应用改良PLIF、PLIF治疗腰椎管狭窄症的对照分析.pdfVIP

英文摘要 应用改良PLIF、PLIF 治疗腰椎管狭窄症的对照研究 interbody fusion was 87.1 ％. The operation time and bleed amount during operation of group PLIF were obviously higher than that of group modified PLIF(P0.05). There were no significant differences between two groups in terms of the rate of interbody fusion(P0.05). All of 43 patients were followed up for 12-36 months(average 20 months). At 1 week after operation, the satisfied rate of patients was 90.0 ％in group modified PLIF, 82.6 ％in group PLIF(P0.05). There were no significant differences between two groups in tems of VAS and ODI when compared the preoperative value with the final follow-up value (P0.05). There was significant difference within group modified PLIF and PLIF in terms of VAS and ODI when compared the preoperative value with the final follow-up value(P0.05), but there were no significant differences among two groups in the improvement rate(P0.05) ．The intervertebral space grading method proposed by Roberts method was adopted to evaluate the intervertebral space height ，the value in group modified PLIF was 0.80±0.9l at pre-operation，and 1.26±0.43 at the end of follow up (P0.05) ；the value in group PLIF was 0.77±0.90 at pre-operation，and 1.25±0.58 at the end of follow up(p0.05) ． Conclusion: Interbody fusion with either a PLIF or a modified PLIF provides good outcomes in the treatment of LSS. According to the patients’ frondose condition, we should strictly control the indictions of PLIF and MPLIF, and select the better method. Both PLIF and MPLIF are viable methods in the treatment of LSS. Keywords: LSS; transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; posterior lumbar interbodyfusion; MPLIF; PLIF