首页> 外文期刊>Spine >Surgical outcomes of degenerative spondylolisthesis with L5-S1 disc degeneration: comparison between lumbar floating fusion and lumbosacral fusion at a minimum 5-year follow-up.
【24h】

Surgical outcomes of degenerative spondylolisthesis with L5-S1 disc degeneration: comparison between lumbar floating fusion and lumbosacral fusion at a minimum 5-year follow-up.

机译:退行性腰椎滑脱伴L5-S1椎间盘退变的手术结果:在至少5年的随访中比较腰部漂浮融合和腰s融合。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective clinical and radiographic study was performed. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and a preexisting degenerative L5-S1 disc treated with a lumbar floating fusion (LFF) versus lumbosacral fusion (LSF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Fusion for treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis often ends at the L5 level. These patients usually had a preexisting L5-S1 disc degeneration; however, no literature mentions the role of prophylactic LSF in degenerative spondylolisthesis associated with L5-S1 disc degeneration. METHODS: A total of 107 patients with a minimum 5-year follow-up who had lumbosacral or LFF with pedicle instrumentation for degenerative spondylolisthesis were included. UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) classification was used to evaluate the radiographic results of the L5-S1 segment. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and modified Brodsky's criteria were used to evaluate patients' clinical results. The incidence of adjacent segment disease (ASD) (includes radiographic and clinical ASD) of both ends was recorded. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in sex, age distribution, or amount of follow-up between the LFF and LSF groups. The LSF group had a higher percentage of patients that underwent total L5 laminectomy with loss of L5-S1 posterior ligament integrity (LSF = 92% vs. LFF = 67%, P = 0.019). The higher incidence of cephalic ASD in the LSF group was statistically significant (LSF = 25% vs. LFF = 9.7%, P = 0.049). Although no patient in the LSF group developed L5-S1 ASD, need for L5-S1 segment revision surgery was not prevented with LSF. Clinical outcomes on the basis of the success rate (LFF = 85.5% vs.LSF = 70.8%, P = 0.103) and ODI difference (LFF = 28.97 +/- 15.82 vs. LSF = 23.04 +/- 10.97, P = 0.109), there were no statistically significant difference between these two groups. CONCLUSION: Posterior instrumentation with posterolateral LFF for the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis with concomitant L5-S1 disc degeneration results in a high percentage of satisfactory clinical results. Extended fusion to the sacrum did not provide a better clinical result. LSF could not reduce the incidence of revision surgery at the L5-S1 segment and involved greater incidence of cephalic ASD.
机译:研究设计:进行了回顾性临床和影像学研究。目的:本研究的目的是比较退​​行性腰椎滑脱和既有退行性腰椎漂浮融合术(LFF)与腰s融合术(LSF)治疗的退行性L5-S1椎间盘突出症患者的结局。背景数据摘要:用于变性性腰椎滑脱的融合治疗通常在L5水平结束。这些患者通常患有既往的L5-S1椎间盘退变。然而,没有文献提到预防性LSF在与L5-S1椎间盘退变相关的变性脊柱滑脱中的作用。方法:共纳入107例至少5年随访的腰or或LFF并使用椎弓根器械行退行性腰椎滑脱的患者。使用UCLA(加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校)分类来评估L5-S1段的射线照相结果。使用Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)和经过修改的Brodsky标准来评估患者的临床结果。记录两端的相邻节段疾病(ASD)(包括放射照相和临床ASD)的发生率。结果:LFF和LSF组之间在性别,年龄分布或随访量方面无统计学差异。 LSF组接受全L5椎板切除术且L5-S1后韧带完整性丧失的患者比例更高(LSF = 92%vs. LFF = 67%,P = 0.019)。 LSF组中头部ASD的发生率较高,具有统计学意义(LSF = 25%,LFF = 9.7%,P = 0.049)。尽管LSF组中没有患者出现L5-S1 ASD,但LSF并不能阻止L5-S1段翻修手术的需要。基于成功率(LFF = 85.5%vs.LSF = 70.8%,P = 0.103)和ODI差异(LFF = 28.97 +/- 15.82 vs. LSF = 23.04 +/- 10.97,P = 0.109)的临床结果,这两组之间没有统计学上的显着差异。结论:后外侧LFF后路器械治疗退行性腰椎滑脱合并L5-S1椎间盘退变的临床结果令人满意。扩展融合到fusion骨并不能提供更好的临床效果。 LSF不能降低L5-S1段翻修手术的发生率,而涉及头颅ASD的发生率更高。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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