{"title":"前后联合入路手术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效","authors":"Jiang Yanzhou, Fu Lianchong, Mu Yushan","doi":"10.18282/RCSM.V1.I1.55","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of combined anterior and posterior approach surgery for patients with spinal type. Methods: 96 patients with cervical spondylosis were randomly selected among all patients admitted in our hospital from January 2013 to December 2015. They were evenly assigned to A, B or C group, 32 patients each. Patients in Group A suffered from cervical myelopathy and were treated by combined anterior and posterior approach. Patients in Group B group suffered from cervical vertebra disease and accepted a cervical corpectomy decompression and a bone graft fusion internal fixation surgery. Patients in Group C accepted conventional posterior decompression and fusion surgery for lateral mass screw fixation. Postoperative follow-up, X-ray intervertebral stability and fusion, neurological function JOA score and clinical efficacy of the effective date were compared. Results: JOA scores of all three groups were improved after 6 months. After a year, patients in Group A, B and C scored (16.3 ± 1.83), (15.7 ± 1.15) and (15.59 ± 1.21), respectively. The pairwise score differences between any two groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05). After one year’s follow-up, the bone graft and internal fixation material had no signs of loosening, displacement or subsidence. The fusion rates of Group A, B and C reached 90.6%, 53.1% and 56.25%, respectively. Similarly, the pairwise differences in fusion rate between any two groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The clinical effectiveness was classified as apparent, effective, fair and invalid. The effective rates of Group A, B and C were 87.5%, 50% and 56.2%, respectively. The pairwise differences between any two groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Combined anterior and posterior approach surgery significantly improved the clinical efficacy than the other two surgeries.","PeriodicalId":344347,"journal":{"name":"Reports in Clinical Studies and Medicine","volume":"125 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical effect of combined anterior and posterior approach surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy\",\"authors\":\"Jiang Yanzhou, Fu Lianchong, Mu Yushan\",\"doi\":\"10.18282/RCSM.V1.I1.55\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of combined anterior and posterior approach surgery for patients with spinal type. Methods: 96 patients with cervical spondylosis were randomly selected among all patients admitted in our hospital from January 2013 to December 2015. They were evenly assigned to A, B or C group, 32 patients each. Patients in Group A suffered from cervical myelopathy and were treated by combined anterior and posterior approach. Patients in Group B group suffered from cervical vertebra disease and accepted a cervical corpectomy decompression and a bone graft fusion internal fixation surgery. Patients in Group C accepted conventional posterior decompression and fusion surgery for lateral mass screw fixation. Postoperative follow-up, X-ray intervertebral stability and fusion, neurological function JOA score and clinical efficacy of the effective date were compared. Results: JOA scores of all three groups were improved after 6 months. After a year, patients in Group A, B and C scored (16.3 ± 1.83), (15.7 ± 1.15) and (15.59 ± 1.21), respectively. The pairwise score differences between any two groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05). After one year’s follow-up, the bone graft and internal fixation material had no signs of loosening, displacement or subsidence. The fusion rates of Group A, B and C reached 90.6%, 53.1% and 56.25%, respectively. Similarly, the pairwise differences in fusion rate between any two groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The clinical effectiveness was classified as apparent, effective, fair and invalid. The effective rates of Group A, B and C were 87.5%, 50% and 56.2%, respectively. The pairwise differences between any two groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Combined anterior and posterior approach surgery significantly improved the clinical efficacy than the other two surgeries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":344347,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reports in Clinical Studies and Medicine\",\"volume\":\"125 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reports in Clinical Studies and Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18282/RCSM.V1.I1.55\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reports in Clinical Studies and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18282/RCSM.V1.I1.55","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Clinical effect of combined anterior and posterior approach surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy
Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of combined anterior and posterior approach surgery for patients with spinal type. Methods: 96 patients with cervical spondylosis were randomly selected among all patients admitted in our hospital from January 2013 to December 2015. They were evenly assigned to A, B or C group, 32 patients each. Patients in Group A suffered from cervical myelopathy and were treated by combined anterior and posterior approach. Patients in Group B group suffered from cervical vertebra disease and accepted a cervical corpectomy decompression and a bone graft fusion internal fixation surgery. Patients in Group C accepted conventional posterior decompression and fusion surgery for lateral mass screw fixation. Postoperative follow-up, X-ray intervertebral stability and fusion, neurological function JOA score and clinical efficacy of the effective date were compared. Results: JOA scores of all three groups were improved after 6 months. After a year, patients in Group A, B and C scored (16.3 ± 1.83), (15.7 ± 1.15) and (15.59 ± 1.21), respectively. The pairwise score differences between any two groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05). After one year’s follow-up, the bone graft and internal fixation material had no signs of loosening, displacement or subsidence. The fusion rates of Group A, B and C reached 90.6%, 53.1% and 56.25%, respectively. Similarly, the pairwise differences in fusion rate between any two groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The clinical effectiveness was classified as apparent, effective, fair and invalid. The effective rates of Group A, B and C were 87.5%, 50% and 56.2%, respectively. The pairwise differences between any two groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Combined anterior and posterior approach surgery significantly improved the clinical efficacy than the other two surgeries.