老年腰椎管狭窄症手术治疗的临床研究
|
摘要
目的分析手术治疗65岁以上老年腰椎管狭窄症病人的可靠性、手术具体方法与术后效果情况。
方法对1990年1月至2012年6月我院收治的65岁以上老年腰椎管狭窄症患者673例进行回顾性分析,其病程为3-430个月,平均139.2月,手术治疗的方法主要为全椎板切除减压、多个节段椎板的开窗与减压术、神经根管与全椎板减压+椎弓根螺钉固定术联合椎体间或(和)横突间植骨术。
结果19例病人术后症状较术前加重；71例自我感觉与术前无明显差别；未发生术中死亡的病例；582例恢复较好或恢复效果优良,总体优良率为86.5%；
结论老年腰椎管狭窄患者的病程长、术前各种并存症多,对手术适应证情况应慎重把握,对病人术前进行详细而全面的检查,同时对并存症进行积极处理,手术成功的关键是各个科室共同协作。在对压迫部分进行充分的减压基础上,手术应尽量减少损伤,并争取于最短时间完成手术,根据实际情况结合恰当的内固定促进植骨融合。术后早期下床活动、积极进行功能练习有助于保证手术效果,也是降低术后并发症发生的关键所在。
目的研究老年性的退行性腰椎管狭窄症患者行全椎板切除减压术后腰椎影像学的变化规律。
方法收集的73例退行性腰椎管狭窄症进行全椎板切除的病人资料,对术后X线资料进行分析,男37例,女36例,年龄65～87岁,平均73.3岁。术后随访时间5～16年,平均7.3年。对手术节段情况特别是手术相邻节段的上、下椎体间相对距离、椎体间相对位移、椎体间活动角度、椎体间冠状面活动度和椎体间水平面旋转度的改变进行观察。
结果146个节段进行全椎板切除减压术的术后同术前进行比较发现,椎体间相对位移轻度增大(P=0.1),椎体间的相对距离有明显降低(P=0.001),椎体间活动角度有增大(P=0.01),椎体间的冠状面活动角度轻度增大(P=0.1),水平面椎体间的相对旋转度增大(P=0.01)。对112个减压节段的相邻上、下节段术前与后资料进行比较发现,上述指标变化情况均不明显(P值均大于0.05)。
结论对退行性腰椎管狭窄症的狭窄节段施行全椎板切除减压术,术后X线影像学见手术节段退变征象明显,减压节段相邻的上、下节段退变征象不显著。
目的对腰椎后外侧植骨融合术(PLF)、椎间植骨融合术(PLIF)的植骨融合效果进行对比分析研究。
方法回顾1996年01月-2011年12月卫生部北京医院骨科收治的行后外侧植骨融合术(PLF)和行腰椎椎体间植骨融合术(PLIF)的腰椎退变性疾病的患者313例；Ⅰ组为PLF组,116例,Ⅱ组为PLIF组,197例。分析融合情况、手术时间、术中失血量及并发症情况,对相关数据进行统计学分析。
结果PLF组的融合率为84.5%,PLIF组的融合率为98%。PLF组手术时间为120-480min,平均247.83min; PLIF组手术时间为90-600min,平均240.58min。PLF组手术中出血量为200-4500ml,平均1142.87ml; PLIF组手术出血量机为200-2800ml,平均927.02ml. PLF组术后并发症38例；PLIF组术后并发症36例。两组术后融合情况、手术时间、术中失血量、术后并发症有明显差异,差异有统计学意义(P>0.05)。
结论：在植骨融合率与植骨融合等级方面,PLIF优于PLF
Objective To evaluate the surgical results of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly and to investigate the indications, surgical technical and factors which may contribute to the outcome.
Methods This is a retrospective study of673patients aged65and above who had different kinds of decompression laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis between1990and2012. The mean age at surgery was71.43years (65-88years old).486cases had co-existing illnesses.62had concomitant degenerative spondylolisthesis.488had spinal instrumentation. Functional result was graded to excellent, good, fair and poor.
Results There were86.5%excellent and good,10.5%fair and19cases poor results. Eight patients had re-operations because of post operation hematomas. Multivariate analysis revealed that age, sex, co-morbidity score, number of levels decompressed, and degenerative spondylolisthesis did not predict worse outcomes.
