首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>European Spine Journal >Outcomes of three anterior decompression and fusion techniques in the treatment of three-level cervical spondylosis
【2h】

Outcomes of three anterior decompression and fusion techniques in the treatment of three-level cervical spondylosis

机译:三种前路减压融合技术治疗三级颈椎病的疗效

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The purpose of this article is to compare the outcomes of three different anterior approaches for three-level cervical spondylosis. The records of 120 patients who underwent anterior approaches because of three-level cervical spondylosis between 2006 and 2008 were reviewed. Based on the type of surgery, the patients were divided into three groups: Group 1 was three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF); Group 2 anterior cervical hybrid decompression and fusion (ACHDF, combination of ACDF and ACCF); and Group 3 two-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF). The clinical outcomes including blood loss, operation time, complications, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, C2–C7 angle, segmental angle, and fusion rate were compared. There were no significant differences in JOA improvement and fusion rate among three groups. However, in terms of segmental angle and C2–C7 angle improvement, Group 2 was superior to Group 3 and inferior to Group 1 (all P < 0.01). Group 2 was less in operation time than Group 3 (P < 0.01) and more than Group 1 (P < 0.01). Group 3 had more blood loss than Group 1 and Group 2 (all P < 0.01) and had higher complication rate than Group 1 (P < 0.05). No significant differences in blood loss and complication rate were observed between Group 1 and Group 2 (P > 0.05). ACDF was superior in most outcomes to ACCF and ACHDF. If the compressive pathology could be resolved by discectomy, ACDF should be the treatment of choice. ACHDF was an ideal alternative procedure to ACDF if retro-vertebral pathology existed. ACCF was the last choice considered.
机译:本文的目的是比较三种不同的前路入路对三级颈椎病的疗效。回顾了2006年至2008年间因三级颈椎病而接受前路入路的120例患者的记录。根据手术类型,将患者分为三组:第一组为三级颈椎前路椎间盘切除加融合术(ACDF);第二组为前路颈椎间盘摘除融合术(ACDF)。第2组颈椎前路混合减压融合术(ACHDF,ACDF和ACCF的组合);第3组两级前路颈椎切除与融合术(ACCF)。比较了包括失血量,手术时间,并发症,日本骨科协会(JOA)评分,C2-C7角,节段角和融合率在内的临床结局。三组之间在JOA改善和融合率方面无显着差异。然而,就节段角和C2-C7角改善而言,第2组优于第3组,但不如第1组(所有P <0.01)。第2组的手术时间少于第3组(P <0.01),而比第1组更长(P <0.01)。第3组的失血量高于第1组和第2组(均P <0.01),并且并发症发生率高于第1组(P <0.05)。第1组和第2组之间的失血量和并发症发生率没有显着差异(P> 0.05)。 ACDF在大多数结局方面均优于ACCF和ACHDF。如果可以通过椎间盘切除术解决压迫性病理,ACDF应该是首选治疗方法。如果存在椎体后病理,ACHDF是ACDF的理想替代手术。 ACCF是考虑的最后选择。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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