多孔中空椎弓根螺钉骨水泥加强固定治疗合并骨质疏松症的腰椎退变性侧凸
|
摘要
目的:探讨应用多孔中空椎弓根螺钉(cement injectable cannulated pedicle screws,CICPs)骨水泥加强固定治疗合并骨质疏松症的腰椎退变性侧凸的有效性和安全性。方法:回顾性队列研究2014年10月至2015年12月期间北京大学第一医院骨科治疗腰椎退变性侧凸Lenke-silva分级Ⅲ级或Ⅳ级合并骨质疏松症的手术病例,比较多孔中空椎弓根螺钉骨水泥加强固定病例和常规手术病例在腰椎退变性侧凸减压矫形固定融合手术中的临床效果和安全性。术后1个月、6个月和1年各随访一次,采用腰痛视觉模拟评分(visual analog scale,VAS)和下肢痛VAS评定临床症状改善情况,采用Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)评分和欧洲五维健康量表(Euro Qol-5 dimensions,EQ-5D)评定术后功能改善情况。拍摄腰椎正侧位X线片、动力位X线片和脊柱全长正侧位X线片,测定冠状位侧弯Cobb角、矢状位胸椎后凸、腰椎前凸Cobb角以及矢状位平衡距离(sagittal vertical axis,SVA),评估手术节段的融合情况。结果:共入组34例病例,其中CICPs组15例,对照组19例,两组病例的一般资料包括年龄、性别比例、体重、身高、体重指数、骨密度T值差异均无统计学意义;CICPs组平均骨水泥加强(5.7±2.2)枚螺钉,手术时间、术中出血量和术中输血量CICPs组高于对照组,但差异无统计学意义。临床效果评定中,两组病例术后1个月、术后6个月、术后1年腰痛VAS评分、下肢痛VAS评分、ODI评分和EQ-5D量表同术前相比均明显降低;组间比较,腰痛VAS评分术后6个月(CICPs组3.1±1.3 vs.对照组4.4±1.4,P<0.01)和术后1年(CICPs组3.3±1.0 vs.对照组5.2±1.4,P<0.01),ODI评分术后1年(CICPs组22.7±17.2 vs.对照组31.4±18.5,P<0.01)和EQ-5D量表术后1年(CICPs组2.9±2.0 vs.对照组3.5±2.5,P<0.01)CICPs组要低于对照组。影像学参数评定中,两组病例腰椎侧凸的冠状位Cobb角术后1个月、术后6个月、术后1年同术前相比均得到明显纠正,矢状位腰椎前凸角和胸椎后凸角术后1个月、术后6个月、术后1年同术前相比较术前均显著增加,组间比较,腰椎侧凸的冠状位Cobb角术后1年CICPs组要明显低于对照组(CICPs组17.6°±6.9°vs.对照组21.2°±7.2°,P<0.01),腰椎前凸角术后6个月(CICPs组-33.5°±8.8°vs.对照组-28.9°±8.3°,P<0.01)和术后1年(CICPs组-33.0°±8.1°vs.对照组-26.3°±7.4°,P<0.01),胸椎后凸角术后1年CICPs组要明显高于对照组(CICPs组26.4°±8.1°vs.对照组22.1°±7.3°,P<0.01)。结论:多孔中空椎弓根螺钉骨水泥加强固定治疗合并骨质疏松的腰椎退变性侧凸安全有效,短期临床效果满意。
Objective: To describe the application of polymethylmethacrylate( PMMA) augmentation of cement-injectable cannulated pedicle screws for the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis with osteoporosis. Methods: Retrospective cohort study was used to compare cement injectable cannulated pedicle screws( CICPs) group with PMMA augmentation and control group with traditional method in the correction surgery for Lenke-silva level Ⅲ and level Ⅳ degenerative scoliosis cases with osteoporosis.Both groups were followed up for 1 year. The clinical results were assessed by visual analog scale( VAS)of pain on lumbar and lower limbers,Oswestry disability index( ODI) score and Euro Qol-5 dimensions( EQ-5D) score. The coronal major curve Cobb angel in coronal plane and thoracic kyphosis Cobb angle,lumbar lordosis Cobb angle and sagittal vertical axis( SVA) in sagittal plane were tested in whole long spine X ray. The fusion rates were evaluated by lumbar X ray and dynamic X ray. Results: In this study34 cases were enrolled,15 cases in CICPs group and 19 cases in control group. The general characteristics including age,gender,weight,height,BMI and BMD were without statistical difference between the two groups. There were( 5. 7 ± 2. 2) PMMA augmentation screws in CICPs group. The operation time,blood loss and blood transfusion were higher in CICPs group than in control group,but without statistical difference. Lumbar VAS,lower limbers VAS,ODI score and EQ-5D were all better in 1 month postoperation,6 months postoperation and 1 year postoperation than in preoperation in both groups. lumbar VAS scores of CICPs group in 6 months postoperation( CICPs group 3. 1 ± 1. 3 vs. control group 4. 4 ±1. 4,P < 0. 01) together with lumbar VAS scores( CICPs group 3. 3 ± 1. 0 vs. control group 5. 2 ± 1. 4,P < 0. 01),ODI scores( CICPs group 22. 7 ± 17. 2 vs. control group 31. 4 ± 18. 5,P < 0. 01) and EQ-5D in 1 year postoperation( CICPs group 2. 9 ± 2. 0 vs. control group 3. 5 ± 2. 5,P < 0. 01) were lower than those of control group. The coronal major curve Cobb angels were all lower in 1 month postoperation,6 months postoperation and 1 year postoperation than in preoperation in both groups; thoracic kyphosis Cobb angle and lumbar lordosis Cobb angle were all higher in 1 month postoperation,6 months postoperation and 1 year postoperation than in preoperation in both groups. The coronal major curve Cobb angel was lower in CICPs group than that in control group in 1 year postoperation( CICPs group 17. 6° ± 6. 9°vs. control group 21. 2° ± 7. 2°,P < 0. 