[1]黄兴舟,赵晨,蒲小兵,等.前路与后路两种术式治疗单节段胸椎结核对比研究[J].第三军医大学学报,2016,38(11):1302-1308.
 Huang Xingzhou,Zhao Chen,Pu Xiaobing,et al.Comparative study of 2 surgical procedures for treatment of single segment thoracic tuberculosis with anterior and posterior approaches[J].J Third Mil Med Univ,2016,38(11):1302-1308.
点击复制

前路与后路两种术式治疗单节段胸椎结核对比研究(/HTML )
分享到:

《第三军医大学学报》[ISSN:1000-5404/CN:51-1095/R]

卷:
38卷
期数:
2016年第11期
页码:
1302-1308
栏目:
临床医学
出版日期:
2016-06-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparative study of 2 surgical procedures for treatment of single segment thoracic tuberculosis with anterior and posterior approaches
作者:
黄兴舟赵晨蒲小兵李虎进罗磊代飞罗飞侯天勇张泽华许建中周强
第三军医大学西南医院骨科,全军矫形外科中心;广东省潮州市解放军188医院骨科
Author(s):
Huang Xingzhou Zhao Chen Pu Xiaobing Li Hujin Luo Lei Dai Fei Luo Fei Hou Tianyong Zhang Zehua Xu Jianzhong Zhou Qiang

Department of Orthopaedics, Center of Orthopaedic Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third military Medical University, Chongqing, 400038; Department of Orthopaedics, No. 188 Hospital of PLA, Chaozhou, Guangdong Province, 521021, China

关键词:
胸椎结核前路病灶清除后路病灶清除植骨融合内固定
Keywords:
thoracic tuberculosis anterior debridement posterior debridement bone graft and internal fixation
分类号:
R529.2; R685.1; R687.3
文献标志码:
A
摘要:

目的      探讨前路与后路两种术式治疗单节段胸椎结核的优缺点。      方法      回顾性分析2006年5月至2013年7月本科收治的56例单节段胸椎结核患者的相关资料,其中男性29例,女性27例;年龄18~76岁,平均38岁。其中前路术式组26例,行一期前路病灶清除、结构性植骨融合内固定术,后路术式组30例,行一期后路病灶清除、结构性植骨融合内固定术,定期随访观察结核治愈、神经功能改善及后凸、侧凸畸形矫正情况。手术时间、出血量、平均住院日、植骨融合时间比较采用独立样本t检验;红细胞沉降率(erythrocyte sedimentaon rate, ESR)、C反应蛋白(C-reactive protein,CRP)、后凸及侧凸畸形比较采用单因素方差分析;术前及末次ASIA等级评分及并发症比较采用非参数检验进行统计分析。      结果      56例患者均获得随访,随访时间24~56个月,平均29个月,均获得临床治愈。在后凸及侧凸矫正角度丢失方面,前路术式组>后路术式组。而在手术时间、术中出血量、平均住院时间、植骨融合时间、神经功能改善、后凸及侧凸畸形矫正度、术后并发症发生率等方面,两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。      结论      两种术式治疗单节段胸椎结核均能达到良好的治愈效果。与前路术式相比,后路术式在后凸和侧凸矫正角度的维持上优势明显,安全性好,更具可选择性。

Abstract:

Objective      To explore the advantages and disadvantages of 2 kinds of surgical procedures through the comparative study of posterior approach and anterior approach for single segment thoracic tuberculosis.       Methods      From May 2006 to July 2013, 56 single segment thoracic tuberculosis patients were retrospectively analyzed, including 29 males and 27 females at an average age of 38(18~76) years old. The patients in group A underwent one-staged anterior debridement, bone grafting and instrumentation, while the ones in group B underwent single posterior debridement, bone grafting and instrumentation. The patients were followed up to observe the curative effects. The operation time, bleeding amount, hospitalization days, and bone graft fusion time were compared by independent sample t test. The erythrocyte sedimentaon rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and kyphosis and scoliosis deformity were compared by single-factor analysis of variance. The ASIA grade and complications before operation and at the last follow-up were compared with nonparametric test.       Results      All patients were followed up for an average of 29 (24 to 56) months. All patients were cured. In the postoperative kyphosis and scolisis angle lost, group A was better than group B. There was no significant differences in the operation time, bleeding amount, hospitalization days, bone graft fusion time, neurological function improvement, kyphosis and scoliosis correction, and postoperative complication incidence between the 2 groups (P>0.05).       Conclusion      Both 2 kinds of surgical procedures have good clinical results in the treatment of thoracic tuberculosis. Compared with the anterior approach, the posterior approach has more advantages in the maintenance of the posterior convex and scoliosis correction. Therefore, it is prior to choose the posterior approach.

