前路与后路减压融合术治疗颈椎后纵韧带骨化症患者的疗效对比

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1671-7171.2025.04.016

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (1183 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract 【Objective】To compare the efficacy of anterior and posterior decompression and fusion in the treatment of patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine (OPLL). 【Methods】A total of 97 patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine admitted to the orthopedics department of our hospital from January 2021 to December 2023 were selected and randomly divided into the control group (receiving posterior decompression and fusion surgery, n=48) and the observation group (receiving anterior decompression and fusion surgery, n=49) according to the envelope lottery method. The surgery-related indicators (blood loss, operation time, postoperative drainage volume, hospital stay, hospitalization cost), functional recovery [Cervical Disability Index (NDI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score], C_2-7 Angle, C_2-7 sagittal plane vertical distance, and the occurrence of postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. 【Results】The amount of bleeding, postoperative drainage volume and hospitalization cost in the observation group were all less than those in the control group, while the operation time and hospital stay were shorter than those in the control group. One week and three months after the operation, the NDI scores of both groups were lower than those before the operation (P<0.05), and the NDI scores of the observation group was lower than those of the control group (P<0.05). One week and three months after the operation, the JOA scores of both groups were higher than those before the operation (P<0.05), and the scores of the observation group was higher than those of the control group (P<0.05). Three months after the operation, the C_2-7 angles in both groups improved significantly, and the angle in the observation group was greater than that in the control group. Three months after the operation, the sagittal plane vertical distance of C_2-7 in both groups was significantly shorter than that before the operation, and the distance in the observation group was shorter than that in the control group. The difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The total incidence of complications in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). 【Conclusion】Anterior decompression-fusion is superior to posterior decompression and fusion in improving the function and structural adjustment of patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine. And anterior decompression and fusion has better safety.

Key words： Ossification of Posterior Longitudinal Ligament Cervical Spondylosis Spinal Fusion Decompression Surgical Treatment Outcome

Received: 18 April 2024

PACS:

R681.531

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	CHANG Yuewen
	ZHU Wenjun
	FENG Juntao
	et al

Cite this article:

CHANG Yuewen,ZHU Wenjun,FENG Juntao, et al. Comparison of the Therapeutic Effects of Anterior and Posterior Decompression and Fusion in the Treatment of Patients with Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament of the Cervical Spine[J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL RESEARCH, 2025, 42(4): 615-618.

URL:

http://journal07.magtech.org.cn/yxlcyj/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1671-7171.2025.04.016 OR http://journal07.magtech.org.cn/yxlcyj/EN/Y2025/V42/I4/615

[1] 董征,未东兴,段大波. 多节段颈椎后纵韧带骨化症行全椎板减压术后疗效的影响因素[J].局解手术学杂志,2023,32(7):617-620.
[2] 李亚伟,王冰,吕国华,等. 后路单开门减压原位固定融合术治疗颈椎后纵韧带骨化症的临床疗效[J].中华骨科杂志,2018,38(24):1522-1529.
[3] 严妹,胡学昱,王倩. 前路与后路减压融合术治疗颈椎后纵韧带骨化症的效果比较及术后1年预后的影响因素分析[J].中国医药,2019,14(6):909-913.
[4] 李海波,许圣茜,杨胜,等. 显微镜辅助下颈椎前路减压治疗颈椎后纵韧带骨化症的临床疗效分析[J].华西医学,2022,37(10):1481-1486.
[5] 龚乾龙,黄奎,周伟,等. 显微镜辅助下颈前路ACDF联合高速磨钻治疗孤立型颈椎后纵韧带骨化症的临床研究[J].颈腰痛杂志,2023,44(4):541-543.
[6] 甘璐,李沫,罗卓荆,等. 颈椎单开门椎管扩大椎板成形悬吊固定与微型钛板固定治疗颈椎后纵韧带骨化症的长期疗效[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2020,30(3):234-239.
[7] 梁昌详,梁国彦,昌耘冰,等. 改良椎板成形术治疗颈椎后纵韧带骨化症术后颈椎矢状位参数变化与临床疗效关系[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2020,30(3):240-247.
[8] 吴东朝,孙先泽,顾振芳,等. 单开门椎管扩大椎板成形术入路选择对局部不稳的颈椎后纵韧带骨化症患者疗效的影响[J].川北医学院学报,2023,38(7):939-943.
[9] 夏天,孙宇,王少波,等. 保留单侧肌肉韧带复合体单开门椎管扩大成形术治疗颈椎后纵韧带骨化症对颈后肌群的影响[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2020,30(3):212-218.
[10] 马飞,谢梦琦,郭明明,等. 关节突关节内植骨在下颈椎后路减压融合术中的应用[J].局解手术学杂志,2021,30(8):680-685.
[11] 陈祥,徐建平,林国兵,等. 不同手术入路治疗颈椎后纵韧带骨化症短期疗效比较分析[J].检验医学与临床,2018,15(23):3542-3545.
[12] 邹开伟,徐皓,林雅桑,等. Mobi-C人工颈椎间盘置换术与ROI-C颈前路减压椎间融合术治疗颈椎病的疗效比较[J].中国骨与关节损伤杂志,2020,35(9):897-900.
[13] 陈振,程宏涛,贾力. 不同内固定方式联合椎管扩大成形术治疗颈椎后纵韧带骨化症的效果比较[J].颈腰痛杂志,2020,41(1):101-103.
[14] 刘军,吴涛. 颈椎后路全椎板减压侧块螺钉内固定术治疗K线阴性颈椎后纵韧带骨化症患者的疗效[J].医学研究生学报,2021,34(7):740-744.
[15] 韩建华,郑丰裕,郑圣安,等. 前路与后路减压融合术治疗颈椎后纵韧带骨化症的临床效果对比[J].系统医学,2023,8(14):17-21.