短节段与长节段内固定融合术治疗退行性脊柱侧弯的临床疗效
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-6948.2025.04.010
江泽华1 , 张洪杰2 , 鲁青1 , 崔皓竣3 , 任志帅1 , 张伯裕1 , 于浩1 , 朱如森1
1. 天津市人民医院,南开大学第一附属医院脊柱外科(天津 300121 )
2. 云南省德宏州人民医院,昆明医科大学附属德宏医院(芒市 678400 )
3. 天津市人民医院,南开大学第一附属医院塉柱外科,天津医科大学研究生院(天津 300070 )
基金项目: 天津市卫生健康委员会科技项目(TJWJ2022QN040、TJWJ2024QN045) ; 天津市人民医院院级科研基金(2019JZPY08) ; 云南省英才兴边计划(2023RC006)
Clinical efficacy of short segment and long segment internal fixation fusion in the treatment of degenerative scoliosis
Jiang Ze-hua1 , Zhang Hong-jie2 , Lu Qing1 , Cui Hao-jun3 , Ren Zhi-shuai1 , Zhang Bo-yu1 , Yu Hao1 , Zhu Ru-sen1
Department of Spine Surgery, Tianjin Union Medical Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nankai University, Tianjin, 300121 , China
摘要
目的:比较长节段和短节段内固定术治疗退行性脊柱侧弯(ADS)患者的疗效。方法:回顾性分析61例ADS患者的资料,按内固定节段分为长节段组(n=32)和短节段组(n=29)。比较两组患者的围手术期随访结果、并发症及影像学资料。结果:短节段组在手术时间、出血量、透视次数、住院时间以及住院总花费明显少于长节段组(P<0.05)。术后1年,两组患者下腰痛和下肢疼痛VAS评分和ODI指数均较术前明显改善(P<0.05)。组间比较,除下腰痛VAS评分改善外,其余各评分改善值比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。影像学资料随访,术后1年组内比较,长节段组Cobb角、SVA、PT均减小,SS和LL增大(P<0.05),而短节段组Cobb角、PT减小,LL和SS增大(P<0.05)。两组间比较,术后1年TK和SS两组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),而Cobb角、SVA、PT、PI、LL两组间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。长节段组术后并发症发生率为31.25%,高于短节段组的10.34%,差异有统计学意义(P=0.046)。结论:长节段和短节段内固定对于ADS患者临床症状的缓解,脊柱-骨盆参数的矫正均有明显效果。短节段组创伤小、并发症少。
Abstract
Objective To compare the efficacy of long-segment and short-segment internal fixation and fusion surgeries in the treatment of patients with adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS). Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 61 patients with ADS, who were divided into a long-segment fixation group(n=32) and a short-segment fixation group(n=29) based on the number of instrumented segments. The perioperative follow-up outcomes, complications, and radiological data were compared between the two groups. Results The short-segment fixation group demonstrated significantly shorter operative time, less blood loss, fewer fluoroscopy counts, shorter hospital stays, and lower total hospitalization costs compared to the long-segment fixation group (P<0.05). One year postoperatively, both groups showed significant improvements in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for low back pain and lower limb pain, as well as in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) compared to preoperative values (P<0.05). In intergroup comparison, except for a more pronounced improvement in the VAS score for low back pain in the short-segment group (P<0.05), there were no significant differences in the improvement values of the other scores between the two groups (P>0.05). Follow-up radiological data revealed that, within the long-segment fixation group, the Cobb angle, sagittal vertical axis (SVA), and pelvic tilt (PT) decreased, while the sacral slope (SS) and lumbar lordosis (LL) increased one year postoperatively (P<0.05). In the short-segment fixation group, the Cobb angle and PT decreased, and the LL and SS increased one year postoperatively (P<0.05). Intergroup comparison at one year postoperatively showed significant differences in thoracic kyphosis (TK) and SS between the two groups (P<0.05), whereas no statistically significant differences were observed in the Cobb angle, SVA, PT, pelvic incidence (PI) or LL (P>0.05). The incidence rates of postoperative complications were 31.25% in the long-segment fixation group and 10.34% in the short-segment fixation group, with a statistically significant difference (P=0.046). Conclusion Both long-segment and short-segment internal fixation demonstrate effective outcomes in alleviating clinical symptoms and correcting spinal-pelvic parameters in patients with ADS. The short-segment fixation group experiences less trauma and fewer complications.