参考文献/References:

[1]Lee T C, Lu K, Yang L C, et al. Transpedicular instrumentation as an adjunct in the treatment of thoracolumbar and lumbar spine tuberculosis with early stage bone destruction[J]. J Neurosurg, 1999, 91(2 Suppl): 163-169.
[2]许建中. 规范脊柱结核治疗, 为我国结核病防治做出更大贡献[J]. 中华骨科杂志, 2014, 34(2): 97-101. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2352.2014.02.001
[3]Guven O, Kumano K, Yalcin S, et al. A single stage posterior approach and rigid fixation for preventing kyphosis in the treatment of spinal tuberculosis[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1994, 19(9): 1039-1043.
[4]Lee S H, Sung J K, Park Y M, et al. Single-stage transpedicular decompression and posterior instrumentation in treatment of thoracic and thoracolumbar spinal tuberculosis: a retrospective case series[J]. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2006, 19(8): 595-602. DOI: 1097/01.bsd.0000211241.06588.7b
[5]Benli I T, Kaya A, Acaroglu E , et al. Anterior instrumentation in tuberculous spondylitis: is it effective and safe?[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2007, 460: 108-116. DOI: 10.1097/BLO.0b013e318065b70d
[6]Wang X, Pang X, Wu P, et al. One-stage anterior debridement, bone grafting and posterior instrumentation vs. single posterior debridement, bone grafting, and instrumentation for the treatment of thoracic and lumbar spinal tuberculosis[J]. Eur Spine J, 2014, 23(4): 830-837. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-3051-7
[7]Pang X, Shen X, Wu P, et al. Thoracolumbar spinal tuberculosis with psoas abscesses treated by one-stage posterior transforaminal lumbar debridement, interbody fusion, posterior instrumentation, and postural drainage[J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2013, 133(6): 765-772. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-013-1722-9
[8]陈宣维, 林建华, 陈雷, 等. 一期后路病灶清除植骨融合内固定治疗胸椎结核[J]. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2011, 25(10): 1172-1175
[9]Pu X, Zhou Q, He Q, et al. A posterior versus anterior surgical approach in combination with debridement, interbody autografting and instrumentation for thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis[J]. Int Orthop, 2012, 36(2): 307-313. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-011-1329-0
[10]谢申, 祝少博. 不同术式治疗脊柱结核疗效评价及预后[J].中国矫形外科杂志, 2015, 23(21): 1943-1946. DOI: 10.3977/j.issn.1005-8478.2015.21.06
[11]Jain A K. Tuberculosis of the spine: a fresh look at an old disease[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2010, 92(7): 905-913. DOI: 1302/0301-620x.92b7.24668
[12]郭春生, 柳盛春, 陈凯, 等. 采用经肋横突入路术式一期治疗老年胸椎结核合并截瘫患者的疗效分析[J].中国防痨杂志, 2015, 37(3): 266-270. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6621.2015.03.009
[13]Yang P, He X, Li H, et al. Clinical efficacy of posterior versus anterior instrumentation for the treatment of spinal tuberculosis in adults: a meta-analysis[J]. J Orthop Surg Res, 2014, 9(1): 1-6. DOI: 10.1186/1749-799x-9-10
[14]Lee C K, Vessa P, Lee J K. Chronic disabling low back pain syndrome caused by internal disc derangements. The results of disc excision and posterior lumbar interbody fusion[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1995, 20(3): 356-361.
[15]杨学军, 霍洪军, 肖宇龙, 等. 胸腰椎结核一期病灶清除重建脊柱前中柱功能[J].中国修复重建外科杂志, 2010, 24(1): 37-40.
[16]He Q, Xu J. Transpedicular closing wedge osteotomy in the treatment of thoracic and lumbar kyphotic deformity with different etiologies[J]. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol, 2013, 23(8): 863-871. DOI: 10.1007/s00590-012-1089-6
[17]乔宁宁, 唐毓金, 谢克恭, 等. 不同入路手术治疗脊柱结核的对比研究[J]. 右江医学, 2015, 43(5): 541-545, DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-1383.2015.05.004
[18]赵晨, 蒲小兵, 周强, 等. 后路病灶清除、椎间植骨融合内固定治疗复杂性胸、腰椎结核[J]. 中华骨科杂志, 2014, 34(2): 109-115. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2352.2014.02.003
[19]陈筱.单纯后路术式与前后路联合术式在脊柱结核治疗中的临床应用及相关研究[D]. 长沙: 中南大学, 2011.
[20]Garg B, Kandwal P, Nagaraja U B, et al. Anterior versus posterior procedure for surgical treatment of thoracolumbar tuberculosis: A retrospective analysis[J]. Indian J Orthop, 2012, 46(2): 165-170. DOI: 10.4103/0019-5413.93682
[21]Faldini C, Di-Martino A, Borghi R, et al. Long vs. short fusions for adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis: does balance matters?[J]. Eur Spine J, 2015, 24(7): 887-892. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-4266-6
[22]王骞, 金卫东, 王自立, 等. 患椎间短椎弓根螺钉在单节段腰骶椎结核稳定性重建中的临床研究[J]. 脊柱外科杂志, 2015, 13(1): 1-6. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-2957.2015.01.001
[23]Ghiselli G, Wang J C, Bhatia N N, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2004, 86-A(7): 1497-1503
[24]Mahar A, Kim C, Wedemeyer M, et al. Short-segment fixation of lumbar burst fractures using pedicle fixation at the level of the fracture[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2007, 32(14): 1503-1507. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318067dd24

更新日期/Last Update: 2016-05-29