01) and thoracic kyphosis Cobb angle was higher in CICPs group than that in control group in 6 months postoperation( CICPs group-33. 5° ± 8. 8 ° vs. control group-28. 9° ± 8. 3°,P < 0. 01) and 1 year postoperation( CICPs group-33. 0° ± 8. 1° vs. control group-26. 3° ± 7. 4°,P < 0. 01) together with lumbar lordosis Cobb angle were higher in CICPs group than that in control group in 1 year postoperation( CICPs group 26. 4° ± 8. 1° vs. control group 22. 1° ± 7. 3°,P < 0. 01). Conclusion: Polymethylmethacrylate augmentation of bone cement-injectable cannulated pedicle screws for the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis with osteoporosis was effective and safe,the short-term clinical result was good.
Objective: To describe the application of polymethylmethacrylate( PMMA) augmentation of cement-injectable cannulated pedicle screws for the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis with osteoporosis. Methods: Retrospective cohort study was used to compare cement injectable cannulated pedicle screws( CICPs) group with PMMA augmentation and control group with traditional method in the correction surgery for Lenke-silva level Ⅲ and level Ⅳ degenerative scoliosis cases with osteoporosis.Both groups were followed up for 1 year. The clinical results were assessed by visual analog scale( VAS)of pain on lumbar and lower limbers,Oswestry disability index( ODI) score and Euro Qol-5 dimensions( EQ-5D) score. The coronal major curve Cobb angel in coronal plane and thoracic kyphosis Cobb angle,lumbar lordosis Cobb angle and sagittal vertical axis( SVA) in sagittal plane were tested in whole long spine X ray. The fusion rates were evaluated by lumbar X ray and dynamic X ray. Results: In this study34 cases were enrolled,15 cases in CICPs group and 19 cases in control group. The general characteristics including age,gender,weight,height,BMI and BMD were without statistical difference between the two groups. There were( 5. 7 ± 2. 2) PMMA augmentation screws in CICPs group. The operation time,blood loss and blood transfusion were higher in CICPs group than in control group,but without statistical difference. Lumbar VAS,lower limbers VAS,ODI score and EQ-5D were all better in 1 month postoperation,6 months postoperation and 1 year postoperation than in preoperation in both groups. lumbar VAS scores of CICPs group in 6 months postoperation( CICPs group 3. 1 ± 1. 3 vs. control group 4. 4 ±1. 4,P < 0. 01) together with lumbar VAS scores( CICPs group 3. 3 ± 1. 0 vs. control group 5. 2 ± 1. 4,P < 0. 01),ODI scores( CICPs group 22. 7 ± 17. 2 vs. control group 31. 4 ± 18. 5,P < 0. 01) and EQ-5D in 1 year postoperation( CICPs group 2. 9 ± 2. 0 vs. control group 3. 5 ± 2. 5,P < 0. 01) were lower than those of control group. The coronal major curve Cobb angels were all lower in 1 month postoperation,6 months postoperation and 1 year postoperation than in preoperation in both groups; thoracic kyphosis Cobb angle and lumbar lordosis Cobb angle were all higher in 1 month postoperation,6 months postoperation and 1 year postoperation than in preoperation in both groups. The coronal major curve Cobb angel was lower in CICPs group than that in control group in 1 year postoperation( CICPs group 17. 6° ± 6. 9°vs. control group 21. 2° ± 7. 2°,P < 0. 01) and thoracic kyphosis Cobb angle was higher in CICPs group than that in control group in 6 months postoperation( CICPs group-33. 5° ± 8. 8 ° vs. control group-28. 9° ± 8. 3°,P < 0. 01) and 1 year postoperation( CICPs group-33. 0° ± 8. 1° vs. control group-26. 3° ± 7. 4°,P < 0. 01) together with lumbar lordosis Cobb angle were higher in CICPs group than that in control group in 1 year postoperation( CICPs group 26. 4° ± 8. 1° vs. control group 22. 1° ± 7. 3°,P < 0. 01). Conclusion: Polymethylmethacrylate augmentation of bone cement-injectable cannulated pedicle screws for the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis with osteoporosis was effective and safe,the short-term clinical result was good.
