[1]曾小锋,黄瑞雄,闻树林.椎旁肌间隙入路与传统后正中入路治疗腰椎骨折的疗效对比[J].医学信息,2023,36(14):112-115.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2023.14.022]
　ZENG Xiao-feng,HUANG Rui-xiong,WEN Shu-lin.Efficacy Comparison Between Paraspinal Muscle Gap Approach and Traditional Posterior Median Approach in Treating Fracture of Lumbar Vertebrae[J].Journal of Medical Information,2023,36(14):112-115.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2023.14.022]
点击复制

椎旁肌间隙入路与传统后正中入路治疗腰椎骨折的疗效对比()
分享到：

医学信息[ISSN:1006-1959/CN:61-1278/R]

卷:
36卷
期数:
2023年14期
页码:
112-115
栏目:
论著
出版日期:
2023-07-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
Efficacy Comparison Between Paraspinal Muscle Gap Approach and Traditional Posterior Median Approach in Treating Fracture of Lumbar Vertebrae
文章编号:
1006-1959（2023）14-0112-04
作者:
曾小锋; 黄瑞雄; 闻树林
（1.宜丰县人民医院骨科，江西 宜丰 336300；2.高安市人民医院骨科，江西 高安 330800）
Author(s):
ZENG Xiao-feng; HUANG Rui-xiong; WEN Shu-lin
(1.Department of Orthopaedics,People’s Hospital of Yifeng County,Yifeng 336300,Jiangxi,China;2.Department of Orthopaedics,Gao’an People’s Hospital,Gao’an 330800,Jiangxi,China)
关键词:
椎旁肌间隙入路; 传统后正中入路; 腰椎骨折; 椎弓根螺钉内固定术
Keywords:
Paraspinal muscle gap approach; Traditional posterior median approach; Fracture of lumbar vertebrae; Pedicle screw fixation
分类号:
R687.3
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2023.14.022
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的 观察椎旁肌间隙入路与传统后正中入路治疗腰椎骨折的临床疗效。方法 选取2021年3月-2022年3月在我院诊治的42例腰椎骨折患者为研究对象，采用随机数字表法分为对照组和观察组，各21例，对照组采用传统后正中入路治疗，观察组采用椎旁肌间隙入路治疗，均行椎弓根螺钉内固定术。比较两组临床手术指标（手术切口、手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、术后下床时间、住院时间）、不同时间疼痛（VAS）评分、腰椎功能指标[伤椎前缘高度、Cobb 角矫正度、功能障碍指数（ODI）]及并发症发生率。结果 观察组手术切口、术中出血量、术后引流量、术后下地时间、手术时间均短于对照组（P＜0.05）；两组住院时间比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；两组术后第3天、2周、1个月VAS评分均低于术前，且观察组术后第3天、2周VAS评分低于对照组（P＜0.05），两组术后1个月VAS评分比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；两组术后1个月伤椎前缘高度高于术前，Cobb角矫正度、ODI评分小于术前（P＜0.05），两组伤椎前缘高度、Cobb 角矫正度比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；观察组ODI评分低于对照组（P＜0.05）；随访1个月，观察组并发症发生率低于对照组（P＜0.05）。结论 椎旁肌间隙入路与传统后正中入路治疗腰椎骨折基本可获得相似的疗效，但是椎旁肌间隙入路对患者损伤小，可减少术中出血量，缩短手术和术后下床时间，降低术后引流量、ODI评分及并发症发生率，具有相对更优的应用优势。
Abstract:
Objective To observe the clinical effect of paraspinal muscle gap approach and traditional posterior median approach in treating fracture of lumbar vertebrae.Methods From March 2021 to March 2022,42 patients with fracture of lumbar vertebrae diagnosed and treated in our hospital were selected as the research objects. They were divided into control group and observation group by random number table method, with 21 patients in each group. The control group was treated with traditional posterior median approach, and the observation group was treated with paraspinal muscle space approach. All patients underwent pedicle screw internal fixation. The clinical surgical indexes (surgical incision, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative time to get out of bed, hospitalization time), pain (VAS) scores at different times, lumbar function indexes [anterior vertebral height, Cobb angle correction, dysfunction index (ODI)] and complication rate were compared between the two groups.Results The surgical incision, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative ambulation time and operation time in the observation group were shorter than those in the control group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in hospitalization time between the two groups (P>0.05). The VAS scores of the two groups on the 3rd day, 2 weeks and 1 month after operation were lower than those before operation, and the VAS scores of the observation group on the 3rd day and 2 weeks after operation were lower than those of the control group (P<0.05). One month after operation, the height of the anterior edge of the injured vertebrae in the two groups was higher than that before operation, and the Cobb angle correction and ODI score were lower than those before operation (P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in the anterior vertebral height and Cobb angle correction between the two groups (P>0.05). The ODI score of the observation group was lower than that of the control group (P<0.05). After 1 month of follow-up, the incidence of complications in the observation group was lower than that in the control group (P<0.05).Conclusion The paraspinal muscle gap approach and the traditional posterior median approach can basically achieve similar efficacy in treating fracture of lumbar vertebrae. However, the paraspinal muscle gap approach has less damage to patients, can reduce intraoperative blood loss, shorten the time of surgery and postoperative getting out of bed, and reduce postoperative drainage, ODI score and complication rate. It has relatively better application advantages.