老年退行性脊柱侧凸(adult degenerative scoliosis,ADS)是老年人退行性改变发展而成的脊柱畸形,包括椎间隙塌陷和小关节退变、椎体侧方或旋转移位。ADS主要发生在胸腰椎,伴矢状面失衡、腰背痛和下肢放射痛,严重影响活动[1-2]。手术目的是对病变的节段进行充分的减压,采用内固定手段如截骨、融合等来矫正冠状面和矢状面失衡[3-4]。目前手术的理念已经被学者所接受,但对融合节段、手术入路选择没有明确共识。老年患者基础疾病多,侧弯矫形是否还是一种安全的手术方式,能否达到很好的临床效果需要更深研究。本研究回顾性分析手术治疗的61例ADS患者,比较其临床疗效、影像学指标,以期能为ADS患者临床治疗方案的选择提供参考。
1 资料与方法
1.1 一般资料
选取2019年1月—2023年3月我院收治的61例退行性脊柱侧凸患者,男18例,女43例。年龄(66.5±8.3)岁,BMI(25.8±3.6)kg/m2。纳入标准:1)确诊为ADS,cobb角大于10°;2)伴有腰椎间盘突出或腰椎管狭窄;3)有腰背痛和下肢放射性痛、无力、间歇性跛行等症状;4)内固定节段≥3个;5)行3个月的保守治疗后效果不明显。排除标准:1)合并脊柱感染、肿瘤、骨折;2)随访影像学资料不全;3)既往有脊柱翻修病史;4)存在凝血功能障碍;5)有严重心脑肺等基础疾病。将本组61患者按内固定节段分成两组:短节段组(固定节段≤3个)和长节段组(固定节段>3个)。短节段组29例患者,其中男8例,女21例,年龄(67.7±8.7)岁,融合节段为3个,BMI(25.1±3.5)kg/m2。长节段组32例患者,男10例,女22例,年龄(65.3±8.1)岁,融合节段>3个,BMI(26.3±2.8)kg/m2。本研究符合《赫尔辛基宣言》并获得天津市人民医院伦理委员会批准(编号:2023C42)。
1.2 治疗方法
全身麻醉,消毒铺巾展单。依次切开皮肤、皮下和腰背筋膜,切开棘上韧带,骨膜下剥离至关节突、暴露至横突。于关节突外侧缘与横突中线交点为进钉点,分别置入椎弓根钉,用咬骨钳咬除需减压椎体棘突间韧带及增生的黄韧带,扩大椎管并彻底松解神经根,截骨术去除部分关节突,并植入椎间融合器,安装矫形棒。通过将凹侧撑开和凸侧加压,实行脊柱矫正。满意后拧紧螺母,再次明确神经已经充分松解。植骨后冲洗伤口,逐层缝合。
对于固定节段的选择,责任病变在非顶椎区,选择短节段固定,固定责任病变区域即可。对于责任病变在包含顶椎和非顶椎区,融合主弯区域,进行长节段内固定矫形。
1.3 术后处理
术后行营养神经治疗,第2天开始腰背肌功能锻炼。所有患者针灸辅助下肢功能恢复,术后第3天可在支具保护下于室内活动,7天左右即可出院,腰背部支具佩戴2个月,所有患者随访1后复查。
1.4 评价指标
1.4.1 临床指标
由两位资深的医生记录如下资料:1)手术前后下肢痛疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(oswestry disability index,ODI)、日本骨科协会(Japanese orthopaedic association scores,JOA)腰痛评分;2)患者手术时间、出血量、引流管拔出时间、住院时间、手术花费等;3)并发症如脑脊液漏、心肺疾病、伤口感染、断钉断棒等。
1.4.2 影像学指标
于手术前后拍摄站立位全脊柱正侧位X线片,使用东软影像学系统V5.5.0测量下列参数。1)Cobb角:侧弯椎体中上端椎上终板与下端椎下终板的夹角;2)矢状面轴向距离(sagittal vertical axis,SVA):矢状面C7铅垂线至S1后缘铅垂线的距离;3)胸椎后凸角(thoracic kyphosis,TK):T4椎体上终板与T12椎体下终板所的夹角;4)腰椎前凸角(lumbar lordosis,LL):L1椎体上终板与S1椎体上终板所的夹角;5)骨盆入射角(pelvic incidence,PI):骶骨终板中点和双侧股骨头中点连线与垂直穿过骶骨终板中点直线所的夹角;6)骨盆倾斜角(pelvic tilt,PT):骶轴中点与骶骨平台中点的连线和铅垂线间所的夹角;7)骶骨倾斜角(sacral slope,SS):骶骨平台与水平线所的夹角。见图1
1脊柱-骨盆参数测量示意图
1.5 统计学分析
使用SPSS 25.0进行统计学分析,正态分布计量资料以x-±s表示,组间比较采用独立样本t检验,组内比较采用配对t检验,分类资料以n表示,比较采用卡方检验。P<0.05表示差异有统计学意义。
