腰椎椎间融合的实验和临床研究
|
摘要
腰椎不稳症是引起下腰痛的重要原因,腰椎融合术在腰椎稳定性的重建中占有重要地位。椎间融合术以其融和率高,术后即刻稳定性良好等优点越来越广泛地被应用于腰椎不稳症的治疗,而椎间融合器及界面融合技术的发展,使腰椎椎间融合的内容不断丰富,但也出现了一些并发症。本研究首先对应用椎间融合术治疗腰椎不稳症的病例进行回顾性研究,随访其远期疗效并就术中,术后并发症进行分析。我们使用了一种新型的解剖型表面微孔钛涂层融合器并对其临床疗效进行了前瞻性研究;针对腰椎不稳多发生在骨密度有不同程度降低的中老年人并容易发生术后融合器松动,沉降的特点,我们就骨密度及终板的处理对融合节段术后初始稳定性及融合界面抗压强度的影响进行了生物力学的测试;同时,我们还将一种新型的羟基磷灰石-蚕丝蛋白复合材料作为自体骨移植的替代物进行了动物实验,观察其成骨能力以及临床应用的前景。
第一部分腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎不稳症的远期疗效随访
目地:探讨腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎不稳症的临床疗效及其并发症的防治。方法:对1996 至2003 年间因腰椎不稳症而在我院行椎间融合术并获得完整随访资料的病例66 例进行回顾性分析,随访内容包括:(1)影像学评估:测量项目包括术前、术后及末次随访时的融合节段前凸角,腰椎前凸角,椎间隙高度,椎间孔高度,滑脱率以及过伸过屈应力位片椎体间角度活动域并观察其融合情况;(2)临床疗效评估:分别采用JOA 评分法和Oswestry 功能障碍指数对手术的远期疗效进行评定。结果:随访时间18 个月～70 个月,平均26 个月。融合成功者49 例,融合率74.3%。术后椎间隙及椎间孔高度得到恢复,过伸过屈位片椎体间活动域减小,但腰椎前凸角及融合节段前凸角未有明显恢复。疗效评定结果恢复率(JOA)为70.6%(ALIF 组)及72.9%(PLIF 组),ODI 较术前明显改善。但在末次随访时,部分病例出现融合器的沉降,椎间隙高度再次丢失,同时出现神经症状。11例发生了融合器的下沉(16.6%),融合器向后脱入椎管并再次手术治疗3 例(4.5%)。结论:(1)腰椎椎间融合术是治疗腰椎不稳症的有效手段;(2)以上病例中
Spinal instability is one of the important factors for the low back pain and fusion of lumbar spine is a well-accepted surgical procedure in the management of reconstruction of spinal stability. Interbody lumbar fusion has gained wide popularity in treatment of lumbar instability for its advantages of high fusion rate and immediately restoring of the spinal stability. Recent developments of interbody fixation devices known as cages have renewed interest in lumbar interbody fusion. However, there were some intro-and post-operative complications occurred with the increasing use of interbody fusion cages. In this paper, a retrospective study of low lumbar instability treated by interbody fusion was conducted and the long-term follow-up of functional outcomes, radiographic changes and the complications were analyzed. To avoid these complications, a prospective research of using newly designed titanium-coating fusion cages in the treatment of lumbar instability was performed. Subsidence of the cages into the vertebral body is a well-known complication after interbody fusion, especially in the old patients with low bone mineral density, so biomechanical test was hold to study the effect of endplate preparation and bone mineral density on the compressive strength of the graft–endplate interface and initial stability of fusion spinal unit. Utilizing vivo animal models, the ability of hydroxyapatite-silk fibroin nanocomposites to act as bone graft substitutes for interbody lumbar fusion has been studied.
Part Ⅰ. Long-term effects of lumbar instability treated with lumbar interbody fusion.
Objective To investigate the long-term effects and complications of lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar instability. Methods From 1996 to 2003, 66 cases of 75 segments with lumbar instability were followed up after underwent interbody lumbar fusion using cages. The contents followed up included: (1) Radiological studies: The
average preoperative and postoperative disc space height, foraminal height, lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis and the amount of sagittal rotation observed between the extremes of movement (on flexion–extension radiographs) were measured and compared; (2) Clinical outcome evaluation: pre-and postoperative JOA score and Oswestry Disability Questionnaire were used to determine the long-term effect of the operation. Intro-and post –operative complications were also accessed. Results All cases were followed and the follow-up period ranged from 18 to 70 months with an average of 26 months. The fusion rate is 74.3%. The recovery rate was 70.6% (ALIF group) and 72.9% (PLIF group) and the ODI decreased significantly. There were significant retrieve of disc space height and foraminal height, and the regress of the amount of sagittal rotation was attained, but the satisfied postoperative sagittal alignment was not achieved. In some cases, losses of retrieved disc space height accompanied by reoccurrences of the neurological symptoms were observed. The migrations of the fusion cages backwards into the spinal canal and subsidence into the vertebral body were occurred in 3 (4.5%) and 11 (16.6%) cases respectively. Conclusions (1) Lumbar interbody fusion is a reasonable option in treating the lumbar instability; (2) Normal sagittal alignment was not achieved which will accelerate degeneration in adjacent segment; (3) Postoperative subsidence of the fusion cages which lead to losses of the disc space height at the fusion level will alter the mechanical results and possibly adversely affect the clinical results, and it is associated with design of the cages, the preparation of endplate and the bone mineral density of the patients. Part Ⅱ. Clinical applications of titanium coating fusion cage in treatment of lumbar instability. Objective To study the clinical outcomes of using titanium-coating cage (Prospace) in lumbar segmental instability. Method From January 2003 to October 2004, a prospective clinical research was designed that 20 cases with 21 segments diagnosed as lumbar instability were treated by posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using Prospace cage. 4 males and 16 females with average age of 51.6 years were included. The diagnoses were disc herniation in 5, lumbar spinal stenosis in 6,
