不同入路方式治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的研究分析  

Different approaches in treatment of multi-segmental cervical spondylotic myelopathy

作　　者：曾昭池[1] 郭中凯[1] 朱志勇[1] 汪海军[1] 朱凡[1] 

机构地区：[1]解放军第169医院骨科,湖南衡阳421002

出　　处：《中国矫形外科杂志》2013年第8期772-775,共4页Orthopedic Journal of China

摘　　要：[目的]比较前、后路不同入路方式对多节段脊髓型颈椎病的治疗效果。[方法]回顾性分析本院2008年9月～2011年9月分别对126例患者采用前路、后路的手术方法治疗颈椎病,术前和术后按照JOA评分系统进行评分并计算恢复率,MRI测量硬脊膜囊矢状径并计算膨胀回复率。[结果]两组患者术前、术后JOA评分比较,差异无显著统计学意义(P>0.05),改善率比较则A组优于B组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者术前、术后硬脊膜囊矢状径比较,差异无显著统计学意义(P>0.05),膨胀回复率比较则A组优于B组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。[结论]前、后路减压手术均是治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的有效方法,前路减压效果更佳。[ Objective] To compare the effects of anterior and posterior cervical decompression and fusion for the treatment of multi- segmental cervical spondylotic myelopathy. [ Method] A retrospective study was made on 126 patients with anterior （group A）, posterior （group B） approach operations for the treatment of cervical disease from September 2008 to September 2011. Preoperative and postoperative JOA scoring system was used to compare the recovery rate. MRI measurement of dural sac sagittal diameter was calculated for the expansion and recovery rate. [ Result] Preoperative and postoperative JOA scores showed no statistically significant difference between 2 groups （ P 〉 0.05 ）. Improve rate in group A was better than that in group B, with significant difference （ P 〈 0. 05 ）. Expansion recovery rate in group A was better than that in group B, with significant difference （ P 〈 0.05 ）. [ Conclusion ] Both anterior and posterior approach are effective operations to multilevel CSM, however, the thera- peutic effects of anterior approach is better than posterior approach.

关 键 词：颈椎病 脊髓压迫症 手术 治疗 

分 类 号：R687.3[医药卫生—骨科学]