[ Objective ]To study the clinical effects of single Coflex interspinous implant on the treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD). [Methods] From June 2008 to December 2009 ninety-two degenerative disc disease patients who were accorded with the entry and removal value were divided into two groups randomly also by considering their desire. 21 cases were treated with single Coflex interspinous implant (Coflex group) and 71 cases with posterior lumbar intervertebral fusion (PLIF group). The hospital stay, operative time, blood loss and complications of all cases were surveyed. Low back pain (LBP) and leg pain at preoperative and final follow-up were evaluated according to VAS scales, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was recorded to evaluate the function. Flexion-extension radiographs were taken separately and range of motion (ROM ) of the instrumented level and upper adjacent were measured. We compared the hospital stay, operative time, blood loss between the two groups. At the same time, VAS scales of LBP and leg pain, ODI, ROM of the instrumented level and upper adjacent were also compared in and between groups. [ Results ] Hospital stay, operative time and blood loss in the Coflex group were significantly less than those in the group of PLIF (P < 0.01). VAS scales of LBP and leg pain,ODI of the final follow-up were significantly lower than preoperative in both groups (P < 0.01). Between the two groups, however, there were no significant differences neither at preoperative or final follow-up (P > 0.05). It achieved bone fusion in the group of PLIF at the final follow-up, although ROM of the instrumented level at the final follow-up in the group of Coflex was similar to the preoperative(P = 0.70). It was significantly higher in terms of ROM of the instrumented level at the final follow-up in the group of Coflex (P < 0.01), but no significant differences were found in terms of ROM at preoperative between groups (P = 0.50). ROM at the upper adjacent level at the final follow-up in the group of Coflex was similar to the preoperative (P= 0.63), whereas that in group of PLIF was markedly increased at the final follow-up(P = 0.02), compared with preoperative. It was significantly higher in terms of ROM of segment of adjacent upper operation at the final follow-up in the group of PLIF (P = 0.02), though no significant differences were found in terms of ROM at preoperative between groups (P = 0.61).[Conclusion] There is no significant differences between single Coflex interspinous implant treated for DDD and posterior interbody fusion in improving clinical symptoms. But hospital stay, operative time, blood loss were less in the single Coflex interspinous implant groups than those in posterior interbody fusion groups. Coflex interspinous implant not only provides control but not limited activity of the surgery segment, but also effectively reduces the activity of the adjacent segment.%[目的]探讨单节段棘突间Coflex装置植入治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效。[方法]收集2008年6月至2009年12月符合入选和剔除标准病例92例，随机并结合病人意愿分为两组，21例采用单节段棘突间Coflex植入术(Coflex组)，71例采用单节段后路椎间Cage植骨融合术(PLIF组)。统计分析两组的住院日、手术时间、失血量、组内及组间术前及未次随访的VAS腰痛评分、VAS腿痛评分、ODI功能评分、手术节段和上邻节段ROM。[结果]Coflex组平均住院日、手术时间、手术失血量少于PLIF组(P＜0.01)；末次随访两组VAS腰痛评分、VAS腿痛评分、ODI功能评分均小于术前(P＜0.01),术前、末次随访组间差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05)；末次随访Coflex组手术节段ROM与术前差异无统计学意义(P=0.70),末次随访PLIF组达到骨性融合，两组术前手术节段ROM差异无统计学意义(P=0.50)，Coflex组末次随访ROM明显大于PLIF组(P＜0.01)；末次随访Coflex组上邻节段ROM与术前差异无统计学意义(P=0.63),末次随访PLIF组ROM明显大于术前(P=0.02)，术前两组上邻节段ROM差异无统计学意义(P=0.61)，末次随访PLIF组ROM明显大于Coflex组(P=0.02)。[结论]单节段棘突间Coflex装置治疗腰椎退行性疾病存改善临床症状方面与后路椎间融合固定术无明显差异，但平均住院日、手术时间和术中失血量较少；棘突间Coflex装置能保留可控的手术节段椎间活动度，并有效减少上邻节段椎间活动度。
展开▼
