• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Open Journal of Modern Neurosurgery >Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Posterolateral Fusion in Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolithesis
【24h】

Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Posterolateral Fusion in Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolithesis

机译：后路腰椎椎体间融合术与后外侧融合术治疗腰椎滑脱症

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background: The optimal surgical technique for lumbar spondylolithesis remains debated. Although posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) theoretically offers more advantages than posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF), the evidence remains inconclusive. Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of PLIF versus PLF in patients with lumbar spondylolithesis. Patients and Methods: We enrolled 38 patients with lumbar spondylolithesis (degenerative and isthmic) who underwent PLIF (N = 19) or PLF (N = 19). We collected operative data and performed follow-up for 12 months after the surgery. The collected data were analyzed using the SPSS software to detected significant differences between both groups. Results: The PLF and PLIF groups exhibited similar pre-operative characteristics between both groups in terms of age (p = 0.57), sex (p = 0.73), clinical presentation (p = 1), required levels of fixation (p = 1), pre-operative VAS score (p = 0.43) or muscle weakness (p = 1). However, the PLIF group had significantly more blood loss and longer operative time than the PLF group. Moreover, both groups had similar levels of postoperative pain (up to six months after surgery), and post-operative complications. The rates of arthrodesis were higher in PLIF group than PLF group within six months while no significant difference within 12 months of follow-up. Conclusion: In our comparative study, we achieved comparison between pedicle screw fixation with posterolateral fusion alone (PLF) in compare with pedicle screw fixation with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Results indicate better results of fusion rate in PLIF as regards arthrodesis with slightly more rate of complication than PLF. So we recommend PLIF in cases of lumbar spondylolithesis than PLF.
机译：背景：腰椎滑脱的最佳手术技术仍存在争议。尽管理论上后路腰椎椎间融合术（PLIF）比后外侧腰椎融合术（PLF）具有更多优势，但证据尚无定论。目的：本研究的目的是比较PLIF与PLF在腰椎滑石症患者中的临床和功能结局。患者和方法：我们招募了38例接受PLIF（N = 19）或PLF（N = 19）腰椎滑脱（退行性和缺血性）的患者。我们收集了手术数据并在术后12个月进行了随访。使用SPSS软件分析收集的数据，以检测两组之间的显着差异。结果：PLF和PLIF组在年龄（p = 0.57），性别（p = 0.73），临床表现（p = 1），所需固定水平（p = 1）方面表现出相似的术前特征。 ，术前VAS评分（p = 0.43）或肌肉无力（p = 1）。但是，PLIF组比PLF组有更多的失血量和更长的手术时间。此外，两组的术后疼痛程度（手术后长达六个月）和术后并发症相似。 PLIF组的关节置换率在六个月内高于PLF组，而在随访的12个月内无明显差异。结论：在我们的比较研究中，我们比较了仅使用后外侧融合器（PLF）进行的椎弓根螺钉固定与采用后路腰椎椎间融合器（PLIF）进行的椎弓根螺钉固定的比较。结果表明，关于关节固定术，PLIF中融合率的结果更好，其并发症发生率比PLF高。因此，我们建议在腰椎滑脱的情况下使用PLIF而不是PLF。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号