎管狭窄且伴有1级腰椎滑脱的患者。术后6个月和12个月分别记录临床症状、影像学检查结果、Brantigan和Stefee指数融合量和Oswestry功能改善情况。结果:120例患者分为4个治疗组,年龄、性别分布基本吻合。L4-L5受累在呈正态分布的3组中更为常见。统计学上,术后Oswestry残疾指数明显降低,3个研究组间差异无统计学意义。这些组在融合程度和Brantigan和Stefee指数上没有明显的变化,但在没有内固定和融合的手术组中,差异有显著性。结论:经过12个月的随访,TLIF、PLIF和后路融合椎弓根螺钉3种术式在患者功能改善、融合程度和并发症方面无明显差异,但均较不行内固定融合的第四组有明显的优先性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Results of 4 Methods of Surgery in Grade 1 Lumbosacral Spondylolisthesis
Introduction:There are 3 ways for the treatment of patients for spondylolisthesis grade 1 in lumbosacral region associating with lumbar disk herniation or lumbar stenosis: pedicular screw fixation method alone; pedicular screw with insertion of trans lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), or with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Interestingly, all methods have associated with satisfactory results. However, which method is superior for the treatment of such patients still has remained controversial. Materials and Methods:Patients with clinical signs and symptoms of disk herniation or lumbar canal stenosis and also spondylolysthesis grade 1 were selected, who had randomly undergone pedicle screw and posterior fusion surgery, pedicle screw and TLIF surgery, pedicle screw and PLIF surgery, or without instrumentation and fusion, in neurosurgery section in Mashhad, from 2009 to 2011. Afterwards, clinical symptoms, radiologic study results, amount of fusion in terms of Brantigan and Stefee indices, and functional improvement by Oswestry Disability Index were recorded after 6 and 12 months from surgery, respectively. Results:Of 120 patients who were analyzed in 4 treatment groups, age and sex distribution was matched. Also, L4-L5 involvement was more common in 3 groups with a normal distribution. Statistically, Oswestry Disability Index had a significant reduction after operation, and no significant differences were observed among the 3 study groups. These groups showed no significant variation in degree of fusion and Brantigan and Stefee index, but in the group which had been undergone surgery without instrumentation and fusion, the difference was significant. Conclusions:After a 12-month follow-up, the 3 procedures of TLIF, PLIF, and posterior fusion pedicle screw did not show any difference in functional improvement of the patients, degree of fusion, and complications significantly, whereas all of them had a significant preference rather than the fourth group, in which no instrumentation and fusion was applied.
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
Neurosurgery Quarterly
Neurosurgery Quarterly 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
0.08
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurosurgery Quarterly synthesizes the broad wealth of material on international developments in the diagnosis, management, and surgical treatment of neurological disorders. By encompassing viewpoints from worldwide sources, the journal provides information in greater depth than is usually found in the medical literature.
×
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