degenerative spondylolisthesis in 4 and isthmic spondylolisthesis in 5. In all cases, double cages were inserted with the posterolateral bone graft and pedicle screw systems were supplemented. The average preoperative and postoperative disc space height, foraminal height, lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis, lumbar tilt, sacral tilt, Index of Lumbar Curvature and the amount of sagittal rotation observed between the extremes of movement (on flexion–extension radiographs) were measured and compared. The JOA score and Oswestry Disability Questionnaire were used to evaluate the clinical outcome. Result All cases were followed and the follow-up period ranged from 6 to 20 months with an average of 12 months. The fusion rate is 95%. The recovery rate was 91.6%and the ODI decreased significantly. There were significant retrieve of disc space height and foraminal height, and the restoring of the amount of sagittal rotation observed between the extremes of movement was achieved. Mean Lumbar lordosis and segmental lordosis of the fused segments showed significant changes postoperatively (P<0.05). Segmental lordosis increased from 5.1°to 10.1°at L4、5, and from 9.2°to 16.6°at L5S1, lumbar lordosis increased from 31.2°to 41.1°, and Index of Lumbar Curvature increased from 25.1% to 30.5%. Analysis of changes in lumbar tilt and sacral tilt did not show significant differences. Conclusion(1)The restoration of the interbody space height and achievement of optimal sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine are relevant factors influencing the clinical outcomes. (2) Compared with threaded fusion cages, the anatomic titanium-coating fusion cage has its advantages in restoring sagittal alignment and keeping bony endplate intact which can prevent the postoperatively subsidence in instrumented PLIF procedures, at the same time, it can accelerates interbody fusion due to an osteointegration of the vertebral endplates by titanium coating without additional bone grafts. Part Ⅲ. Effect of bone mineral density and endplate preparation on the initial stability and compressive strength of the fusion spinal unit Objective To investigate Effect of bone mineral density (BMD) and endplate preparation on the initial stability and compressive strength of the fusion spinal unit. Method Using the goat underwent ovariectomy as animal models of low bone mineral
density. Fusion unit (L4 、5) and single vertebral body samples were prepared respectively and bone mineral density of each sample was measured using a dual energy radiograph absorptiometry unit. Fusion unit specimens were divided into four groups according to BMD and different endplate conditions (intact and completely removed) and single vertebral body specimens were divided into six groups according to BMD and different endplate conditions (intact, completely removed and one central 6×6mm2 hole). The biomechanical evaluations include compressive strength, rigidity, flexibility; extension, axial rotation and destructive compression tests were performed in this study. Result (1)The compressive strength, rigidity and initial stability of fusion spinal unit were found to have a significant association with bone mineral density and preparations of the endplate while group with normal BMD and intact bony endplate has the best initial stability. (2) In single vertebral body specimens, load to failure of the specimens with an intact endplate and normal BMD were significantly greater than that of the specimens with removed endplate or low BMD. One central hole (6×6mm2 ) doesn’t significantly decreased the compressive strength of the endplate. Conclusion(1)BMD and endplate condition significantly affect the initial stability of the fusion spinal unit, (2) BMD and endplate (intact vs. complete removal) were found to significantly affect the mechanical strength of the graft-endplate interface and making a central hole in the endplate to facilitate the vascular ingrowths to the graft is preferable. (3)To reduce the incidence of postoperative complications such as subsidence and migration of the cages when performing interbody fusion, preoperative consideration and postoperative interference of BMD would be important for patient selection and the choice of surgical technique. Preserving the intact bony endplate as much as possible is necessary, particularly in patients with poor bone quality. Part Ⅳ. The study of using Hydroxyapatite-Silk fibroin nanocomposites as bone graft substitutes for lumbar interbody fusion Objective To evaluate the ability of osteoconduction of Hydroxyapatite-Silk fibroin nanocomposites(HAp-SF) and its potential efficacy as graft substitutes for autogenous bone in lumbar interbody fusion. Method Five goats underwent single-level
(L3、4) anterior lumbar interbody fusion (AILF) and the HAp-SF nanocomposite block was implanted as graft substitutes for autogenous bone. The animals were sacrificed after 5 months and spinal fusion was evaluated by manual palpation (status was fused or not fused), and radiological analyses include plain X-ray, computed tomography and MRI was done to visualize the amount of bone formation. Histological examination was performed to observe the new bone formation. Result Fusion was ascertained by manual palpation in all animals, and the radiological analyses show the new bone formation and solid fusion in the interbody space. Histological examination suggested that newly born bone matrix and blood vessels were observed in the fusion segment. Conclusion As graft substitute for autogenous bone in lumbar interbody fusion, Hydroxyapatite-Silk fibroin nanocomposites had showed its satisfied osteoconductive properties and it is promising in future clinical application.