参考文献/References:

[1]程继伟,王振林,刘伟,等.Oswestry 功能障碍指数的改良及信度和效度检验[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2017,27(3):235-241.[2]淦科,叶蜀新,林海.经皮微创与椎旁肌间隙入路椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗胸腰椎骨折疗效分析[J].局解手术学杂志,2017,26(8):612-616.[3]张志刚,李惠仙,董宏祎,等.后正中入路与椎旁肌间隙入路在胸腰椎骨折中的临床疗效比较[J].宁夏医学杂志,2019,41(1):72-73.[4]单辉强,李翀,尹毅,等.经皮椎弓根钉和经椎旁肌间隙入路椎弓根钉系统治疗单节段胸腰椎骨折的临床疗效比较[J].中华骨与关节外科杂志,2018,11(10):731-735.[5]张祝秋,薛荣,陈余庆,等.椎旁肌间隙入路与后正中入路对短节段胸腰椎骨折的疗效比较[J].南通大学学报:医学版,2018,38(5):339-341.[6]李代君,蔡小军,董革辉,等.椎旁肌间隙入路与后正中入路椎弓根螺钉内固定结合伤椎置钉治疗胸腰椎段脊柱骨折的疗效对比[J].辽宁医学杂志,2018,32(3):24-27.[7]Heintel TM,Dannigkeit S,Fenwick A,et al.How safe is minimally invasive pedicle screw placement for treatment of thoracolumbar spine fractures[J].European Spine Journal,2017,26(5):1-10.[8]赵廷虎,贺旭,刘凯.后正中切口经椎旁肌间隙入路治疗无脊髓神经损伤单纯性胸腰椎骨折的疗效分析 [J].中国伤残医学,2017,25(13):28-29.[9]郑亚东,陆生林.改良椎旁肌间隙入路与传统后正中入路治疗胸腰椎骨折的疗效比较[J].骨科,2018,9(2):90-95.[10]刘伟军,胡奕山,陈展鹏.经皮和经椎旁肌间隙入路椎弓根钉内固定对无神经损伤的胸腰椎骨折疗效对比研究[J].河北医学,2017,23(11):121-124.[11]任东良,李辉,马伟松,等.后正中入路与经椎旁肌间隙入路治疗胸腰椎骨折患者临床效果比较[J].临床军医杂志,2019,47(2):187-189.[12]张海洁.椎旁肌间隙入路联合伤椎椎体内植骨对胸腰椎骨折患者疗效及并发症的影响[J].颈腰痛杂志,2017,38(1):44-47.[13]张阳,张立志,张志成,等.经伤椎单向与万向椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗胸腰椎骨折疗效比较[J].中华骨与关节外科杂志,2020,15(11):107-109.[14]张君.经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定术治疗胸腰椎骨折的临床疗效观察[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2017,20(1):268-270.[15]魏传付,李念虎,张文焕,等.经皮经伤椎与跨伤椎椎弓根置钉内固定治疗单节段胸腰椎骨折临床效果比较[J].山东医药,2019,7(5):104-106.[16]汪晓宁,徐东,何燕飞,等.经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定术与小切口Wiltse入路椎弓根螺钉内固定术治疗胸腰椎骨折的短期疗效比较[J].创伤外科杂志,2021,15(12):66-68.[17]黎启福,冼海庭,黄志锋,等.经椎旁肌间隙入路联合伤椎置钉技术椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗胸腰椎骨折的效果分析[J].齐齐哈尔医学院学报,2018,39(7):28-31.[18]吴卓,贺西京,王自立,等.不同入路椎弓根钉内固定术治疗胸腰椎骨折临床疗效比较[J].陕西医学杂志,2022,5(4):45-47.[19]徐静德,柴殿波,申自权,等.改良Wiltse入路椎弓根钉内固定治疗无神经症状胸腰椎骨折[J].中国骨与关节损伤杂志,2022,15(1):60-63.[20]孙忠良,翟旭,陶利江,等.Wiltse入路与经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定术治疗无神经损伤胸腰椎骨折的比较研究[J].浙江医学,2020,30(7):75-77.

相似文献/References:

[1]程福宏,张 楠,王晓锋,等.椎旁肌间隙入路椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗胸腰椎脊柱骨折的疗效[J].医学信息,2020,33(07):105.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2020.07.030]
　CHENG Fu-hong,ZHANG Nan,WANG Xiao-feng,et al.Treatment of Thoracolumbar Vertebral Spine Fractures with Vertebral Pedicle Screw Fixation through Paraspinal Muscle Approach[J].Journal of Medical Information,2020,33(14):105.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2020.07.030]

更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01