2 结果
2.1 两组患者基线资料比较
两组患者的年龄、性别、BMI、骨密度差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),见表1
1两组患者基线资料比较
2.2 两组患者围术期临床资料比较
短节段组的手术时间、出血量、术中透视次数、住院时间和住院总体花费少于长节段组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),见表2
2两组患者围术期临床资料比较
注:a与长节段组比较,P<0.05
2.3 临床症状评分情况
组内比较,术后1年两组患者下腰痛VAS评分、下肢疼痛VAS评分、JOA评分和ODI指数评分均显著改善,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。组间比较,长节段组术后1年JOA评分高于短节段组,长节段组术前VAS评分高于短节段组,差异有统计学意义(P=0.035),两组术后1年下腰和下肢VAS评分、ODI指数比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),见表3
3两组术前和术后1年VAS评分、JOA评分、ODI指数比较
注:a与本组术前比较,P<0.05;b与长节段组比较,P<0.05
2.4 两组患者影像学参数比较
组内比较,与术前相比,术后1年长节段组Cobb角、SVA、PT减小,SS和LL增大,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),而短节段组Cobb角、PT减小,LL、SS增大,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。组间比较,两组患者术后1年TK和SS差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),而两组间Cobb角、SVA、PT、PI、LL差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),见表4
4两组患者术前和术后1年脊柱-骨盆参数比较
注:a与本组术前比较,P<0.05;b与长节段组比较,P<0.05
2.5 并发症
4 例发生脑脊液漏(长节段组3例、短节段组1例),两组中各1例出现伤口感染,分泌物培养均为金黄色葡萄球菌,清创引流,万古霉素治疗2周后症状消失。长节段组中1例发生近端交界区融合失败,将固定节段上移到胸5后,随访1年未见内固定松动和交界区融合失败。两组均有术后合并严重系统性疾病(短节段组肺炎1例;长节段组心衰2例、肺炎1例、急性脑梗1例),术后经转科治疗后好转出院。长节段组出现1例断棒,经翻修后好转。长节段组并发症发生率为31.25%(10/32),高于短节段组的10.34%(3/29),差异有统计学意义(χ2=3.965,P=0.046)。
3 讨论
3.1 ADS治疗方式选择
ADS可能引起腰腿痛等症状,严重影响患者的生活质量[5]。因此,选择适当的矫形方案对于改善患者的症状至关重要。对于侧弯角度较小(小于20°)且无明显症状的患者,建议定期监测侧弯进展[6-7]。当侧弯角度超过40°,并伴有明显压迫神经时,手术是必要的治疗方法。手术目的是缓解下腰部和下肢放射痛,纠正脊柱畸形[8]。方法包括单纯减压、减压加短节段内固定、减压加长节段内固定[9]。单独减压可以减轻神经症状,但效果并不理想,还可能导致进一步的脊柱不稳和退行性椎体塌陷。因此,与单纯减压比较,大多数医生建议选择减压与融合术[10-11]
内固定融合术能够提高脊柱的承载能力[12],有效地缓解临床症状,如腰腿痛、间歇性跛行等。通过纠正畸形,恢复脊柱稳定性,减轻对神经根的压迫,改善患者的生活质量[13]。本研究中两种手术均获得了很好的效果,术后1年两组患者的ODI、JOA和VAS评分均有改善。
3.2 手术对脊柱-骨盆参数的影响
从生物力学上讲,稳定的脊柱序列是维持正常身体功能的前提。ADS会导致脊柱在冠状面和矢状面失衡,影响患者的身体姿势和行走功能[14]。对于ADS患者,常见手术治疗方式为减压加内固定融合,以牺牲部分椎体活动度为代价来改善脊柱的序列,重建脊柱的平衡[15]。本研究中两组患者经治疗后的cobb角、腰椎前凸角、骨盆倾斜角及骶骨倾斜角均得到明显的矫正,纠正了患者的脊柱失衡。