第一部分腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎不稳症的远期疗效随访
目地:探讨腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎不稳症的临床疗效及其并发症的防治。方法:对1996 至2003 年间因腰椎不稳症而在我院行椎间融合术并获得完整随访资料的病例66 例进行回顾性分析,随访内容包括:(1)影像学评估:测量项目包括术前、术后及末次随访时的融合节段前凸角,腰椎前凸角,椎间隙高度,椎间孔高度,滑脱率以及过伸过屈应力位片椎体间角度活动域并观察其融合情况;(2)临床疗效评估:分别采用JOA 评分法和Oswestry 功能障碍指数对手术的远期疗效进行评定。结果:随访时间18 个月～70 个月,平均26 个月。融合成功者49 例,融合率74.3%。术后椎间隙及椎间孔高度得到恢复,过伸过屈位片椎体间活动域减小,但腰椎前凸角及融合节段前凸角未有明显恢复。疗效评定结果恢复率(JOA)为70.6%(ALIF 组)及72.9%(PLIF 组),ODI 较术前明显改善。但在末次随访时,部分病例出现融合器的沉降,椎间隙高度再次丢失,同时出现神经症状。11例发生了融合器的下沉(16.6%),融合器向后脱入椎管并再次手术治疗3 例(4.5%)。结论:(1)腰椎椎间融合术是治疗腰椎不稳症的有效手段;(2)以上病例中
Spinal instability is one of the important factors for the low back pain and fusion of lumbar spine is a well-accepted surgical procedure in the management of reconstruction of spinal stability. Interbody lumbar fusion has gained wide popularity in treatment of lumbar instability for its advantages of high fusion rate and immediately restoring of the spinal stability. Recent developments of interbody fixation devices known as cages have renewed interest in lumbar interbody fusion. However, there were some intro-and post-operative complications occurred with the increasing use of interbody fusion cages. In this paper, a retrospective study of low lumbar instability treated by interbody fusion was conducted and the long-term follow-up of functional outcomes, radiographic changes and the complications were analyzed. To avoid these complications, a prospective research of using newly designed titanium-coating fusion cages in the treatment of lumbar instability was performed. Subsidence of the cages into the vertebral body is a well-known complication after interbody fusion, especially in the old patients with low bone mineral density, so biomechanical test was hold to study the effect of endplate preparation and bone mineral density on the compressive strength of the graft–endplate interface and initial stability of fusion spinal unit. Utilizing vivo animal models, the ability of hydroxyapatite-silk fibroin nanocomposites to act as bone graft substitutes for interbody lumbar fusion has been studied.
Part Ⅰ. Long-term effects of lumbar instability treated with lumbar interbody fusion.
Objective To investigate the long-term effects and complications of lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar instability. Methods From 1996 to 2003, 66 cases of 75 segments with lumbar instability were followed up after underwent interbody lumbar fusion using cages. The contents followed up included: (1) Radiological studies: The
average preoperative and postoperative disc space height, foraminal height, lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis and the amount of sagittal rotation observed between the extremes of movement (on flexion–extension radiographs) were measured and compared; (2) Clinical outcome evaluation: pre-and postoperative JOA score and Oswestry Disability Questionnaire were used to determine the long-term effect of the operation. Intro-and post –operative complications were also accessed. Results All cases were followed and the follow-up period ranged from 18 to 70 months with an average of 26 months. The fusion rate is 74.3%. The recovery rate was 70.6% (ALIF group) and 72.9% (PLIF group) and the ODI decreased significantly. There were significant retrieve of disc space height and foraminal height, and the regress of the amount of sagittal rotation was attained, but the satisfied postoperative sagittal alignment was not achieved. In some cases, losses of retrieved disc space height accompanied by reoccurrences of the neurological symptoms were observed. The migrations of the fusion cages backwards into the spinal canal and subsidence into the vertebral body were occurred in 3 (4.5%) and 11 (16.6%) cases respectively. Conclusions (1) Lumbar interbody fusion is a reasonable option in treating the lumbar instability; (2) Normal sagittal alignment was not achieved which will accelerate degeneration in adjacent segment; (3) Postoperative subsidence of the fusion cages which lead to losses of the disc space height at the fusion level will alter the mechanical results and possibly adversely affect the clinical results, and it is associated with design of the cages, the preparation of endplate and the bone mineral density of the patients. Part Ⅱ. Clinical applications of titanium coating fusion cage in treatment of lumbar instability. Objective To study the clinical outcomes of using titanium-coating cage (Prospace) in lumbar segmental instability. Method From January 2003 to October 2004, a prospective clinical research was designed that 20 cases with 21 segments diagnosed as lumbar instability were treated by posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using Prospace cage. 4 males and 16 females with average age of 51.6 years were included. The diagnoses were disc herniation in 5, lumbar spinal stenosis in 6,
degenerative spondylolisthesis in 4 and isthmic spondylolisthesis in 5. In all cases, double cages were inserted with the posterolateral bone graft and pedicle screw systems were supplemented. The average preoperative and postoperative disc space height, foraminal height, lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis, lumbar tilt, sacral tilt, Index of Lumbar Curvature and the amount of sagittal rotation observed between the extremes of movement (on flexion–extension radiographs) were measured and compared. The JOA score and Oswestry Disability Questionnaire were used to evaluate the clinical outcome. Result All cases were followed and the follow-up period ranged from 6 to 20 months with an average of 12 months. The fusion rate is 95%. The recovery rate was 91.6%and the ODI decreased significantly. There were significant retrieve of disc space height and foraminal height, and the restoring of the amount of sagittal rotation observed between the extremes of movement was achieved. Mean Lumbar lordosis and segmental lordosis of the fused segments showed significant changes postoperatively (P<0.05). Segmental lordosis increased from 5.1°to 10.1°at L4、5, and from 9.2°to 16.6°at L5S1, lumbar lordosis increased from 