两种减压融合方式治疗相邻两节段颈椎病前瞻性探究.docVIP

两种减压融合方式治疗相邻两节段颈椎病前瞻性探究 　【摘要】 比较经椎间隙减压聚醚醚酮融合术（AIFC）和椎体次全切除内固定术（ACFP） 治疗 相邻两节段颈椎病的疗效。［ 方法 ］ 60例相邻两节段颈椎病患者随机分为AIFC组和ACFP组，对两组的围手术期指标、脊髓功能40分评分、影像学参数进行比较。［结果］平均住院日、融合节段高度、脊髓功能40分评分无显著性差异，AIFC组手术失血量、手术时间、供骨区并发症少于ACFP组；AIFC组术后融合节段Cobbs角改善41°，明显大于ACFP组21°，差异有统计学意义（P＜005）。术后平均随访时间，AIFC组28个月，ACFP组25个月，两组患者的优良率和有效率无显著性差异(P＞005)。结论 AIFC和ACFP治疗相邻两节段颈椎病短期结果均满意。AIFC在缩短手术时间、减少失血量、减少供骨区并发症和融合节段Cobbs角矫正方面具有优势。 【关键词】 颈椎 前路减压 脊柱融合术 椎体次全切 融合器 毕业论文 Abstract： ［Objective］ To compare the efficacy of interbody fusion with cage versus corpectomy and fusion with plate in treating adjacent two-level cervical spondylosis［Method］ Sixty patients were included in this studyAll patients were randomly assigned to anterior interbody fusion with cage (AIFC) group or anterior corpectomy and fusion with plate (ACFP) group The average follow-up period was 28 months for AIFC group，and 25 months for ACFP group ［Result］ The average loss of lordosis angle, the lost correction of segmental hEight and the scores on the criteria of 40-score method were not statistically significant between these 2 groups The lordosis correction, operative estimated blood loss, and operative time were statistically better in the AIFC group significantly  ［Conclusion］ The short-term results of AIFC and ACFP in treating adjacent two-level cervical spondylosis were satisfactory The advantages of AIFC are the elimination of donor site complications, increasing more segmental lordosis, and reducing blood loss and operative time 论文代写 Key words：cervical vertebrae；anterior decompression；interbody fusion；corpectomy；cage 颈椎前路减压融合术是治疗颈椎病的重要手段，适用于两个节段以下的颈椎病，而三个节段以上的椎间盘突出，采取前路多节段融合术或是行后路椎管成形术还存在较多争议。临床上有多种颈椎减压融合手术方式可供选择，但尚无一种公认最完美的融合技术。近年来，由于在保持椎间高度和提高融合率方面的优势，使经椎间隙减压聚醚醚酮融合术（anterior interbody fusion with cage，AIFC）和椎体次全切除内固定术（anterior corpectomy and fusion with plate，ACFP）成为临床上广泛采用的两种术式。为了解和评价这两种手术的治疗效果，作者以2004年3月至2006年6月手术病例为 研究 对象，设计了随机对照的前瞻性研究，旨在从功能恢复和影像学两方面比较两种手术方式在相邻两节段颈椎病治疗中的疗效。 1资料与方法 论文代写 11