肌间隙入路与传统剥离至椎板入路治疗胸腰椎骨折的疗效比较  

Comparison of the Wiltse paraspinal musle-splitting approach and conventional posterior midline approac h in the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures

作　　者：吴祥宗[1] 陶志东[1] 吴仁文[1] 

机构地区：[1]浙江省丽水市庆元县中医院,丽水323800

出　　处：《浙江创伤外科》2017年第4期627-629,共3页Zhejiang Journal of Traumatic Surgery

摘　　要：目的对比肌间隙入路与传统剥离至椎板入路治疗胸腰椎骨折的临床疗效。方法按照治疗方法的不同,将2012年12月至2016年12月期间的96例胸腰椎患者分成肌间隙入路组和传统入路组,比较两组患者的手术指标、Cobb角及伤椎相对高度恢复情况,术后胸腰椎疼痛情况。结果与传统入路组比较,肌间隙组患者手术时间、术后住院时间明显缩短,术中出血量以及术后引流量明显减少,比较差异具有显著性(P<0.05);治疗后1周、3个月,肌间隙组的腰背痛目测类比评分明显的低于对照组,比较差异具有显著性(P<0.05)。结论与传统剥离至椎板入路比较,肌间隙入路治疗减少了手术创伤,促进了术后恢复,降低了术后腰背疼痛程度。Objective To compare the clinical effect of the Wiltse paraspinal music-splitting approach and conventional posterior midline ap- proach in the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures Methods According to the different treatment methods, 96 patients with fractures admitted from December 2012 to December 2016 were divided into the Wihse approach group and the conventional approach group. The surgical indicators, the Cobb angle, the recovery of relative height of injured vertebra and the thoraeolumbar pain after surgery were evaluated. Results Compared with the conventional group, the time of operation and the time of hospitalization in Wiltse approach group were significantly shortened, the amount of in- traoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage were significantly reduced. The differences were significant （/（P〈0.05）. At 1 week and 3 months after treatment, the visual analogy score of low back pain in Wiltse approach group was significantly lower than that in the conventional group. The differ- ence was significant （P〈0.05）. Conclusion Compared with the conventional posterior midline approach, the Wiltse paraspinal music-splitting ap- proach reduced the surgical trauma, promoted postoperative recovery, reduced the degree of postoperative low back pain.

关 键 词：肌间隙 胸椎 腰椎 骨折 

分 类 号：R687.3[医药卫生—骨科学]