Conclusions The surgical results of spinal stenosis in the elderly are favourable and comparable to those reported for the general population.Carefully perioperative preparation is very important in the treatment of old patient's of lumbar spinal stenosis.
Objective To investigate the long-term regularity of the radiology changes of the spine of old patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis after laminectomy through analysis of X-ray data of73patients.
Methods The mean age of all patients at surgery was73.3years (range,65-87). The average follow-up period was7.3years (range,5-16years). We analyzed and compared the radiological change of73patients, which consisted of the relative distance and migration between vertebral body, the dynamic vertebral sagittal rotation between flexion and extension, relatively horizontal rotation of the segment, coronal dynamic rotation of the segment.
Results There was significant difference between preoperative and postoperative data of the relative distance (P=0.001) between vertebral body and the dynamic vertebral sagittal rotation (P=0.01) and relatively horizontal rotation (P=0.01) of the146segments only treated by laminectomy. No significant difference was found between preoperative and postoperative data of all the index of the112segments up and down adjacent segment treated by laminectomy (P>0.05)
Conclusions There was obvious degenerative appearance in the segment by laminectomy of the old patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis after laminectomy. There was no obviously degenerative appearance in the up and down adjacent segment.
Objective To analysis fusion effect through comparing lumbar posterolateral fusion (PLF) with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).
Methods The data of patient who were admitted in Orthopedics of Beijing Hospital of the Ministry of Health were retrospectively analyzed during January1996to December2011. I:PLF group,116cases, II:PLIF group,197cases. We analyze the data of fusion, operative time, operative blood-loss and complications statistically.
Results The PLF group fusion rate was84.5%while the PLIF group was98%. The average operative time of PLF group was247.83min (120-480min) while the PLIF group was240.58min (90-600min). The PLF group blood-loss was1142.87ml (200-4500ml); the PLIF group was927.02ml (200-2800ml).38cases of the PLF group developed complications;36cases of the PLIF group developed complications. There are significant differences in fusion, operative time, operative blood-loss, complications, differences between the two groups were were significant statistically
Conclusion PLIF group is better than PLF group on fusion rate and fusion grade.
方法对1990年1月至2012年6月我院收治的65岁以上老年腰椎管狭窄症患者673例进行回顾性分析,其病程为3-430个月,平均139.2月,手术治疗的方法主要为全椎板切除减压、多个节段椎板的开窗与减压术、神经根管与全椎板减压+椎弓根螺钉固定术联合椎体间或(和)横突间植骨术。
结果19例病人术后症状较术前加重；71例自我感觉与术前无明显差别；未发生术中死亡的病例；582例恢复较好或恢复效果优良,总体优良率为86.5%；
结论老年腰椎管狭窄患者的病程长、术前各种并存症多,对手术适应证情况应慎重把握,对病人术前进行详细而全面的检查,同时对并存症进行积极处理,手术成功的关键是各个科室共同协作。在对压迫部分进行充分的减压基础上,手术应尽量减少损伤,并争取于最短时间完成手术,根据实际情况结合恰当的内固定促进植骨融合。术后早期下床活动、积极进行功能练习有助于保证手术效果,也是降低术后并发症发生的关键所在。
目的研究老年性的退行性腰椎管狭窄症患者行全椎板切除减压术后腰椎影像学的变化规律。
方法收集的73例退行性腰椎管狭窄症进行全椎板切除的病人资料,对术后X线资料进行分析,男37例,女36例,年龄65～87岁,平均73.3岁。术后随访时间5～16年,平均7.3年。对手术节段情况特别是手术相邻节段的上、下椎体间相对距离、椎体间相对位移、椎体间活动角度、椎体间冠状面活动度和椎体间水平面旋转度的改变进行观察。
结果146个节段进行全椎板切除减压术的术后同术前进行比较发现,椎体间相对位移轻度增大(P=0.1),椎体间的相对距离有明显降低(P=0.001),椎体间活动角度有增大(P=0.01),椎体间的冠状面活动角度轻度增大(P=0.1),水平面椎体间的相对旋转度增大(P=0.01)。对112个减压节段的相邻上、下节段术前与后资料进行比较发现,上述指标变化情况均不明显(P值均大于0.05)。
结论对退行性腰椎管狭窄症的狭窄节段施行全椎板切除减压术,术后X线影像学见手术节段退变征象明显,减压节段相邻的上、下节段退变征象不显著。
目的对腰椎后外侧植骨融合术(PLF)、椎间植骨融合术(PLIF)的植骨融合效果进行对比分析研究。
方法回顾1996年01月-2011年12月卫生部北京医院骨科收治的行后外侧植骨融合术(PLF)和行腰椎椎体间植骨融合术(PLIF)的腰椎退变性疾病的患者313例；Ⅰ组为PLF组,116例,Ⅱ组为PLIF组,197例。分析融合情况、手术时间、术中失血量及并发症情况,对相关数据进行统计学分析。
结果PLF组的融合率为84.5%,PLIF组的融合率为98%。PLF组手术时间为120-480min,平均247.83min; PLIF组手术时间为90-600min,平均240.58min。PLF组手术中出血量为200-4500ml,平均1142.87ml; PLIF组手术出血量机为200-2800ml,平均927.02ml. PLF组术后并发症38例；PLIF组术后并发症36例。两组术后融合情况、手术时间、术中失血量、术后并发症有明显差异,差异有统计学意义(P>0.05)。
结论：在植骨融合率与植骨融合等级方面,PLIF优于PLF
Objective To evaluate the surgical results of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly and to investigate the indications, surgical technical and factors which may contribute to the outcome.
