脊柱外科杂志  2016, Vol.14 Issue(1): 10-15   PDF    
自锁双锚定融合器治疗颈椎病早期疗效
李国, 宫峰, 阮亮    
解放军第411医院骨科, 上海 200081
摘要: 目的 探讨应用自锁式双锚定融合器(ROI-C)行前路颈椎椎间盘切除融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)治疗颈椎病的早期疗效。方法 选择2011年12月-2013年4月采用ROI-C行ACDF治疗的37例(64个节段)颈椎病病例,记录手术情况和术后并发症,统计分析术前和术后各随访时间点的颈椎功能障碍指数(neck disability index,NDI)、日本骨科学会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA)评分、椎间隙高度和颈椎整体曲度,观察植骨融合情况。结果 所有手术顺利完成。术后随访25~40个月,平均32个月。NDI术前(21. 6±9.4)%,末次随访时为(10.9±11.2)%,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01)。JOA评分术前(6.2±2.9)分,末次随访时为(12.9±1.6)分,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01)。JOA评分评价优良率达91.9%(34/37)。椎间隙高度术前(5.1±1.8)mm,末次随访时为(7.8±0.7)mm,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01)。颈椎整体曲度术前5.2°±7.1°,末次随访时为9.2°±13.1°,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01)。4例患者术后并发轻度吞咽困难,术后1周至3个月症状自行消失;1例出现声音嘶哑,术后2周症状自行消失。术后6个月随访,X线或CT检查证实64个节段均获骨性融合。结论 ACDF中使用自锁式双锚定融合器可以恢复颈椎椎间隙高度,重建颈椎生理曲度,为颈椎提供即刻稳定性,植骨融合率高,早期临床疗效满意。
关键词: 颈椎病     脊柱融合术     减压术,外科     治疗结果    
Early curative effect analysis of self-locking double-anchored cages for treatment of cervical spondylosis
LI Guo, GONG Feng, RUAN Liang    
Department of Orthopaedics, 411th Hospital of People's Liberation Army, Shanghai 200081, China
Abstract: Objective To explore the curative effect of a new self-locking double-anchored cage(ROI-C) in the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion(ACDF) for treatment of cervical spondylosis. Methods From December 2011 to April 2013, ACDF with ROI-C was performed on 37 patients(64 levels). The neck disability index(NDI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association(JOA) score and postoperative complications were recorded at pre-operation and at the each follow-up time point to evaluate the clinical outcome. Meanwhile, the pre-operation and post-operation roentgenographs were accumulated to measure the height of interbody space, whole curvature of cervical spine and the rate of fusion for repeated measures analysis of variance. Results All cases were operated successfully, and were followed up for 25-40 months, mean 32 months. The NDI was(21.6±9.4)% at pre-operation, and(10.9±11.2)% at the final follow-up;the difference was statistically significant(P<0.01). The JOA score was 6.2±2.9 at pre-operation, and 12.9±1.6 at the final follow-up;the difference was statistically significant(P<0.01). The excellent and good rate evaluated by JOA score was 91.9%(34/37). The height of the interbody space was(5.1±1.8)mm at pre-operation, and(7.8±0.7)mm at the final follow-up;the difference was statistically significant(P<0.01). The curvature of the cervical spine was 5.2°±7.1åt pre-operation, and 9.2°±13.1åt the final follow-up;the difference was statistically significant(P<0.01). Mild dysphagia occurred in 4 patients, and disappeared spontaneously in 1 week-3 months. Hoarseness occurred in 1 patient, and disappeared spontaneously in 2 weeks. All the 37 cases(64 levels) achieved bone fusion at 6 months post-operation. Conclusion The use of ROI-C in ACDF can restore the height of cervical intervertebral space and the cervical curvature, and can also provide immediate stability for cervical spine. It has high bone grafting fusion rate and satisfactory early clinical curative effect.
Key words: Cervical spondylosis     Spinal fusion     Decompression,Surgical     Treatment outcome    


前路颈椎椎间盘切除融合术(anterior cervical discectomyand fusion,ACDF)是治疗颈椎病的标准术式[1]。临床上ACDF普遍采用椎间植骨或传统融合器植骨结合钛板固定,存在应力遮挡,不利于椎间融合,术后易出现器械失败、声音嘶哑及吞咽困难等并发症,这在多节段颈椎病中尤为突出[2, 3]。本院2011年12月—2013年4月,应用自锁式双锚定融合器(ROI-C)行ACDF治疗37例颈椎病病例,并随访>2年,现报告如下。

