- 1、原创力文档(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。。
- 2、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载。
- 3、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
- 4、该文档为VIP文档,如果想要下载,成为VIP会员后,下载免费。
- 5、成为VIP后,下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后,不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们。
- 6、成为VIP后,您将拥有八大权益,权益包括:VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
- 7、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传,每下载1次, 网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等,对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档
查看更多
微创扩张通道结合经皮椎弓根螺钉技术治疗腰椎峡部裂疗效剖析
微创扩张通道结合经皮椎弓根螺钉技术治疗腰椎峡部裂疗效剖析
【摘要】 目的:比较微创扩张通道结合经皮椎弓根技术与传统开放手术治疗腰椎狭部裂的疗效及术后并发症。方法:选取2011年2月-2015年4月本院41例腰椎狭部裂手术患者,根据手术方法不同,分为微创组21例与传统开放组20例,比较两组的手术时间、手术出血量、术后症状改善情况、术后融合率。结果:41例患者均顺利完成手术,微创组术中出血量及术后引流量均较开放组少,两组比较差异均有统计学意义(P0.05);两组的VAS、ODI评分较术前均有显著改善,术后1个月微创组较开放手术组VAS、ODI评分改善更为明显,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05);术后6个月微创组融合率高于开放组。结论:微创扩张通道结合经皮椎弓根技术治疗腰椎峡部裂与传统开放手术比较,具有手术出现量少、术后早期恢复快、融合率高等优点,值得临床推广。
【关键词】 峡部裂; 微创; 腰椎融合术; 经皮椎弓根固定
【Abstract】 Objective:To compare the curative effect and postoperative complications of lumbar spondylolysis treated with minimally invasive expansion duct combined with percutaneous pedicle screw technique and traditional open operation.Method: 41 surgical patients with lumbar spondylolysis were selected in our hospital from February 2011 to April 2015. According to the operation method, they were divided into the minimally invasive group for 21 cases and traditional open group for 20 cases,the operation time, amount of bleeding, improvement of postoperative symptoms and postoperative fusion rate between the two groups were compared. Result: 41 patients accepted the operation successfully,the amount of bleeding and fluid volume of minimally invasive group were less than those of traditional open group,the differences were statistically significance(P0.05).The VAS and ODI scores of two groups were more significantly improved than those of before operation, after surgery of 1 month, the VAS and ODI scores of the minimally invasive group were more improved than the traditional open group,the differences were statistically significant(P0.05). After operation of six months, the fusion rate of minimally invasive group was higher than that of traditional open group.Conclusion: Compared with the traditional open group, treating lumbar spondylolysis with minimally invasive expansion duct combined with percutaneous pedicle screw technique has the advantages of less amount of bleeding, quick recovery after operation and high fusion rate, which is worthy of clini
文档评论(0)