31.2°to 41.1°, and Index of Lumbar Curvature increased from 25.1% to 30.5%. Analysis of changes in lumbar tilt and sacral tilt did not show significant differences. Conclusion(1)The restoration of the interbody space height and achievement of optimal sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine are relevant factors influencing the clinical outcomes. (2) Compared with threaded fusion cages, the anatomic titanium-coating fusion cage has its advantages in restoring sagittal alignment and keeping bony endplate intact which can prevent the postoperatively subsidence in instrumented PLIF procedures, at the same time, it can accelerates interbody fusion due to an osteointegration of the vertebral endplates by titanium coating without additional bone grafts. Part Ⅲ. Effect of bone mineral density and endplate preparation on the initial stability and compressive strength of the fusion spinal unit Objective To investigate Effect of bone mineral density (BMD) and endplate preparation on the initial stability and compressive strength of the fusion spinal unit. Method Using the goat underwent ovariectomy as animal models of low bone mineral
density. Fusion unit (L4 、5) and single vertebral body samples were prepared respectively and bone mineral density of each sample was measured using a dual energy radiograph absorptiometry unit. Fusion unit specimens were divided into four groups according to BMD and different endplate conditions (intact and completely removed) and single vertebral body specimens were divided into six groups according to BMD and different endplate conditions (intact, completely removed and one central 6×6mm2 hole). The biomechanical evaluations include compressive strength, rigidity, flexibility; extension, axial rotation and destructive compression tests were performed in this study. Result (1)The compressive strength, rigidity and initial stability of fusion spinal unit were found to have a significant association with bone mineral density and preparations of the endplate while group with normal BMD and intact bony endplate has the best initial stability. (2) In single vertebral body specimens, load to failure of the specimens with an intact endplate and normal BMD were significantly greater than that of the specimens with removed endplate or low BMD. One central hole (6×6mm2 ) doesn’t significantly decreased the compressive strength of the endplate. Conclusion(1)BMD and endplate condition significantly affect the initial stability of the fusion spinal unit, (2) BMD and endplate (intact vs. complete removal) were found to significantly affect the mechanical strength of the graft-endplate interface and making a central hole in the endplate to facilitate the vascular ingrowths to the graft is preferable. (3)To reduce the incidence of postoperative complications such as subsidence and migration of the cages when performing interbody fusion, preoperative consideration and postoperative interference of BMD would be important for patient selection and the choice of surgical technique. Preserving the intact bony endplate as much as possible is necessary, particularly in patients with poor bone quality. Part Ⅳ. The study of using Hydroxyapatite-Silk fibroin nanocomposites as bone graft substitutes for lumbar interbody fusion Objective To evaluate the ability of osteoconduction of Hydroxyapatite-Silk fibroin nanocomposites(HAp-SF) and its potential efficacy as graft substitutes for autogenous bone in lumbar interbody fusion. Method Five goats underwent single-level
(L3、4) anterior lumbar interbody fusion (AILF) and the HAp-SF nanocomposite block was implanted as graft substitutes for autogenous bone. The animals were sacrificed after 5 months and spinal fusion was evaluated by manual palpation (status was fused or not fused), and radiological analyses include plain X-ray, computed tomography and MRI was done to visualize the amount of bone formation. Histological examination was performed to observe the new bone formation. Result Fusion was ascertained by manual palpation in all animals, and the radiological analyses show the new bone formation and solid fusion in the interbody space. Histological examination suggested that newly born bone matrix and blood vessels were observed in the fusion segment. Conclusion As graft substitute for autogenous bone in lumbar interbody fusion, Hydroxyapatite-Silk fibroin nanocomposites had showed its satisfied osteoconductive properties and it is promising in future clinical application.
引文
1.Burns BH.An operation for spondylolisthesis.Lancet,1933,1:1233.
2.Briggs H,Milligan P.Chip fusion of the low back following exploration of thespinal canal.J Bone Joint Surg,1944,26:125.
3.Cloward RB.New treatment of the ruptured intervetebral discs.Paper presented at:Annual Meeting of the Hawaii Territorial Medical Association,May 1945.
4.Kuslich SD,Ulstrom CL,Griffith SL,et al.The Bagby and Kuslich method of lumbar interbody fusion.Spine,1998,23:1267-1279.
5.Ishihara H,Osada R,Karamori M,et al.Minimum 10-year follow-up study ofanterior lumbar interbody fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis.J Spinal Disorder,2001,14:91-99.
6.Shah RR,Mohammed S,Saifuddin A,et al.Comparison of plain radiographs withCT scan to evaluate interbody fusion following the use of titanium interbody cagesand transpedicular instrumentation.Eur Spine J,2003,12:378-385.
7.McAfee PC,Regan JJ,Peter Geis W,et al.Minimally invasive anteriorretroperitoneal approach to the lumbar spine.Emphasis on lateral BAK.Spine,1998,23:1476-1484.
8.Ray CD.Threaded titanium cages for the lumbar interbody fusions.Spine,1997,22:667-680.
9.Kuslich SD,Ulstrom CL,Griffith SL,et al.The Bagby and Kuslich method oflumbar interbody fusion.History,techniques,and 2-year follow-up results of aUnited States prospective,multicenter trial.Spine,1998,23:1267–78.
10.Brantigan JW,Steffee AD.A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion.Two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients.Spine,1993,18:2106-2117.
11.Holte DC,O’Brien JP,Renton P.Anterior lumbar fusion using a hybrid interbodygraft.A preliminary radiographic report.Eur Spine J,1994,3:32-38.