3.3 短节段内固定的优势
内固定矫形术提高脊柱的稳定性,这种稳定性有助于减少术后脊柱的再次弯曲和移位。对于选择长节段矫形手术,有证据显示:对于一般身体状况良好,能耐受大手术患者;反复保守治疗不缓解的腰腿痛,且下腰痛VAS评分>3分的患者;矢状面出现严重失衡,SVA较大的患者;腰椎生理前凸丢失或腰椎后凸畸形;腰背部肌肉力量较弱可以谨慎的选择[16-17]。短节段内固定手术旨在减少手术创伤的条件下,尽可能减少脊柱的压迫同时稳定脊柱结构[18]。其优势主要有:1)创伤小,恢复快。短节段内固定手术创伤更小,术后恢复时间短,能更快地回归正常生活。有研究分析ADS合并椎管狭窄的患者,采用后路短节段减压融合治疗,结果显示术后恢复快,症状得到明显改善[19-20]。2)住院时间和经济花费少。短节段内固定手术创伤小、恢复快,并发症少,因此患者的住院时间和康复时间相对较短。这有助于降低患者经济负担,包括医疗和康复费用[21]。本研究两组患者在手术时间、出血量、住院时间、总花费方面,短节段组明显优于长节段组(P<0.05)。
3.4 术后并发症
由于ADS患者年龄较大,手术常伴有较大风险和较高并发症[22]。文献显示,ADS患者并发症主要包括近期和远期并发症。近期并发症有肺部感染、硬膜外血肿、脑脊液漏、切口感染、神经损伤和泌尿系统感染等[23-24]。远期并发症有相邻节段退变、内固定失败断裂、假关节形成、内固定交界性后凸以及畸形进展等[25-27]。本研究结果显示,对比短节段固定,长节段组手术时间长、出血量多,这都会导致更多并发症。长节段组中有1例在术后发生近端交界区融合的失败,可能与老年性骨质疏松和过分的矫正畸形有关[28]。长节段组有3例患者出现脑脊液漏,这可能与减压节段过多,手术操作时间较长有关[29]。短节段内固定由于固定范围较小,因此并发症的发生率较低。例如,断钉、断棒、内固定松动和硬脊膜撕裂等并发症在短节段组中较少发生[30]。这有助于降低患者的手术风险和术后不适感,有助于术后早期下地活动及功能康复,同时降低了心脑肺部等脏器并发症的发生[31]
3.5 术后辅助针灸治疗对临床症状的影响
腰椎减压内固定术,作为ADS患者有效方案之一,其术后若未能有效解决遗留的肢体疼痛与麻木症状,将会给患者带来身心健康的双重困扰。本研究聚焦于ADS患者术后遭遇的疼痛与麻木难题,引入了针灸作为辅助治疗手段,取得了显著成效:患者的下肢疼痛得到了大幅度缓解,同时JOA的评分也有了显著提升。这一结果充分证明,针灸治疗对于ADS患者术后康复,能够有效减轻下肢疼痛、乏力及麻木等症状。这对于促进尽早下床活动、加速康复进程、增强治疗信心以及提升整体生活质量,均具有重要的临床价值。
综上所述,长节段和短节段内固定对于临床症状的缓解,脊柱-骨盆参数的矫正均有很好的效果。尽管短节段内固定在矫正脊柱畸形方面不如长节段内固定完美,但其具有创伤小、恢复快、并发症少等优势。在选择手术方案时,还需要考虑患者的年龄、基础疾病和心理社会因素等,综合评估手术风险。
1脊柱-骨盆参数测量示意图
1两组患者基线资料比较
2两组患者围术期临床资料比较
3两组术前和术后1年VAS评分、JOA评分、ODI指数比较
4两组患者术前和术后1年脊柱-骨盆参数比较
Lee JS, Shin JK, Goh TS. Interleukin 6 gene polymorphism in patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis:a cohort study[J]. Eur Spine J,2018,27(3):607-612.
Chaddha R, Agrawal G, Koirala S,et al. Osteoporosis and vertebral column[J]. Indian J Orthop,2023,57(Suppl 1):163-175.
Chou DA, Mummaneni P, Anand N,et al. Treatment of the fractional curve of adult scoliosis with circumferential minimally invasive surgery versus traditional,open surgery:an analysis of surgical outcomes[J]. Global Spine J,2018,8(8):827-833.
