|
|
|
| Comparison of clinical effect of minimally invasive percutaneous and transmuscular approach space with pedicle screw internal fixation in the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures |
| HUANG Zhonglian1 ZHANG Nan2 ZHANG Yuantao1 |
1.Department of Orthopedics, the First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Guangdong Province, Shantou 515041, China;
2.Department of Orthopedics, Chaonan Minsheng Hospital of Shantou City, Guangdong Province, Shantou 515100, China |
|
|
|
Abstract Objective To compare the clinical effect of minimally invasive percutaneous and transmuscular space approach pedicle screw internal fixation in the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures. Methods The clinical data of 100 patients with thoracolumbar fractures admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College from February 2017 to August 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The selected patients were divided into minimally invasive percutaneous group (51 cases) and transmuscular space group (49 cases) according to the surgical methods. Minimally invasive percutaneous therapy was used in the minimally invasive percutaneous group, and transmuscular space therapy was used in the transmuscular space group. Functional improvement, pain, clinical efficacy, incidence of complications and imaging indexes were compared between the two groups. Results There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the clinical total effective rate at 6 months after surgery (P ＞ 0.05). Compared with the minimally invasive percutaneous group, the transmuscular space group had shorter operative time and fewer intraoperative fluoroscopy times. However, the intraoperative blood loss was large and the hospital stay was long, the differences were statistically significant (all P ＜ 0.05). There was no significant difference in incision length between the two groups (P ＞ 0.05). The differences in time points and interaction between the two groups were statistically significant (all P ＜ 0.05), while the differences between the two groups were not statistically significant (P ＞ 0.05). Compared with the preoperative results, visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) scores of the two groups were decreased at 1 week, 3 months and 6 months after surgery, and compared with 1 week after surgery, VAS and ODI scores of the two groups decreased at 3 months and 6 months after surgery, moreover, VAS and ODI scores of the two groups at 6 months after surgery were lower than those at 3 months after surgery, the differences were statistically significant (all P ＜ 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in VAS and ODI scores between the two groups at 1 week, 3 months and 6 months after surgery (all P ＞ 0.05). Compared with the preoperative results, the anterior edge height of the injured vertebral body increased and the Cobb angle of kyphosis decreased in the two groups at 1 week and 6 months after surgery, with statistically significant differences (all P ＜ 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the anterior edge height of the injured vertebral body and the Cobb angle of kyphosis between the two groups at 1 week and 6 months after surgery (P ＞ 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (P ＞ 0.05). Conclusion In the treatment of thoracolumbar fracture, minimally invasive percutaneous and transmuscular space approach with pedicle screw internal fixation has the same therapeutic effect. Minimally invasive percutaneous surgery has less blood loss and shorter hospital stay, but transmuscular space surgery has shorter time and less intraoperative fluoroscopy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 曾红生，陈子华，陈建威，等.经伤椎椎弓根螺钉置入内固定修复胸腰椎骨折：远期效果及生物力学分析[J].中国组织工程研究，2016，20（4）：571-576.
[2] 郑亚东，陆生林.改良椎旁肌间隙入路与传统后正中入路治疗胸腰椎骨折的疗效比较[J].骨科，2018，9（2）：90-95.
[3] 耿晓林，周迎锋，贾金领，等.经椎旁肌间隙入路与微创经皮入路手术治疗胸腰椎骨折的效果比较[J].中国内镜杂志，2019，25（1）：48-52.
[4] 熊永发，宁旭，闫飞，等.经皮椎弓根钉内固定与开放手术内固定治疗老年胸腰椎骨折的疗效对比[J].中国老年学杂志，2016，36（4）：916-917.
[5] 王峰.微创经皮结合伤椎椎弓根螺钉固定治疗胸腰椎骨折疗效分析[J].基层医学论坛，2016，20（34）：4905-4906.
[6] 田爱平.经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定术与开放椎弓根螺钉内固定术治疗无神经损伤胸腰段骨折对比研究[J].山西医药杂志，2017，46（2）：181-183.
[7] 陈旭鸿，张继业，杨琳.微创经皮并结合伤椎椎弓根螺钉固定治疗胸腰椎骨折的效果体会[J].中国实用医药，2016，11（36）：31-33.
[8] 肖斌，李健，蔡厚洪，等.经后路单侧伤椎固定治疗胸腰椎骨折的临床应用[J].重庆医学，2016，45（22）：3049-3051，3054.
[9] 魏传付，李念虎，张文焕，等.经皮经伤椎与跨伤椎椎弓根置钉内固定治疗单节段胸腰椎骨折临床效果比较[J].山东医药，2019，59（19）：67-70.
[10] 张楠，杨杰，翁润民.椎板内镜下椎管减压联合经皮椎弓根螺钉固定治疗胸腰椎骨折并发重度椎管狭窄的疗效研究[J].颈腰痛杂志，2019，40（4）：510-512.
[11] 刘琦，林志雄，黎文，等.经椎旁肌间隙与微创经皮入路手术治疗胸腰椎骨折的效果比较[J].广东医学，2016， 37（8）：1176-1179.
[12] Jiang WY，Chen YL，Xu NJ，et al. Missed manubriosternal dislocation in patient with thoracolumbar fracture，a case report [J]. BMC Surg，2019，19（1）：101.
[13] 涂洪波，柳峰，赵建华.后路经皮椎弓根钉内固定术与经肌间隙椎弓根钉内固定术治疗胸腰椎骨折的比较[J].创伤外科杂志，2018，20（4）：258-262.
[14] 韩杨，杨英.3种手术方法治疗无神经损伤胸腰椎骨折疗效比较[J].中国骨与关节损伤杂志，2019，34（1）：58-60.
[15] 丛宝华，赵方，宋飞，等.经三角肌双间隙入路与传统入路手术治疗肱骨近端骨折的疗效比较[J].临床和实验医学杂志，2019，18（1）：95-97.
[16] Yang M，Gu HY，Zhong HC，et al. The surgical treatment strategies for thoracolumbar spine fractures with ankylosing spondylitis：a case report [J]. BMC Surg，2019，19（1）：99.
[17] 任东良，李辉，马伟松，等.后正中入路与经椎旁肌间隙入路治疗胸腰椎骨折患者临床效果比较[J].临床军医杂志，2019，47（2）：187-189.
[18] 罗学勤，陆青.后路经皮内固定术与经多裂肌和最长肌间隙入路内固定术治疗无神经症状胸腰椎骨折[J].脊柱外科杂志，2019，17（2）：90-94.
[19] 薛文，刘舒娆，管晓鹂，等.微创经皮与传统开放椎弓根螺钉置入固定胸腰椎骨折的文献荟萃[J].中国组织工程研究，2016，20（13）：1961-1969.
[20] 刘敏，蔡树鹏，周先来，等.经皮微创锁定钢板内固定治疗胫骨平台粉碎性骨折临床效果[J].中国医药科学，2019，9（12）：215-217.
[21] 张彤童，任龙喜，郭函，等.微创经皮与传统切开椎弓根钉内固定治疗AO-A型无神经损伤胸腰椎骨折的临床疗效观察[J].疑难病杂志，2018，17（6）：602-605.
[22] 闫玉，宋明辉，杨益宏，等.微创经皮椎弓根螺钉联合伤椎置钉治疗胸腰椎骨折疗效观察[J].贵州医药，2018， 42（3）：320-321. |
|
|
|