12.Miyakoshi N,Abe E,Shimada Y,et al.Outcome of one-level posterior lumbarinterbody fusion for spondylolisthesis and postoperative intervertebral discdegeneration adjacent to the fusion.Spine,2000,25:1837–1842.
13.Fairbank JC,Pynsent PB.The Oswestry Disability Index.Spine,2000,25:2940-2953.
14.Beutler WJ,Peppelmam WC.Anterior lumbar fusion with paired BAK standard andpaired BAK proximity cages:subsidence incidence,subsidence factors,and clinicaloutcome.Spine J,2003,3:289-293.
15.杨惠林,唐天驷.腰椎不稳与腰报管狭窄专题研讨会纪要.中华骨科杂志,1994,14:60.
16.Nachemson AL,Schultz AB,Berkson MH.Mechanical properties of human lumbarspine motion segments:influences of age,sex,disc level and degeneration.Spine,1979,4:1-8.
17.Macnab I.The traction spur:An indication of segmental instability.J Bone Joint Surg,1971,53A:663.
18.Kirkaldy-Willis WH.Presidential symposium on instability of the lumbar spine,introduction.Spine,1985,10:254.
19.Posner L.A biomechanical analysis of the clinical stability of lumbar andlumbarsacral spine.Spine,1982,7:374.
20.White AA,Panjabi,MM.Clinical biomechanics of spine 2nd edi.Philadelphia:JBLippincott,1990,342-351.
21.Nachemson AL.The role of spinal fusion:Question.Spine,1981,6:306.
22.Humley EN,Spengler DW,Wesel S,et a1.Controversies in low back Pain:thesurgical approach.Instr Course Lect,1994,43:415—423.
23.钱忠来,唐天驷,杨惠林.腰椎峡部裂滑脱动态摄片及其临床意义.中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2002,12:96-98.
24.Muggleton,JM,Kondracki M,Allen L.Spinal Fusion for Lumbar Instability:DoesIt Have a Scientific Basis?Journal of Spinal Disorders,2000,13:200–204.
25.Lowe TG,Tahernia AD,O’Brien MF,et al.Unilateral transforaminal posteriorlumbar interbody fusion(TLIF):Indications,technique,and 2-year results.J Spinaldisorders&Techniques,2002,15:31-38.
26.Philips FM,Cunningham B.Intertransvers lumbar interbody fusion.Spine,2002,27:E37-E41.
27.Matthews HH,Evans MT,Molligan HJ,et al.Laparoscopic discectomy withanterior lumbar interbody fusion.A preliminary review.Spine,1995,20:1797-1802.
28.Mayer TG,Kondraske G,Mooney V,et al.Lumbar myeoelectric spectral analysisfor endurance assessment,a comparison of normal with deconditioned subjects.Spine,1989,9:986-991.
29.Oliver CW,Greenough CG.The role of lumbar paraspinal surfaceelectromyography in low back pain.J Bone Joint Surg.Br 76(Suppl):44.
30.Madan SS,Boeree NR.Comparison of instrumented anterior interbody fusion withinstrumented circumferential lumbar fusion.Eur Spinal J,2003,12:567-575.
31.Kuslich SD,Ulstrom CL,Griffith SL,et al.The Bagby and Kuslich method oflumbar interbody fusion.History,techniques,and 2-year follow-up results of aUnited States prospective,multicenter trial.Spine,1998,23:1267-78.
32.Boos N,Webb JK.Pedicle screw fixation in spinal disorders:a Europe view.EurSpine J,1997,6:2-18.
33.Enker P,Steffee AD.Interbody fusion and instrumentation.Clin Orthop,1994,300:90-101.
34.Bagby GW.Arthrodesis by the distraction-compression method using a stainlesssteel implant.Orthopedics,1988,11:931-934.
35.Zdeblick TA,Philips FM.Interbody cage devices.Spine,2003,15S:S2-S7.
36.Freeman BJC,Licina P,Mehdian SH.Posterior lumbar interbody fusion combinedwith instrumented posterior-lateral fusion:5-year results in 60 patients.Eur Spine J,2000,9:42–46.
37.Shetty AP,Osti OL,Abraham G.Cylindrical threaded cages for lumbardegenerative disc disease.A prospective long term radiological study.Paper presentat:International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine,April 2000:Adelaide,Australia.
38.Beutler WJ,Walter C.Anterior lumbar fusion with paired BAK standard and pairedBAK proximity cages:subsidence,subsidence factors and clinical outcome.TheSpine Journal,2003,3:289-293.
39.Burkus JK,Schuler TC,Gornet MF,et al.Anterior lumbar interbody fusion for themanagement of chronic lower back pain:current strategies and concepts.OrthopClin N Am,2004,35:25–32.
40.McAfee PC,Cunningham BW,Lee GA,et al.Revision strategies for salvaging orimproving failed cylindrical cages.Spine,1999,24:2147-2153.
41.Cloward RB.Spondylolisthesis:treatment by laminectomy and posterior interbodyfusion.Clin Ortho,1981,154:74-82.
42.McAfee PC.Interbody fusion cages in reconstructive operations on the spine.JBone Joint Surg Am,1999,81:859-880.
43.Shah RR,Mohammed S,Saifudding A,et al.Comparison of plain radiographs withCT scan to evaluate interbody fusion following the use of titanium interbody cagesand transpedicular instrumentation.Eur Spine J,2003,12:378-385.
44.Kumar A,Kozak JA,Doherty BJ,et al.Interspace distraction and graft subsidenceafter anterior lumbar fusion with femoral strut allograft.Spine,1993,18:2393-40.
