氟骨症性胸椎管狭窄症后路减压手术中骨刀和非骨刀减压方式的对比研究  

Comparison of posterior decompression using bone knife or not for treatment of thoracic spinal stenosis of fluorosis of bone

作　　者：张黎龙[1] 李连增[1] 袁建军[1] 田成瑞[1] 

机构地区：[1]天津市人民医院脊柱一科,天津300122

出　　处：《颈腰痛杂志》2005年第2期96-98,共3页The Journal of Cervicodynia and Lumbodynia

摘　　要：目的 比较氟骨症性胸椎管狭窄症后路减压手术中,应用骨刀和非骨刀两种减压方式。方 法 回顾性分析进行胸椎后路及部分上腰椎后路减压手术的出血量、手术时间及效果。220例氟骨 症性胸椎管狭窄症患者分为两组:A组为应用骨刀减压组(126例)。B组为非骨刀减压组。比较术中 出血量、手术历时、术后改善率,平均随访2年3个月。结果 骨刀减压组术中出血量、手术历时、显 著低于非骨刀减压组,而术后改善率与非骨刀减压组则无显著性差别。结论对于氟骨症性胸椎管 狭窄症行后路减压手术,在获得相同疗效下应用骨刀减压比非骨刀减压更能减少术中出血量,缩短 手术时间。Objective To compare the advantage and defect of two decompression techniques using bone knife or not for treatment of thoracic spinal stenosis of skeletal fluorosis. Methods 220 cases of thoracic spinal stenosis of skeletal fluorosis were reviewed, which were treated by posterior decompression of thoracic vertebra or upper lumbar vertebra,all patients were divided into two groups, group A :decompress using bone knife (126 cases); group B: decompress not using bone knife(94 cases). The bleeding amount,operative time and improving rate of symptom postoperativly were compared. The average follow-up period were 2 years and 3 months. Results The bleeding amount of group A is less than that of group B; and operative period of group A is shorter than B;but the improve rate is similar in two groups. Conclusion The present results show that to acquire the same improve rate, posterior decompress using bone knife is a better choice.

关 键 词：氟骨症 胸椎管狭窄症 后路减压手术 骨刀 

分 类 号：R613.41[医药卫生—外科学] R681.55[医药卫生—临床医学]