期刊目次

加入编委

期刊订阅

添加您的邮件地址以接收即将发行期刊数据:

Open Access Article

International Medical Research Frontier. 2022; 6: (6) ; 15-17 ; DOI: 10.12208/j.imrf.20220196.

Clinical analysis of different approaches of pedicle internal fixation for thoracolumbar fractures
不同入路椎弓根内固定术治疗胸腰椎骨折的临床疗效分析

作者: 杨雪飞 *

安徽医科大学附属阜阳医院 安徽阜阳

*通讯作者: 杨雪飞,单位:安徽医科大学附属阜阳医院 安徽阜阳;

发布时间: 2022-11-23 总浏览量: 247

摘要

目的 研究本文病例采取不同入路椎弓根内固定术治疗后产生效果差异。方法 抽取2020年2月到2022年2月的七十例胸腰椎骨折患者,将其作为本次研究对象。随机分成经皮入路组和传统入路组各35例。分析两组效果差异。结果 治疗前后两组VAS、ODI评分无明显差异(P>0.05)。两组术中出血量、手术时间,术中透视次数、住院时间具有明显差异(P<0.05)。得出结果,两组术后SF-36评分明显增高。两组术前术后SF-36评分无明显差异,(P>0.05)。结论 经皮入路更有利于减轻患者疼痛,提高日常生活能力,改善生活质量,值得临床重视并采纳。

关键词: 椎弓根钉内固定术;胸腰椎骨折;经皮入路;传统入路;临床疗效

Abstract

Objective To study the difference of results after different approaches of pedicle screw internal fixation.
Methods Seventy patients with thoracolumbar fracture from February 2020 to February 2022 were selected as the subjects of this study. They were randomly divided into percutaneous approach group and traditional approach group with 35 cases each.
Results There was no significant difference in VAS and ODI scores between the two groups before and after treatment (P>0.05). There were significant differences between the two groups in the amount of intraoperative bleeding, operation time, number of intraoperative fluoroscopy, and hospital stay (P<0.05). The results showed that the SF-36 scores in the two groups were significantly higher after operation. and after operation (P>0.05).
Conclusion   Percutaneous approach is more beneficial to relieve pain, improve daily living ability and improve quality of life, which is worthy of clinical attention and adoption.

Key words: pedicle screw internal fixation; Thoracolumbar fracture; Percutaneous approach; Traditional approach; Clinical efficacy

参考文献 References

[1] 刘颖,李远强,洪浩等.后路减压并内固定术治疗退行性脊柱侧凸对脊柱-骨盆矢状面参数和疗效的影响[J].脊柱外科杂志,2022,20(04):223-229.

[2] 李冠军,李晓东,苗洁.微创经皮椎弓根内固定术对胸腰椎骨折患者功能障碍指数、伤椎高度及疼痛程度的影响[J].科学技术与工程,2022,22(22):9524-9528.

[3] 王勇卓,张亚宁,张志敏.经皮颈后路椎间孔镜髓核摘除术与经前路椎间盘切除内固定术治疗神经根型颈椎病疗效比较[J].中国骨与关节杂志,2022,11(07):486-491.

[4] 江涛.后路手术内固定融合术联合经椎弓根椎体内植骨治疗脊柱骨折的效果及对总体健康评分、Barthel指数的影响[J].湖南师范大学学报(医学版),2021,18(03):182-185.

[5] 徐维明.后路内固定融合术治疗不同分型胸腰椎骨折的疗效[J].中国继续医学教育,2021,13(17):128-131.

[6] 陈海,吕超,陈际洋,董瑞.胸腰椎压缩性骨折患者后路内固定融合术后伤椎骨缺损的影响因素[J].医药论坛杂志,2021,42(10):31-33+37.

[7] 魏中秋,辛兵,郭明等.后路与前路手术内固定融合术对脊柱骨折患者脊柱功能及创伤应激指标的影响[J].现代生物医学进展,2021,21(07):1292-1295.

[8] 梁衍涛,韩继成,严京哲.后路手术内固定治疗脊柱骨折临床效果观察[J].临床军医杂志,2021,49(06):676-677.

[9] 詹柱享,梁周,黄志雄,李军.不同方式入路椎弓根钉内固定术治疗无神经损伤的胸腰椎骨折疗效观察[J].基层医学论坛,2021,25(16):2312-2314.

[10] 吴卓,贺西京,王自立等.不同入路椎弓根钉内固定术治疗胸腰椎骨折临床疗效比较[J].陕西医学杂志,2022,51(04):415-418.

引用本文

杨雪飞, 不同入路椎弓根内固定术治疗胸腰椎骨折的临床疗效分析[J]. 国际医药研究前沿, 2022; 6: (6) : 15-17.