1 临床资料 1.1 一般资料

本组患者37例,男26例,女11例;年龄39 ~ 68岁,平均52.3岁;病程9 ~ 34个月,平均15个月;共64个手术节段,单节段17例,双节段13例,3个节段7例;共放置融合器64枚。术前均行MRI检查,明确颈髓和神经根受压节段,其中脊髓型颈椎病29例,神经根型颈椎病8例;14例存在颈肩部疼痛,16例存在不同程度的上肢疼痛或麻木,8例四肢肌力下降,20例Hoffmann征阳性,12例有躯干束带感或“踩棉花”感。术前MRI检查T2加权像提示脊髓信号增高者14例。病例一般情况见表 1

表 1 病例情况 Tab. 1 General data
1.2 ROI-C的构造和设计特点

本研究使用的ROI-C是由聚醚醚酮制成的自锁式双锚定椎间融合器,其自带双锚定钛质嵌片。该融合器的设计特点:①为楔形设计,符合颈椎椎间盘前高后低的解剖特点,头端弧形设计,能更好地与上位终板匹配;②表面的锯齿状设计及预定限制轨道锁定嵌片,不仅使操作简单,也增加了术后多方向载荷的即刻稳定性,利于术后节段融合;③自身带有用于固定相邻椎体的斜行嵌片,其滑道与融合器主体成45°角,锐利嵌片双边均具有弹性“倒刺”,将嵌片槌击到上下位椎体内,“倒刺”即卡抵于融合器两侧,完成即刻锁定,既能够降低椎间融合器移位、下沉的可能性,又能有效防止嵌片回移脱出。

1.3 手术方法和术后处理

对所有患者行气管插管全身麻醉,颈肩部垫枕使颈部自然仰伸。取颈部右侧横切口或斜切口(3个节段者),经血管鞘与内脏鞘间隙入路达病变椎间隙,C形臂X线机透视确定病变椎间隙。安装Caspar撑开器并撑开椎间隙。切除病变椎间盘,以刮匙刮除上下椎体软骨终板,直至骨面渗血,注意保护骨性终板的完整性。咬除椎体后缘增生骨赘,切除后纵韧带,显露硬膜囊。选取大小合适的融合器试模置入椎间隙,透视确定椎间高度恢复良好、弧度匹配后,按要求将装满自体骨的ROI-C置入椎间隙,使用Caspar棒适度加压椎间隙。连接嵌片打入器,先将尾侧嵌片自槽内斜向下方打入下位椎体内,再将头侧嵌片斜向上方打入上位椎体,完成自锁固定。活动颈部,直视观察待融合节段的稳定性,X线透视检查再次确认融合器位置良好后冲洗、检查创口,仔细止血后逐层缝合切口。留置负压引流球管(术后24 ~ 48 h拔除)。预防性应用抗生素24 h。术后3 d配戴颈围下床活动,颈围固定3 ~ 4周。

1.4 随访评价 1.4.1 临床评价

记录手术时间、术中出血量及术后并发症。术后吞咽困难采用Bazaz标准[4]评估:①无,没有吞咽困难发生;②轻度,偶尔有吞咽困难发生;③中度,食物较硬时可能有吞咽困难的发生;④重度,因吞咽困难不能正常进食。记录术前和术后各随访时间点的颈椎功能障碍指数(neck disability index,NDI)[5],评价术后颈椎功能变化情况。记录术前和术后各个随访时间点的日本骨科学会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA)评分[6],评价颈髓和神经根功能。JOA改善率(%)=(术后JOA评分-术前JOA评分)/(17-术前JOA评分)×100%。改善率>75%为优,≥50%且<75%为良,≥25%且<50%为中,<25%为差。

1.4.2 影像学评价

测量椎间隙高度变化,即颈椎侧位X线片上病变节段上位椎体下缘中点与下位椎体上缘中点的距离。在颈椎侧位X线片上测量术前及术后颈椎整体曲度,即枢椎椎体下缘连线与C7椎体下缘连线的夹角。根据X线片判定植骨融合情况,融合标准:①植骨骨小梁生长过相邻椎体上下缘,形成骨性连接;②椎体上下缘与融合器内骨组织之间无透亮线;③过伸、过屈侧位X线片提示融合节段相对角度位移≤2°;④有足够的椎间高度,无塌陷和侧凸。对部分病例行颈椎CT 3D重建,观察椎间骨融合情况,CT示连续骨小梁通过椎间融合器生长进入界面终板证实为骨性融合。