Wang H, Wang LJ, Sun ZR,et al. Posterior column osteotomy plus unilateral cage strutting for correction of lumbosacral fractional curve in degenerative lumbar scoliosis[J]. J Orthop Surg Res,2020,15(1):482.
Lu SB, Zhu WG, Diwan AD,et al. Global coronal malalignment in degenerative lumbar scoliosis and priority-matching correction technique to prevent postoperative coronal decompensation[J]. Global Spine J,2024,14(8):2327-2339.
Ledesma JA, Tran K, Lambrechts MJ,et al. Short-segment versus long-segment spinal fusion constructs for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis:a comparison of clinical outcomes[J]. World Neurosurg,2023,171:e611-e619.
Matsumura A, Namikawa T, Kato M,et al. Factors related to postoperative coronal imbalance in adult lumbar scoliosis[J]. J Neurosurg Spine,2020,34(1):66-72.
Pisano AJ, Fredericks DR, Steelman T,et al. Lumbar disc height and vertebral Hounsfield units:association with interbody cage subsidence[J]. Neurosurg Focus,2020,49(2): E9.
Buell TJ, Shaffrey CI, Bess S,et al. Multicenter assessment of outcomes and complications associated with transforaminal versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion for fractional curve correction[J]. J Neurosurg Spine,2021,35(6):729-742.
Zhang ZF, Song K, Wu B,et al. Coronal imbalance in adult spinal deformity following posterior spinal fusion with instrument:a related parameters analysis[J]. Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2019,44(8):550-557.
Yaman O, Zileli M, Sharif S. Decompression and fusion surgery for osteoporotic vertebral fractures: WFNS spine committee recommendations[J]. J Neurosurg Sci,2022,66(4):327-334.
Lau D, Haddad AF, Deviren V,et al. Asymmetrical pedicle subtraction osteotomy for correction of concurrent sagittal-coronal imbalance in adult spinal deformity:a comparative analysis[J]. J Neurosurg Spine,2020,33(6):822-829.
