Mobi-C人工颈椎间盘置换术与颈椎减压融合术的疗效比较  

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy between Artificial Cervical Disc Replacement and Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion

在线阅读下载全文

作  者:刘新伟 陆琳松[1] 徐阔[1] 王浩[1] LIU Xin-wei;LU Lin-song;XYU Kuo;WANG Hao(Department of Spinal Surgery,People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region,Urumqi,830001)

机构地区:[1]新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院脊柱二科,乌鲁木齐830001

出  处:《农垦医学》2022年第6期508-511,共4页Journal of Nongken Medicine

摘  要:目的:对比Mobi-C人工颈椎间盘置换术与颈椎间盘切除植骨融合术治疗神经根型颈椎病的疗效及预后。方法:对我院于2020年1月-2022年1月收治的神经根型颈椎病共69例患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,观察组(35例)和对照组(34例)分别为两种不同的手术方法,观察组行Mobi-C人工颈椎间盘置换术(ACDR),对照组行前路颈椎间盘切除植骨融合术(ACDF),比较两组患者的临床疗效。结果:观察组住院费用显著高于对照组(P<0.05);两组在手术时长、术中出血量、术后恢复下地活动时间及在院时间的差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后半年进行随访,与术前相比,两组患者VAS评分显著降低(P<0.05),JOA评分显著增加(P<0.05),但两组间VAS、JOA的差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);末次随访时,置换组整体ROM无明显变化(P>0.05),而融合组整体ROM显著降低(P<0.05),且两组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:两种术式均能够安全有效地治疗神经根型颈椎病,但各自有优缺点,人工颈椎间盘置换术可更好保留颈椎活动度,但花费较高;应遵循个体化治疗原则,根据患者具体情况来决定手术方式。Objective:To compare clinical effect of Cervical radiculopathy between artificial cervical disc replacement and anterior cervical decompression and fusion.Methods:69 cases of inguinal hernia patients who accepted reatment in our hospital during January 2020 and January 2021 were selected,and they were divided into the observation group(35 cases)and the control group(34 cases)by the different methods of operation.The observation group patients were given artificial cervical disc replacement for treatment,while the control group patients were treated with anterior cervical decompression and fusion.Then compare the clinical efficacy and complications of the two groups of patients.Results:The hospitalization expenses in the observation group was more expensive than that of the control group(P<0.05);There was no significant difference in the operation time,intraoperative blood loss,time to resume normal activities after surgery and hospital stay time between the two groups(P>0.05);When we investigate in the time of six months after surgery,we find the VAS score of the two groups was significantly decreased(P<0.05),and the JOA score was significantly increased(P<0.05).But there was no significant difference between the two groups(P>0.05);At the last follow-up,the overall ROM in the replacement group did not change significantly(P>0.05),while the overall ROM in the fusion group decreased significantly(P<0.05).The difference between the two groups was statistically significant(P<0.05).Conclusions:Two types of surgery can both cure the cervical radiculopathy patients safely and effectively,While they both have respective advantages and disadvantages.Artificial cervical disc replacement has the advantage of better preserving the range of motion of the cervical spine,but it has the disadvantage of higher cost.Therefore,we should obey the individualized standard and choose the appropriate operation methods by the specific situation of patients.

关 键 词:神经根型颈椎病 ACDF 人工颈椎间盘置换 临床疗效 

分 类 号:R687.4[医药卫生—骨科学]

 

参考文献:

正在载入数据...

 

二级参考文献:

正在载入数据...

 

耦合文献:

正在载入数据...

 

引证文献:

正在载入数据...

 

二级引证文献:

正在载入数据...

 

同被引文献:

正在载入数据...

 

相关期刊文献:

正在载入数据...

相关的主题
相关的作者对象
相关的机构对象