1.5 随访内容

分别于术后1周、1个月、3个月及此后每3个月进行随访,每次随访时记录并发症变化情况,并记录NDI、JOA评分,行X线和/或CT检查,测量病变椎间隙高度及颈椎曲度,并与术前比较。

1.6 统计学处理

采用SPSS 17.0软件进行数据录入及分析,计量数据以x±s表示。对术前及不同随访时间点的NDI、JOA评分、椎间隙高度和颈椎曲度进行重复测量方差分析,P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。

2 结 果

单间隙手术时间为55 ~ 100 min,平均68 min;双间隙手术时间95 ~ 140 min,平均93 min;3个间隙手术时间130 ~ 180 min,平均154 min。术中出血量70 ~ 320 mL,平均182 mL,所有病例未输血。术中无脊髓、神经根、硬膜囊、气管及食管损伤,无切口感染情况发生。术后随访25 ~ 40个月,平均32个月。4例术后出现轻度吞咽困难,其中2例术后1周症状自行消失,另2例分别持续至术后6周和3个月消失。1例出现声音嘶哑,术后2周恢复。术后各随访时间点NDI、JOA评分、椎间隙高度及颈椎整体曲度均较术前明显改善,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.01,见表 2);但术后各随访时间点间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。以JOA评分改善率评价疗效,优18例,良16例,可3例,优良率为91.9%。所有患者术后6个月复查X线片,示病变节段均获骨性融合,骨性融合率达100%;其中9例行颈椎CT矢状位重建,证实骨性融合。所有病例未观察到融合器移位、下沉及嵌片松动、断裂的现象。典型病例影像学资料见图 1

表 2 测量数据 Tab. 2 Measured data

a,b:术前X线片和MRI示C5 /C6 /C7椎间盘退变、突出并压迫脊髓 c,d:术后1个月及3个月随访X线片示椎间隙高度恢复,颈椎曲度和植骨融合情况良好 e:术后6个月矢状位CT证实骨性融合
a,b:Preoperative roentgenograph and MRI show C5 /C6 /C7 intervertebral disc degeneration herniation and spinal cord compression c,d:Postoperative 1 month and 3 months roentgenographs show restoral of intervertebral height,cervical curvature and bone fusion in good condition e:Postoperative 6 months CT confirms bone fusion
图 1 典型病例影像学资料 Fig. 1 Radiologic data of typical case
3 讨 论

ACDF是手术治疗颈椎病的“金标准”,完全切除脊髓和神经根的致压物、重建颈椎生理曲度和提供节段融合所需的稳定性是ACDF的重要技术环节[7]。应用自体骨块或椎间融合器植骨联合前路钛板固定可获得满意的临床疗效[8, 9, 10]。虽然使用前路钛板可以增加病变节段的稳定性,维持重建的颈椎生理曲度和降低椎间假关节的发生率,但也存在术中过多剥离椎前筋膜和颈长肌,钛板长度和弧度与病变节段往往无法精确匹配,X线透视次数和手术时间增加,易出现螺钉进入椎间隙、螺钉退出移位等器械并发症以及吞咽困难和声音嘶哑发生率高等问题[11, 12, 13]。有报道ACDF联合后路固定可以减少前路钛板固定的并发症[14]。随着前路钛板固定的缺点被广泛认识,近几年独立使用的新型低切迹前路椎间融合器开始应用于临床。Njoku等[15]报道采用零切迹椎间融合器系统(Zero-P)治疗颈椎病患者获得较为理想的临床效果,该系统需要在1枚融合器上置入4枚螺钉达到稳定,而对于相邻多节段的操作相对复杂,且有螺钉相互干扰的问题。Grasso等[16]应用双嵌片自锁颈椎融合器(ROI-C)治疗颈椎病32例,获得满意的临床效果。

