前路减压Zero-P椎间融合器与C-JAWS颈椎压力固定器治疗脊髓型颈椎病的疗效分析  

Case-control study of Zero-P implant and C-JAWS cervical compressive staple in treating cervical spondylitic myelopathy

作　　者：陈扬[1] 杨泽雨[2] 杨欣建[1] 任凯[1] 钱文彬[2] 蓝涛[1] 赵忠玮[1] 张小骞 

机构地区：[1]深圳市第二人民医院脊柱外科,广东518029 [2]安徽医科大学深圳二院临床学院

出　　处：《中国骨与关节损伤杂志》2015年第3期238-240,共3页Chinese Journal of Bone and Joint Injury

基　　金：广东省建设中医药强省科研课题(20141257);深圳市卫计委项目(201401016)

摘　　要：目的比较前路减压Zero-P椎间融合器（A组）和C-JAWS颈椎压力固定器（B组）治疗脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2011-08-2013-01采用颈前路髓核摘除植骨融合术的35例脊髓型颈椎病的临床资料。结果35例获得随访13~24个月,平均18个月。2组手术时间、术后并发症比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）,术中出血量、影像学表现和术后3 d、术后1个月及末次随访时JOA和VAS评分比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论应用Zero-P椎间融合器和C-JAWS颈椎压力固定器植骨融合内固定治疗脊髓型颈椎病均可取得满意的疗效,失血量少、术野清晰、创伤小,Zero-P可减少术后吞咽困难的发生率,C-JAWS颈椎压力固定器手术时间更短、操作更简便,各具优势。Objective To compare the clinical effects of anterior cervical approach decompression, Zero-P implant（group A）and C-JAWS cervical compressive staple（group B） for treatment of cervical spondylitic myelopathy. Methods From August2011 to January 2013, the clinical data of 35 patients who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion（ACDF） were retrospectively analyzed. Results Thirty-five patients were followed for 13-24 months, average 18 months. There was statistically significant differences in operation time, postoperative complications between two groups（ P〈0.05） while the differences in the intraoperative blood loss, radiological results and the JOA and WAS scores three days, one month after operation, at last follow up between group A and B had no statistical significance（P〉0.05）. Conclusion Both methods can obtain satisfactory effects in treating cervical spondylitic myelopathy with less blood loss, clear operative field and less invasion. The Zero-P implant can reduce the incidence of postoperatie dysphagia while C-JAWS cervical compressive staple is shorter in operative time and more convenient to operate with, each with its advantages.

关 键 词：脊髓型颈椎病 Zero-P C-JAWS 颈椎压力固定器 

分 类 号：R687.3[医药卫生—骨科学]