引文
[1]Silva FE,Lenke LG.Adult degenerative scoliosis:evaluation and management[J].Neurosurg Focus,2010,28(3):E1.
[2]Tang H,Zhu J,Ji F,et al.Risk factors for postoperative complication after spinal fusion and instrumentation in degenerative lumbar scoliosis patients[J].J Orthop Surg Res,2014,9(1):15.
[3]Wang G,Hu J,Liu X,et al.Surgical treatments for degenerative lumbar scoliosis:a meta analysis[J].Eur Spine J,2015,24(8):1792-1799.
[4]Faldini C,Di MA,Borghi R,et al.Long vs.short fusions for adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis:does balance matters[J].Eur Spine J,2015,24(Suppl 7):887-892.
[5]Ha KY,Kim YH,Ahn JH.Is it real adjacent segment pathology by stress concentration after limited fusion in degenerative lumbar scoliosis[J].Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2014,39(13):1059-1066.
[6]Smith JS,Klineberg E,Lafage V,et al.Prospective multicenter assessment of perioperative and minimum 2-year postoperative complication rates associated with adult spinal deformity surgery[J].J Neurosurg Spine,2016,25(1):1-14.
[7]Wang H,Ma L,Yang D,et al.Incidence and risk factors for the progression of proximal junctional kyphosis in degenerative lumbar scoliosis following long instrumented posterior spinal fusion[J].Medicine(Baltimore),2016,95(32):e4443.
[8]Mummaneni PV,Park P,Fu KM,et al.Does minimally invasive percutaneous posterior instrumentation reduce risk of proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity surgery?A propensity-matched cohort analysis[J].Neurosurgery,2016,78(1):101-108.
[9]Sandquist L,Carr D,Tong D,et al.Preventing proximal junctional failure in long segmental instrumented cases of adult degenerative scoliosis using a multilevel stabilization screw technique[J].Surg Neurol Int,2015,6:112.
[10]Xie Y,Fu Q,Chen ZQ,et al.Comparison between two pedicle screw augmentation instrumentations in adult degenerative scoliosis with osteoporosis[J].BMC Musculoskelet Disord,2011,12:286.
[2]Tang H,Zhu J,Ji F,et al.Risk factors for postoperative complication after spinal fusion and instrumentation in degenerative lumbar scoliosis patients[J].J Orthop Surg Res,2014,9(1):15.
[3]Wang G,Hu J,Liu X,et al.Surgical treatments for degenerative lumbar scoliosis:a meta analysis[J].Eur Spine J,2015,24(8):1792-1799.
[4]Faldini C,Di MA,Borghi R,et al.Long vs.short fusions for adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis:does balance matters[J].Eur Spine J,2015,24(Suppl 7):887-892.
[5]Ha KY,Kim YH,Ahn JH.Is it real adjacent segment pathology by stress concentration after limited fusion in degenerative lumbar scoliosis[J].Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2014,39(13):1059-1066.
[6]Smith JS,Klineberg E,Lafage V,et al.Prospective multicenter assessment of perioperative and minimum 2-year postoperative complication rates associated with adult spinal deformity surgery[J].J Neurosurg Spine,2016,25(1):1-14.
[7]Wang H,Ma L,Yang D,et al.Incidence and risk factors for the progression of proximal junctional kyphosis in degenerative lumbar scoliosis following long instrumented posterior spinal fusion[J].Medicine(Baltimore),2016,95(32):e4443.
[8]Mummaneni PV,Park P,Fu KM,et al.Does minimally invasive percutaneous posterior instrumentation reduce risk of proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity surgery?A propensity-matched cohort analysis[J].Neurosurgery,2016,78(1):101-108.
[9]Sandquist L,Carr D,Tong D,et al.Preventing proximal junctional failure in long segmental instrumented cases of adult degenerative scoliosis using a multilevel stabilization screw technique[J].Surg Neurol Int,2015,6:112.
[10]Xie Y,Fu Q,Chen ZQ,et al.Comparison between two pedicle screw augmentation instrumentations in adult degenerative scoliosis with osteoporosis[J].BMC Musculoskelet Disord,2011,12:286.