45.Faser RD,.Interbody,posterior,and combined lumbar fusions.Spine,1995,20(24Suppl):167-77.
46.Chen D,Fay LA,Lok J,et al.Increasing neuroforaminal volume by anteriorinterbody distraction in degenerative lumbar spine.Spine,1995,20:74-9.
47.Ohnmeiss DD,Blumenthal SL,Guyer RD,et al.Can foraminal height be increasedand maintained with anterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages?InternationalSociety for the Study of the Lumbar Spine,April 2000,Adelaide,Australia.
48.Jackson RP,McManus AC.Radiographic analysis of sagittal plane alignment andbalance in standing volunteers and patients with low back pain matched for age,sex,and sizes.A prospective contrasted clinical study.Spine,1993,19:1611.
49.Tribus CB,Belanger TA,Zdeblick TA.The effect of operative position andshort-segment fusion on maintenance of segmental alignment of lumbar spine.Spine,1999,24(1):58-61.
50.Lagrone MO,Bradford DS,Moe JH,et al.Treatment of symptomatic flatback afterspinal fusion.J Bone Joint Surg[Am],1998,70:569.
51.Umehara S,Zindrick MR,Patwardhan AG,et al.The biomechanical effect of thepostoperative hypolordosis in instrumented lumbar fusion on instrumented andadjacent spinal segments.Spine,2000,25:1617.
52.Suk S,Lee CK,Kim wj,ET AL.Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion topedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression inspondylolytic spondylolisthesis.Spine,1997,22:210-220.
53.Kuslich SD,Ulstrom CL,Griffith SL,et al.The Bagby and Kuslich method oflumbar interbody fusion.Spine 1998;23:1267-1279.
54.Elias WJ,Simmons NE,Kaptain GL,et al.Complications of posterior lumbarinterbody fusion when using a titanium threaded cage device.J Neurosurg,2000,93(suppl):52.
55.Goh JCH,Wong HK,Thambyah A,et al.Influence of PLIF cage size on lumbarspine stability.Spine,2000,25:35-40
56.McAfee PC,Cunningham BW,Lee GA,et al.Revision strategies for salvaging orimproving failed cylindrical cages.Spine,1999,24:2147-2153.
57.Kim Y.Prediction of mechanical behaviors at interfaces between bone and twointerbody cages of lumbar spine segments.Spine,2001,26:1437-1442.
58.Chen D,Fay LA,Lok J,et al.Increased neuroforaminal volume by anteriorinterbody distraction in degenerative lumbar spine.Spine,1995,20:74-79.
59.Edwards WT,Ordway NR,Zheng yi,et al.Peak stresses observed in the posterioelateral annulus.Spine,2001,26:1753-1759.
60.Yoganandan N,Myklebust J,Cusick J.Functional biomechanics of the thoracolumbar cortex.Clinical Biomechanics,1988,3:11-18.
61.Rockoff SD,Sweet E,Bleustein.The relative contribution of trabecular and corticalbone to the strength of human lumbar vertebrae.Cale Tiss Res,1969,3:163-175.
62.Lim TH,Kwon H,Jeon CH,et al.Effect of endplate conditions and bone mineraldensity on the compressive strength of the graft-endplate interface in anteriorcervical spine fusion.Spine,2001,26:951-956.
63.Fyhrie DP,Schaffler MB.Failure mechanisms in human vertebral cancellous bone.Bone,1994,15:105-109.
64.Jost B,Cripton PA,Lund T,et al.Compressive strength if interbody cages in thelumbar spine:the effect of cage shape,posterior instrumentation and bone density.Eur Spine J,1998,7:132-141.
65.Fredericson M,Lee SU,Weish,J,et al.Changes in posterior disc bulging andintervertebral foraminal size associated with flexion-extension movement:acomparison between L45 and L5S1 levels in normal subjects.Spine J,2001,1:10-17.
66.Oliver D,Lars P,Ottmar S,et al.Radiographic characteristics on conventionalradiographs after posterior lumbar interbody fusion:comparative study betweenradio translucent and radiopaque cages.Journal of Spinal Disorders,2001,14(6):522-532.
67.Kumar MN,Jacquot F,Hall H.Long-term follow-up of functional outcomes andradiographic changes at adjacent levels following lumbar spine fusion fordegenerative disc disease.Eur Spine J,2001,10:309-313.
68.Ralph GP,Heinrich B,Allam Y.Reopretion rate after posterior lumbar interbodyfusion.A report on 1680 cases.Spine,2004,29(22):2516-2520.
69.Ray CD.Threaded titanium cages for lumbar interbody fusions.Spine 1997;22:667-80.
2.Briggs H,Milligan P.Chip fusion of the low back following exploration of thespinal canal.J Bone Joint Surg,1944,26:125.
3.Cloward RB.New treatment of the ruptured intervetebral discs.Paper presented at:Annual Meeting of the Hawaii Territorial Medical Association,May 1945.
4.Kuslich SD,Ulstrom CL,Griffith SL,et al.The Bagby and Kuslich method of lumbar interbody fusion.Spine,1998,23:1267-1279.
5.Ishihara H,Osada R,Karamori M,et al.Minimum 10-year follow-up study ofanterior lumbar interbody fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis.J Spinal Disorder,2001,14:91-99.
6.Shah RR,Mohammed S,Saifuddin A,et al.Comparison of plain radiographs withCT scan to evaluate interbody fusion following the use of titanium interbody cagesand transpedicular instrumentation.Eur Spine J,2003,12:378-385.