Methods This is a retrospective study of673patients aged65and above who had different kinds of decompression laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis between1990and2012. The mean age at surgery was71.43years (65-88years old).486cases had co-existing illnesses.62had concomitant degenerative spondylolisthesis.488had spinal instrumentation. Functional result was graded to excellent, good, fair and poor.
Results There were86.5%excellent and good,10.5%fair and19cases poor results. Eight patients had re-operations because of post operation hematomas. Multivariate analysis revealed that age, sex, co-morbidity score, number of levels decompressed, and degenerative spondylolisthesis did not predict worse outcomes.
Conclusions The surgical results of spinal stenosis in the elderly are favourable and comparable to those reported for the general population.Carefully perioperative preparation is very important in the treatment of old patient's of lumbar spinal stenosis.
Objective To investigate the long-term regularity of the radiology changes of the spine of old patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis after laminectomy through analysis of X-ray data of73patients.
Methods The mean age of all patients at surgery was73.3years (range,65-87). The average follow-up period was7.3years (range,5-16years). We analyzed and compared the radiological change of73patients, which consisted of the relative distance and migration between vertebral body, the dynamic vertebral sagittal rotation between flexion and extension, relatively horizontal rotation of the segment, coronal dynamic rotation of the segment.
Results There was significant difference between preoperative and postoperative data of the relative distance (P=0.001) between vertebral body and the dynamic vertebral sagittal rotation (P=0.01) and relatively horizontal rotation (P=0.01) of the146segments only treated by laminectomy. No significant difference was found between preoperative and postoperative data of all the index of the112segments up and down adjacent segment treated by laminectomy (P>0.05)
Conclusions There was obvious degenerative appearance in the segment by laminectomy of the old patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis after laminectomy. There was no obviously degenerative appearance in the up and down adjacent segment.
Objective To analysis fusion effect through comparing lumbar posterolateral fusion (PLF) with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).
Methods The data of patient who were admitted in Orthopedics of Beijing Hospital of the Ministry of Health were retrospectively analyzed during January1996to December2011. I:PLF group,116cases, II:PLIF group,197cases. We analyze the data of fusion, operative time, operative blood-loss and complications statistically.
Results The PLF group fusion rate was84.5%while the PLIF group was98%. The average operative time of PLF group was247.83min (120-480min) while the PLIF group was240.58min (90-600min). The PLF group blood-loss was1142.87ml (200-4500ml); the PLIF group was927.02ml (200-2800ml).38cases of the PLF group developed complications;36cases of the PLIF group developed complications. There are significant differences in fusion, operative time, operative blood-loss, complications, differences between the two groups were were significant statistically
Conclusion PLIF group is better than PLF group on fusion rate and fusion grade.
引文
1 Sanderson PL, Wood PLR. Surgery for lumbar stenosis in old people.J Bone Joint Surg(Br)1993,18:1471-174.
2 Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ,et al Lumbar spinal stenosis:conservative or surgical management:a prospective 10-year study. Spine (2000)25:1424-1435
3 Sigmundsson FG, Jonsson B, Stromqvist B.The Impact of Pain on Function and Health Related Quality of Life in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis:A Register Study of 14.821 patients. Spine.2013 Apr 15.
