中国修复重建外科杂志

中国修复重建外科杂志

Coflex 棘突间动态稳定结合腰椎减压融合术治疗腰椎间盘退行性疾病的中期疗效

查看全文

目的探讨 Coflex 棘突间动态稳定结合腰椎减压融合术治疗腰椎间盘退行性疾病的疗效。方法回顾分析 2010 年 6 月—2011 年 12 月符合选择标准的 39 例腰椎间盘退行性疾病患者临床资料,根据手术方式不同分为 A 组(20 例,单纯腰椎减压融合)和 B 组(19 例,Coflex 棘突间动态稳定结合腰椎减压融合)。两组患者年龄、性别构成、疾病诊断构成、病变节段、病程以及术前 Oswestry 功能障碍指数(ODI)、疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、上位手术节段及其邻近非融合节段椎间隙高度、椎间孔高度(foramen intervertebral height,FIH)、腰椎活动度(range of motion,ROM)等一般资料比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),具有可比性。术前及末次随访时采用 ODI 和 VAS 评分评估临床疗效,计算改善率;测量并比较两组上位手术节段及其邻近非融合节段椎间隙高度[前缘高度(anterior disc height,ADH)、中部高度(middle disc height,MDH)和后缘高度(posterior disc height,PDH)]、FIH、腰椎 ROM。结果A 组手术时间和术中出血量显著多于 B 组(P<0.05),两组住院时间比较差异无统计学意义(t=0.992,P=0.328)。两组均获随访,A 组随访时间 33~50 个月,平均 40.5 个月;B 组 39~51 个月,平均 42.6 个月。两组均未发现内固定物移位、松动或断裂等并发症。两组末次随访时 ODI、VAS 评分均较术前显著改善(P<0.05);末次随访时,两组 ODI、VAS 评分以及 ODI 改善率比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),B 组 VAS 评分改善率明显优于 A 组(t=2.245,P=0.031)。末次随访时两组间及组内手术前后上位手术节段椎间隙高度及 FIH 比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。末次随访时,B 组邻近非融合节段 ADH 显著高于 A 组,MDH、PDH 和 FIH 显著低于 A 组(P<0.05);与术前比较,末次随访时 A 组邻近非融合节段 ADH 降低,MDH、PDH 和 FIH 增高(P<0.05),而 B 组各指标均无明显改变(P>0.05)。末次随访时,A 组邻近非融合节段 ROM 较术前显著增加(t=2.318,P=0.026);两组邻近非融合节段 ROM 比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论对于腰椎间盘退行性疾病,Coflex 棘突间动态稳定结合减压融合术中期疗效与单纯减压融合术相当。对于责任节段的邻近节段存在退变、但暂无症状或症状轻微患者,采用该术式可以减缓邻近节段退变。

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of Coflex interspinous dynamic internal fixation combined with spinal fusion for lumbar disc degeneration.MethodsThe clinical data of 39 patients with two-level lumbar disc degeneration who met the selection criteria between June 2010 and December 2011 was retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into group A (20 cases, simple lumbar decompression and fusion) and group B (19 cases, Coflex interspinous dynamic internal fixation combined with spinal fusion) according to different surgical methods. There was no significant difference in age, gender, disease diagnosis, lesion segment, disease duration, Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and the intervertebral height, foramen intervertebral height (FIH), and range of motion (ROM) of upper operative segment and adjacent segment between the two groups (P>0.05). ODI and VAS score were used to evaluate the effectiveness before operation and at last follow-up, and the improvement rates were calculated. The intervertebral height [anterior disc height (ADH), middle disc height (MDH), and posterior disc height (PDH)], FIH, and ROM were measured and compared between the two groups.ResultsThe operation time and intraoperative blood loss in group A were significantly more than those in group B (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in hospitalization time between the two groups (t=0.992, P=0.328). All patients were followed up; the follow-up time was 33-50 months (mean, 40.5 months) in group A and 39-51 months (mean, 42.6 months) in group B. No complication such as displacement, loosening, or rupture of internal fixator was found in both groups. At last follow-up, ODI and VAS score of the two groups significantly improved when compared with preoperative scores (P<0.05). At last follow-up, there was no significant difference in ODI, VAS score, and improvement rate of ODI between the two groups (P>0.05); the improvement rate of VAS score in group B was significantly higher than that in group A (t=2.245, P=0.031). There was no significant difference in the intervertebral height and FIH of the upper operative segment at last follow-up between the two groups and between preoperation and last follow-up in the two groups (P>0.05). At last follow-up, the ADH of adjacent segment in group B was significantly higher than that in group A, and MDH, PDH, and FIH were significantly lower than those in group A (P<0.05). Compared with preoperation, the ADH of adjacent segment in group A decreased and MDH, PDH, and FIH increased at last follow-up (P<0.05), while all indexes in group B did not change significantly (P>0.05). The ROM of adjacent segment in group A increased significantly at last follow-up (t=2.318, P=0.026). There was significant difference in ROM of adjacent segment between the two groups (P<0.05).ConclusionThe mid-term effectiveness of Coflex interspinous dynamic internal fixation combined with spinal fusion is similar to that of simple decompression fusion. For those patients whose adjacent segments of the responsible segments have degeneration but have no symptoms or mild symptoms, this treatment can slow down the adjacent segment degeneration.