7.McAfee PC,Regan JJ,Peter Geis W,et al.Minimally invasive anteriorretroperitoneal approach to the lumbar spine.Emphasis on lateral BAK.Spine,1998,23:1476-1484.
8.Ray CD.Threaded titanium cages for the lumbar interbody fusions.Spine,1997,22:667-680.
9.Kuslich SD,Ulstrom CL,Griffith SL,et al.The Bagby and Kuslich method oflumbar interbody fusion.History,techniques,and 2-year follow-up results of aUnited States prospective,multicenter trial.Spine,1998,23:1267–78.
10.Brantigan JW,Steffee AD.A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion.Two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients.Spine,1993,18:2106-2117.
11.Holte DC,O’Brien JP,Renton P.Anterior lumbar fusion using a hybrid interbodygraft.A preliminary radiographic report.Eur Spine J,1994,3:32-38.
12.Miyakoshi N,Abe E,Shimada Y,et al.Outcome of one-level posterior lumbarinterbody fusion for spondylolisthesis and postoperative intervertebral discdegeneration adjacent to the fusion.Spine,2000,25:1837–1842.
13.Fairbank JC,Pynsent PB.The Oswestry Disability Index.Spine,2000,25:2940-2953.
14.Beutler WJ,Peppelmam WC.Anterior lumbar fusion with paired BAK standard andpaired BAK proximity cages:subsidence incidence,subsidence factors,and clinicaloutcome.Spine J,2003,3:289-293.
15.杨惠林,唐天驷.腰椎不稳与腰报管狭窄专题研讨会纪要.中华骨科杂志,1994,14:60.
16.Nachemson AL,Schultz AB,Berkson MH.Mechanical properties of human lumbarspine motion segments:influences of age,sex,disc level and degeneration.Spine,1979,4:1-8.
17.Macnab I.The traction spur:An indication of segmental instability.J Bone Joint Surg,1971,53A:663.
18.Kirkaldy-Willis WH.Presidential symposium on instability of the lumbar spine,introduction.Spine,1985,10:254.
19.Posner L.A biomechanical analysis of the clinical stability of lumbar andlumbarsacral spine.Spine,1982,7:374.
20.White AA,Panjabi,MM.Clinical biomechanics of spine 2nd edi.Philadelphia:JBLippincott,1990,342-351.
21.Nachemson AL.The role of spinal fusion:Question.Spine,1981,6:306.
22.Humley EN,Spengler DW,Wesel S,et a1.Controversies in low back Pain:thesurgical approach.Instr Course Lect,1994,43:415—423.
23.钱忠来,唐天驷,杨惠林.腰椎峡部裂滑脱动态摄片及其临床意义.中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2002,12:96-98.
24.Muggleton,JM,Kondracki M,Allen L.Spinal Fusion for Lumbar Instability:DoesIt Have a Scientific Basis?Journal of Spinal Disorders,2000,13:200–204.
25.Lowe TG,Tahernia AD,O’Brien MF,et al.Unilateral transforaminal posteriorlumbar interbody fusion(TLIF):Indications,technique,and 2-year results.J Spinaldisorders&Techniques,2002,15:31-38.
26.Philips FM,Cunningham B.Intertransvers lumbar interbody fusion.Spine,2002,27:E37-E41.
27.Matthews HH,Evans MT,Molligan HJ,et al.Laparoscopic discectomy withanterior lumbar interbody fusion.A preliminary review.Spine,1995,20:1797-1802.
28.Mayer TG,Kondraske G,Mooney V,et al.Lumbar myeoelectric spectral analysisfor endurance assessment,a comparison of normal with deconditioned subjects.Spine,1989,9:986-991.
29.Oliver CW,Greenough CG.The role of lumbar paraspinal surfaceelectromyography in low back pain.J Bone Joint Surg.Br 76(Suppl):44.
30.Madan SS,Boeree NR.Comparison of instrumented anterior interbody fusion withinstrumented circumferential lumbar fusion.Eur Spinal J,2003,12:567-575.
31.Kuslich SD,Ulstrom CL,Griffith SL,et al.The Bagby and Kuslich method oflumbar interbody fusion.History,techniques,and 2-year follow-up results of aUnited States prospective,multicenter trial.Spine,1998,23:1267-78.
32.Boos N,Webb JK.Pedicle screw fixation in spinal disorders:a Europe view.EurSpine J,1997,6:2-18.
33.Enker P,Steffee AD.Interbody fusion and instrumentation.Clin Orthop,1994,300:90-101.
34.Bagby GW.Arthrodesis by the distraction-compression method using a stainlesssteel implant.Orthopedics,1988,11:931-934.
35.Zdeblick TA,Philips FM.Interbody cage devices.Spine,2003,15S:S2-S7.
36.Freeman BJC,Licina P,Mehdian SH.Posterior lumbar interbody fusion combinedwith instrumented posterior-lateral fusion:5-year results in 60 patients.Eur Spine J,2000,9:42–46.
37.Shetty AP,Osti OL,Abraham G.Cylindrical threaded cages for lumbardegenerative disc disease.A prospective long term radiological study.Paper presentat:International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine,April 2000:Adelaide,Australia.
38.Beutler WJ,Walter C.Anterior lumbar fusion with paired BAK standard and pairedBAK proximity cages:subsidence,subsidence factors and clinical outcome.TheSpine Journal,2003,3:289-293.
39.Burkus JK,Schuler TC,Gornet MF,et al.Anterior lumbar interbody fusion for themanagement of chronic lower back pain:current strategies and concepts.OrthopClin N Am,2004,35:25–32.