Zhang HC, Yu HL, Yang HF,et al. Short-segment decompression/fusion versus long-segment decompression/fusion and osteotomy for Lenke-Silva type VI adult degenerative scoliosis[J]. Chin Med J(Engl),2019,132(21):2543-2549.
Phan K, Xu J, Maharaj MM,et al. Outcomes of short fusion versus long fusion for adult degenerative scoliosis:a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Orthop Surg,2017,9(4):342-349.
Zhang JQ, Liu YH, Zeng Y,et al. Correlations between spinopelvic parameters and health-related quality of life in degenerative lumbar scoliosis patients before and after long-level fusion surgery[J]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord,2025,26(1):84.
Jacob KC, Patel MR, Hartman TJ,et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal versus lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spinal pathology:clinical outcome comparison in patients with predominant back pain[J]. Clin Spine Surg,2024,37(10): E441-E447.
Bovonratwet P, Samuel AM, Mok JK,et al. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis[J]. Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2022,47(21):1505-1514.
Salimi H, Toyoda H, Terai H,et al. Mid-term changes in spinopelvic sagittal alignment in lumbar spinal stenosis with coexisting degenerative spondylolisthesis or scoliosis after minimally invasive lumbar decompression surgery:minimum five-year follow-up[J]. Spine J,2022,22(5):819-826.
Wang HY, Liu X, Li YF,et al. The selection of a surgical strategy for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis with“pear-shaped” decompression under open spinal endoscopy[J]. Sci Rep,2024,14(1):16019.
Nie JW, Hartman TJ, Pawlowski H,et al. Impact of ambulatory setting for workers' compensation patients undergoing one-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and review of the literature[J]. World Neurosurg,2022,167:e251-e267.
Keorochana G, Setrkraising K, Woratanarat P,et al. Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease:a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Neurosurg Rev,2018,41(3):755-770.
Tsutsui S, Hashizume H, Iwasaki H,et al. Long-term outcomes after adult spinal deformity surgery using lateral interbody fusion:short versus long fusion[J]. Clin Spine Surg,2024,37(8): E371-E376.
Lim JL, Hey HWD, Kumar N,et al. A 10-year radiographic study comparing anterior versus posterior instrumented spinal fusion in patients with lenke type 5 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis[J]. Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2020,45(9):612-620.
Chan AK, Eastlack RK, Fessler RG,et al. Two-and three-year outcomes of minimally invasive and hybrid correction of adult spinal deformity[J]. J Neurosurg Spine,2021,36(4):595-608.
Kelly MP, Lurie JD, Yanik EL,et al. Operative versus nonoperative treatment for adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am,2019,101(4):338-352.
Sugawara R, Takeshita K, Takahashi J,et al. The complication trends of adult spinal deformity surgery in Japan-The Japanese Scoliosis Society Morbidity and Mortality survey from 2012 to 2017[J]. J Orthop Sci,2021,26(4):533-537.
Ono K, Ohmori K, Hori T. Clinical and radiological outcomes of corrective surgery on adult spinal deformity patients:comparison of short and long fusion[J]. Adv Orthop,2019,2019:9492486.
Park SJ, Lee CS, Kang BJ,et al. Factors affecting stiffness-related functional disability after long segmental fusion for adult spinal deformity[J]. Neurosurgery,2022,91(5):756-763.
Oku N, Demura S, Tawara D,et al. Biomechanical investigation of long spinal fusion models using three-dimensional finite element analysis[J]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord,2023,24(1):175.
Park JS, Lee CS, Kang BJ,et al. Time-dependent changes in stiffness-related functional disability after long segmental fusion in elderly patients with adult spinal deformity-minimum 2-year follow-up results[J]. Neurosurgery,2023,93(3):654-661.
Zhang JQ, Liu YH, Zeng Y,et al. Stiffness-related disability following long segmental posterior instrumentation and fusion:is it influenced by postoperative spinopelvic alignment?[J]. Eur Spine J,2024,33(9):3552-3558.

用微信扫一扫

用微信扫一扫