关键词: 腰椎间盘退行性疾病; 动态固定; Coflex; 减压融合

Key words: Lumbar disc degeneration; dynamic fixation; Coflex; decompression fusion

引用本文: 姚依村, 叶冬平, 梁伟国, 缪海雄, 吴劲风, 周子强. Coflex 棘突间动态稳定结合腰椎减压融合术治疗腰椎间盘退行性疾病的中期疗效. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2019, 33(3): 280-286. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.201807099 复制

登录后 ,请手动点击刷新查看全文内容。 没有账号,
登录后 ,请手动点击刷新查看图表内容。 没有账号,
1. Sanderson KB, Roditi D, George SZ, et al. Investigating patient expectations and treatment outcome in a chronic low back pain population. J Pain Res, 2012, 5: 15-22.
2. Bridwell KH, Sedgewick TA, O’Brien MF, et al. The role of fusion and instrumentation in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord, 1993, 6(6): 461-472.
3. 双峰, 侯树勋. 腰椎融合术后邻近节段退变的临床研究现状. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2013, 27(1): 110-115.
4. Mo Z, Li D, Zhang R, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of posterior lumbar interbody fusion, Coflex, Wallis, and X-stop for lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg, 2018, 172: 74-81.
5. Nachanakian A, El Helou A, Alaywan M. The interspinous spacer: a new posterior dynamic stabilization concept for prevention of adjacent segment disease. Adv Orthop, 2013, 2013: 637362.
6. Bredow J, Löhrer L, Oppermann J, et al. Pathoanatomic risk factors for instability and adjacent segment disease in lumbar spine: how to use topping off? Biomed Res Int, 2017, 2017: 2964529.
7. Zhu Z, Liu C, Wang K, et al. Topping-off technique prevents aggravation of degeneration of adjacent segment fusion revealed by retrospective and finite element biomechanical analysis. J Orthop Surg Res, 2015, 10: 10.
8. Reichl M, Kueny RA, Danyali R, et al. Biomechanical effects of a dynamic topping off instrumentation in a long rigid pedicle screw construct. Clin Spine Surg, 2017, 30(4): E440-E447.
9. 姚依村, 梁伟国, 吴劲风, 等. 腰椎棘突间非融合动态稳定技术 Coflex 与 KMC 的近期疗效比较. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2014, 28(4): 474-479.
10. Koenders N, Rushton A, Verra ML, et al. Pain and disability after first-time spinal fusion for lumbar degenerative disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J, 2018.
11. de Kunder SL, van Kuijk SMJ, Rijkers K, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J, 2017, 17(11): 1712-1721.
12. 张磊, 方向前, 赵兴, 等. 经椎间孔单侧入路双侧减压融合内固定术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的近期疗效观察. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2017, 31(5): 519-526.
13. Kong C, Lu S, Hai Y, et al. Biomechanical effect of interspinous dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion on range of motion of the transition segment and the adjacent segment. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon), 2015, 30(4): 355-359.
14. Celik H, Derincek A, Koksal I. Surgical treatment of the spinal stenosis with an interspinous distraction device: do we really restore the foraminal height? Turk Neurosurg, 2012, 22(1): 50-54.
15. Siewe J, Otto C, Knoell P, et al. Comparison of standard fusion with a " topping off” system in lumbar spine surgery: a protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2011, 12: 239.
16. Korovessis P, Repantis T, Zacharatos S, et al. Does Wallis implant reduce adjacent segment degeneration above lumbosacral instrumented fusion? Eur Spine J, 2009, 18(6): 830-840.
17. Che W, Chen Q, Ma YQ, et al. Single-level rigid fixation combined with Coflex: a biomechanical study. Med Sci Monit, 2016, 22: 1022-1027.
18. Aunoble S, Meyrat R, Al Sawad Y, et al. Hybrid construct for two levels disc disease in lumbar spine. Eur Spine J, 2010, 19(2): 290-296.
19. Liu X, Liu Y, Lian X, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging on disc degeneration changes after implantation of an interspinous spacer and fusion of the adjacent segment. Int J Clin Exp Med, 2015, 8(4): 6097-6102.
20. Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, et al. The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2005, 30(18): 2024-2029.
21. Gottipati P, Stine R, Ganju A, et al. The effect of positive sagittal spine balance and reconstruction surgery on standing balance. Gait Posture, 2018, 62: 227-234.
22. Knox JB, Lonner BS. Sagittal Balance//Minimally Invasive Spinal Deformity Surgery. Vienna: Springer, 2014: 33-37.
23. Joseph SA Jr, Moreno AP, Brandoff J, et al. Sagittal plane deformity in the adult patient. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 2009, 17(6): 378-388.
24. Yu SW, Yen CY, Wu CH, et al. Radiographic and clinical results of posterior dynamic stabilization for the treatment of multisegment degenerative disc disease with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2012, 132(5): 583-589.