40.McAfee PC,Cunningham BW,Lee GA,et al.Revision strategies for salvaging orimproving failed cylindrical cages.Spine,1999,24:2147-2153.
41.Cloward RB.Spondylolisthesis:treatment by laminectomy and posterior interbodyfusion.Clin Ortho,1981,154:74-82.
42.McAfee PC.Interbody fusion cages in reconstructive operations on the spine.JBone Joint Surg Am,1999,81:859-880.
43.Shah RR,Mohammed S,Saifudding A,et al.Comparison of plain radiographs withCT scan to evaluate interbody fusion following the use of titanium interbody cagesand transpedicular instrumentation.Eur Spine J,2003,12:378-385.
44.Kumar A,Kozak JA,Doherty BJ,et al.Interspace distraction and graft subsidenceafter anterior lumbar fusion with femoral strut allograft.Spine,1993,18:2393-40.
45.Faser RD,.Interbody,posterior,and combined lumbar fusions.Spine,1995,20(24Suppl):167-77.
46.Chen D,Fay LA,Lok J,et al.Increasing neuroforaminal volume by anteriorinterbody distraction in degenerative lumbar spine.Spine,1995,20:74-9.
47.Ohnmeiss DD,Blumenthal SL,Guyer RD,et al.Can foraminal height be increasedand maintained with anterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages?InternationalSociety for the Study of the Lumbar Spine,April 2000,Adelaide,Australia.
48.Jackson RP,McManus AC.Radiographic analysis of sagittal plane alignment andbalance in standing volunteers and patients with low back pain matched for age,sex,and sizes.A prospective contrasted clinical study.Spine,1993,19:1611.
49.Tribus CB,Belanger TA,Zdeblick TA.The effect of operative position andshort-segment fusion on maintenance of segmental alignment of lumbar spine.Spine,1999,24(1):58-61.
50.Lagrone MO,Bradford DS,Moe JH,et al.Treatment of symptomatic flatback afterspinal fusion.J Bone Joint Surg[Am],1998,70:569.
51.Umehara S,Zindrick MR,Patwardhan AG,et al.The biomechanical effect of thepostoperative hypolordosis in instrumented lumbar fusion on instrumented andadjacent spinal segments.Spine,2000,25:1617.
52.Suk S,Lee CK,Kim wj,ET AL.Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion topedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression inspondylolytic spondylolisthesis.Spine,1997,22:210-220.
53.Kuslich SD,Ulstrom CL,Griffith SL,et al.The Bagby and Kuslich method oflumbar interbody fusion.Spine 1998;23:1267-1279.
54.Elias WJ,Simmons NE,Kaptain GL,et al.Complications of posterior lumbarinterbody fusion when using a titanium threaded cage device.J Neurosurg,2000,93(suppl):52.
55.Goh JCH,Wong HK,Thambyah A,et al.Influence of PLIF cage size on lumbarspine stability.Spine,2000,25:35-40
56.McAfee PC,Cunningham BW,Lee GA,et al.Revision strategies for salvaging orimproving failed cylindrical cages.Spine,1999,24:2147-2153.
57.Kim Y.Prediction of mechanical behaviors at interfaces between bone and twointerbody cages of lumbar spine segments.Spine,2001,26:1437-1442.
58.Chen D,Fay LA,Lok J,et al.Increased neuroforaminal volume by anteriorinterbody distraction in degenerative lumbar spine.Spine,1995,20:74-79.
59.Edwards WT,Ordway NR,Zheng yi,et al.Peak stresses observed in the posterioelateral annulus.Spine,2001,26:1753-1759.
60.Yoganandan N,Myklebust J,Cusick J.Functional biomechanics of the thoracolumbar cortex.Clinical Biomechanics,1988,3:11-18.
61.Rockoff SD,Sweet E,Bleustein.The relative contribution of trabecular and corticalbone to the strength of human lumbar vertebrae.Cale Tiss Res,1969,3:163-175.
62.Lim TH,Kwon H,Jeon CH,et al.Effect of endplate conditions and bone mineraldensity on the compressive strength of the graft-endplate interface in anteriorcervical spine fusion.Spine,2001,26:951-956.
63.Fyhrie DP,Schaffler MB.Failure mechanisms in human vertebral cancellous bone.Bone,1994,15:105-109.
64.Jost B,Cripton PA,Lund T,et al.Compressive strength if interbody cages in thelumbar spine:the effect of cage shape,posterior instrumentation and bone density.Eur Spine J,1998,7:132-141.
65.Fredericson M,Lee SU,Weish,J,et al.Changes in posterior disc bulging andintervertebral foraminal size associated with flexion-extension movement:acomparison between L45 and L5S1 levels in normal subjects.Spine J,2001,1:10-17.
66.Oliver D,Lars P,Ottmar S,et al.Radiographic characteristics on conventionalradiographs after posterior lumbar interbody fusion:comparative study betweenradio translucent and radiopaque cages.Journal of Spinal Disorders,2001,14(6):522-532.
67.Kumar MN,Jacquot F,Hall H.Long-term follow-up of functional outcomes andradiographic changes at adjacent levels following lumbar spine fusion fordegenerative disc disease.Eur Spine J,2001,10:309-313.
68.Ralph GP,Heinrich B,Allam Y.Reopretion rate after posterior lumbar interbodyfusion.A report on 1680 cases.Spine,2004,29(22):2516-2520.
69.Ray CD.Threaded titanium cages for lumbar interbody fusions.Spine 1997;22:667-80.