Suppr超能文献

单纯侧方腰椎间融合术与后路腰椎板切除减压、侧方植骨融合内固定术治疗腰椎融合术后邻近节段病变的比较。

Comparison of Stand-alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Open Laminectomy and Posterolateral Instrumented Fusion in the Treatment of Adjacent Segment Disease Following Previous Lumbar Fusion Surgery.

机构信息

Rush University Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chicago, IL.

University of Rochester, Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Rochester, NY.

出版信息

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019 Dec 15;44(24):E1461-E1469. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003191.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients who underwent stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) to those who underwent posterolateral fusion (PLF) for symptomatic adjacent segment disease (ASD).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Recent studies have suggested that LLIF can successfully treat ASD; however, there are no studies to date that compare LLIF with the traditional open PLF in this cohort.

METHODS

A total of 47 consecutive patients who underwent LLIF or PLF for symptomatic ASD between January 2007 and August 2016 after failure of conservative management were reviewed for this study. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected on all patients at preoperative, postoperative, and most recent post-operative visit using the Oswestry Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale (VAS)-Back, and VAS-Leg surveys. Preoperative, immediate postoperative, and most recent postoperative radiographs were assessed for pelvic incidence, fusion, intervertebral disc height, segmental and overall lumbar lordosis (LL). Symptomatic ASD was diagnosed if back pain, neurogenic claudication, or lower extremity radiculopathy presented following a previous lumbar fusion. Preoperative plain radiographs were evaluated for evidence of adjacent segment degeneration.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients (23 LLIF, 24 PLF) met inclusion criteria. Operative times (P < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the PLF group. Patients who underwent PLF were discharged approximately 3 days after the LLIF patients (P < 0.001). PROs in the PLF and LLIF cohorts showed significant and equivalent improvement, with equivalent radiographic fusion rates. LLIF significantly improve segmental lordosis (P < 0.001), total LL (P = 0.003), and disc height (P < 0.001) from preoperative to immediate postoperative and final follow-up (P = 0.004, P = 0.019, P ≤ 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Although LLIF may provide less perioperative morbidity and shorter length of hospitalization, both techniques are safe and effective approaches to restore radiographic alignment and provide successful clinical outcomes in patients with adjacent segment degeneration following previous lumbar fusion surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

摘要

研究设计

回顾性队列研究。

目的

本研究旨在比较单纯侧方腰椎椎间融合术(LLIF)与后外侧融合术(PLF)治疗症状性邻近节段疾病(ASD)的临床和影像学结果。

背景资料概要

最近的研究表明,LLIF 可以成功治疗 ASD;然而,迄今为止,尚无研究在这一组中比较 LLIF 与传统的开放式 PLF。

方法

回顾性分析 2007 年 1 月至 2016 年 8 月间因保守治疗失败后接受 LLIF 或 PLF 治疗的 47 例 ASD 患者的临床资料。所有患者在术前、术后及最近一次随访时均采用 Oswestry 功能障碍指数(ODI)、视觉模拟量表(VAS)-背部和 VAS-腿部调查评估患者报告的结果(PRO)。通过骨盆入射角、融合、椎间盘高度、节段性和整体腰椎前凸(LL)评估术前、即刻术后和最近术后的影像学表现。如果在先前的腰椎融合术后出现背痛、神经性跛行或下肢神经根病变,则诊断为症状性 ASD。术前平片评估邻近节段退变的证据。

结果

共有 47 例患者(23 例 LLIF,24 例 PLF)符合纳入标准。PLF 组的手术时间(P<0.001)和术中出血量(P<0.001)明显更高。接受 PLF 的患者在 LLIF 患者后约 3 天出院(P<0.001)。PLF 和 LLIF 队列的 PRO 均显示出显著且等效的改善,融合率也相当。LLIF 可显著改善节段性前凸(P<0.001)、总 LL(P=0.003)和椎间盘高度(P<0.001),从术前即刻到最终随访(P=0.004,P=0.019,P≤0.001)。

结论

尽管 LLIF 可能具有较低的围手术期发病率和较短的住院时间,但这两种技术都是安全有效的方法,可以在先前接受腰椎融合手术的患者中恢复影像学对齐并获得成功的临床结果。

证据水平

3 级。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验