与传统融合器植骨联合钛板固定相比,ROI-C应用于ACDF,具有操作简单、损伤小、器械相关并发症少等优势。在充分减压的前提下,置入ROI-C可简便地“靶向”处理病变节段,利用其楔形设计能有效地恢复颈椎生理曲度,尤其对于不连续的病变节段还可以保留其正常的运动节段,亦省去安装钛板螺钉的步骤,缩短手术时间,减少术中牵拉椎体前方组织,同时减低食管、气管相关并发症。吞咽困难是ACDF最常见的术后并发症。Tortolani等[17]总结报道ACDF术后吞咽困难发生率为2% ~ 67%,并指出临床对术后并发吞咽困难认识不足,是造成统计数据偏差较大的原因。Rihn等[18]指出吞咽困难在ACDF术后2周内的发生率高达71%。ACDF并发吞咽困难的发生机制至今尚不完全清楚,其形成可能是多因素的。本组病例中有4例术后出现轻度吞咽困难,发生率10.8%,术后3个月内均自行恢复,显著低于使用钛板的吞咽困难发生率[19]。吞咽困难发生率低的可能原因:① ROI-C重建和固定病变节段,可以完全位于椎间隙内部,能够减少对椎前软组织的刺激和干扰;②微创化靶向处理病变间隙能有效防止过多剥离前纵韧带和双侧颈长肌,避免对食管周围组织的损伤,减轻食管与周围组织的粘连;③简化操作,使术中牵拉食管等软组织的时间缩短。

虽然对利用传统钛板固定提供椎间融合的有效性已达到共识,但是其必要性逐渐受到许多学者质疑,随之相关的生物力学研究相继出现[20, 21, 22, 23]。有研究证实,单/双间隙ACDF采用自身带有螺钉斜行固定相邻椎体的融合器可提供与前路钛板相似的稳定性,同时节省置入空间,更具有微创的优势[22, 23]。虽然有关ROI-C嵌片固定的相关生物力学研究尚未见报道,但本组病例植骨均融合,融合器也未出现下沉情况,表明ROI-C可以提供椎间融合所需的稳定性。

采用ROI-C行ACDF需注意:①术者必须熟练掌握椎间隙减压技术,才能完成彻底减压,必要时尚需潜行减压至相邻椎体后缘。②处理减压节段相邻终板至骨性终板渗血,避免过多破坏骨性终板以致术后出现融合器下沉。③需选择与椎间隙高度和上位椎体下缘弧度匹配的ROI-C型号,并经X线透视确认。④固定时宜先打入尾侧嵌片,而后透视确认融合器匹配良好后再打入头侧嵌片。⑤ROI-C的嵌片滑槽轨道的独特设计,使之存在一定范围的微动,尤其在轴向载荷上。本组部分病例术后6个月重建的椎间高度有所丢失,对于术前椎间明显不稳的病例应适当延长外固定时间。⑥ROI-C适用于脊髓和神经根的致压物位于椎间盘平面椎管前方的病例,连续型后纵韧带骨化、发育性颈椎椎管狭窄及黄韧带肥厚者是其禁忌证。⑦由于下颌骨和胸骨柄的阻挡,使用ROI-C固定融合C2 / C3及C7 / T1节段存在客观的限制。

理想的颈椎融合器应该同时具有可有效恢复椎间隙高度、重建颈椎生理曲度及提供节段融合所需的稳定性的特性[24]。应用ROI-C使ACDF操作简便,创伤小,能有效恢复椎间隙高度和重建颈椎生理曲度,自身还可即刻稳定融合节段,无需联合应用其他内固定系统,植骨融合率高。上述优点使ROI-C有可能成为将来替代传统植骨联合钛板的新器械。同时应指出的是,本研究病例数较少,随访时间短,且尚需ROI-C的生物力学实验证实其可以提供椎间融合所需要的力学环境,以及临床大样本前瞻性随机对照研究进一步检验其有效性。

参考文献
[1] Angevine PD,Arons RR,McCormick PC. National and regional rates and variation of cervical discectomy with and without anterior fusion,1990-1999[J]. Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2003,28(9):931-940.
[2] Fountas KN,Kapsalaki EZ,Nikolakakos LG,et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications[J]. Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2007,32(21):2310-2317.
[3] Zhou J,Li X,Dong J,et al. Three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with self-locking stand-alone polyetheretherketone cages[J]. J Clin Neurosci,2011,18(11):1505-1509.
[4] Bazaz R,Lee MJ,Yoo JU. Incidence of dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery:a prospective study[J]. Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2002,27(22):2453-2458.
[5] Vernon H,Mior S. The neck disability index:a study of reliability and validity[J]. J Manipulative Physiol Ther,1991,14(7):409-415.
[6] Fukui M,Chiba K,Kawakami M,et al. Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire. Part 2. Verification of its reliability:The Subcommittee on Low Back Pain and Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation of the Clinical Outcome Committee of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association[J]. J Orthop Sci,2007,12(6):526-532.
[7] Mastronardi L,Ducati A,Ferrante L. Anterior cervical fusion with polyetheretherketone(PEEK) cages in the treatment of degenerative disc disease:preliminary observations in 36 consecutive cases with a minimum l2-month follow-up[J]. Acta Neurochirurgica,2006,148(3):307-312.
[8] Sudprasert W,Kunakornsawat S. A preliminary study of three and four levels degenerative cervical spondylosis treated with peek cages and anterior cervical plate[J]. J Med Assoc Thai,2012,95(7):909-916.
[9] Kim MK,Kim SM,Jeon KM,et al. Radiographic Comparison of Four Anterior Fusion Methods in Two Level Cervical Disc Diseases:Autograft Plate Fixation versus Cage Plate Fixation versus Stand-Alone Cage Fusion versus Corpectomy and Plate Fixation[J]. J Korean Neurosurg Soc,2012,51(3):135-140.
[10] Vanek P,Bradac O,DeLacy P,et al. Comparison of 3 fusion techniques in the treatment of the degenerative cervical spine disease. Is stand-alone autograft really the "gold standard?":prospective study with 2-year follow-up[J]. Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2012,37(19):1645-1651.
[11] Song KJ,Taghavi CE,Hsu MS,et al. Plate augmentation in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with cage for degenerative cervical spinal disorders[J]. Eur Spine J,2010,19(10):1677-1683.
[12] Sahjpaul RL. Esophageal perforation from anterior cervical screw migration[J]. Surg Neurol,2007,68(2):205-209.
[13] Nanda A,Sharma M,Sonig A,et al. Surgical complications of anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion for cervical degenerative disk disease:a single surgeon's experience of 1,576 patients[J]. World Neurosurg,2014,82(6):1380-1387.
[14] Song KJ,Song JS,Kim DY,et al. Efficacy of combined anteroposterior fusion with no plate versus anterior fusion alone with cage and plate for multilevel degenerative cervical disease[J]. Spine J,2014,14(4):598-603.
[15] Njoku I Jr,Alimi M,Leng LZ,et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with a zero-profile integrated plate and spacer device:a clinical and radiological study:Clinical article[J]. J Neurosurg Spine,2014,21(4):529-537.
[16] Grasso G,Giambartino F,Tomasello G,et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with ROI-C peek cage:cervical alignment and patient outcomes[J]. Eur Spine J,2014,23(Suppl 6):650-657.
[17] Tortolani PJ,Cunningham BW,Vigna F,et al. A comparison of retraction pressure during anterior cervical plate surgery and cervical disc replacement:a cadaveric study[J]. J Spinal Disord Tech,2006,19(5):312-317.
[18] Rihn JA,Kane J,Albert TJ,et al. What is the incidence and severity of dysphagia after anterior cervical surgery?[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res,2011,469(3):658-665.
[19] Riley LH 3rd,Skolasky RL,Albert TJ,et al. Dysphagia after anterior cervical decompression and fusion:prevalence and risk factors from a longitudinal cohort studyp[J]. Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2005,30(22):2564-2569.
[20] Scholz M,Reyes PM,Schleicher P,et al. A new stand-alone cervical anterior interbody fusion device:biomechanical comparison with established anterior cervical fixation devices[J]. Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2009,34(2):156-160.
[21] Hunter W,Bucklen B,Muzumdar A,et al. A comparative biomechanical study of traditional and in-line plating systems following immediate stabilization of single and bi-level cervical segments[J]. Clin Biomech(Bristol,Avon),2012,27(1):84-90.
[22] Stein MI,Nayak AN,Gaskins RB 3rd,et al. Biomechanics of an integrated interbody device versus ACDF anterior locking plate in a single-level cervical spine fusion construct[J]. Spine J,2014,14(1):128-136.
[23] Nayak AN,Stein MI,James CR,et al. Biomechanical analysis of an interbody cage with three integrated cancellous lag screws in a two-level cervical spine fusion construct:an in vitro study[J]. Spine J,2014,14(12):3002-3010.
[24] Samandouras G,Shafafy M,Hamlyn PJ. A new anterior cervical instrumentation system combining an intradiscal cage with an integrated plate:an early technical report[J]. Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2001,26(10):1188-1192.