4 Baumgartner H. Lumbar pain in old age. Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax.1996, 22;85:1347-1353.
5 Hermansen E, Moen G, Barstad J, et al.Laminarthrectomy as a surgical approach for decompressing the spinal canal:assessment of preoperative versus postoperative dural sac cross-sectional areal (DSCSA).Eur Spine J.2013,15, PMED:23494757
6 Lee BH, Park H, Kim SH,et al.The Prevalence of Osteoporosis or Degenerative Osteoarthritis of Knee in Female Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Over 50 Years.Korean J Bone Metab.2011;18:33-38. Korean.
7 Hanakita J, Suwa H, Mizuno M. Surgical treatment of lumbar canal stenosis in the elderly. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo).1999,7:519-523.
8 Ragab AA, Fye MA, Bohlman HH. Surgery of the lumbar spine for spinal stenosis in 118 patients 70 years of age or older. Spine,2003,4:148-153.
9 Azimi P, Shahzadi S, Safdari Ghandehari H, et al.Severity of symptoms, physical functioning and satisfaction in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis:a validation study of the Iranian version of the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Score (SSS). J Inj Violence Res.2012;4. No.76.
10 Ishimoto Y, Yoshimura N, Muraki S, et al. Associations between radiographic lumbar spinal stenosis and clinical symptoms in the general population:the Wakayama Spine Study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage.2013 Mar 5. doi:S1063-4584 (13)00706-1
11黄公怡等300例老年人矫形外科手术分析.中华老年医学杂志,1991,10：210-213.
12 Knutsson B, Michaelsson K, Sanden B. Obesity is associated with inferior results after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis:a study of 2633 patients from the Swedish spine register.Spine.2013;38(5):435-41.
13 Ishimoto Y, Yoshimura N, Muraki S,et al.Prevalence of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis and its association with physical performance in a population-based cohort in Japan:the Wakayama Spine Study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage.2012;20:1103-8.
14 Katz JN, Stucki G, Lipson SJ, Fossel AH, et al. Predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine,1999,24:2229-33.
15 Issack PS, Cunningham ME, Pumberger M,et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis:evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg.2012;20 (8):527-35.
16 Park HJ, Kim SS, Lee YJ, et al. Clinical correlation of a new practical MRI method for assessing central lumbar spinal stenosis. Br J Radiol.2013;86 (1025):20120180.
17 Pulido-Rivas P, Sola RG, Pallares-Fernandez JM, et al. Lumbar spinal surgery in elderly patients. Rev Neurol,2004,39:501-507.
18 Rompe JD, Eysel P, Zollner J, et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Long-term results after undercutting decompression compared with decompressive laminectomy alone or with instrumented fusion. Neurosurg Rev, 199922:102-106.
19 Nandakumar A, Clark NA, Smith FW, et al. Two-year results of X-stop interspinous implant for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis:a prospective study. J Spinal Disord Tech.2013;26(1):1-7.
20 Park CH, Lee SH. Effectiveness of percutaneous transforaminal adhesiolysis in patients with lumbar neuroforaminal spinal stenosis. Pain Physician. 2013;16:E37-43.
1 Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M. Clinical and radiographic results of expansive lumbar laminoplasty in patients with spinal stenosis [J]. J Bone Joint Surg (Am), 2004,86(8):1698-1703.
2 Sharma H, Lee SW, Cole AA.The management of weakness caused by lumbar and lumbosacral nerve root compressionJ Bone Joint Surg Br.2012;94:1442-7.
3 Liu X, Yuan S, Tian Y.Modified Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis-Technical Note. Spine.2013 Mar 5.
4 Bisschop A, van Dieen JH, Kingma I,et al.Torsion biomechanics of the spine following lumbar laminectomy:a human cadaver study.Eur Spine J.2013 Mar 5.
5 Joaquim AF, Cheng I, Patel AA.Postoperative spinal deformity after treatment of intracanal spine lesions.Spine.2012; 12(11):1067-74.
6 Du Bois M, Szpalski M, Donceel P.A decade's experience in lumbar spine surgery in Belgium:sickness fund beneficiaries,2000-2009.Eur Spine J. 2012;21(12):2693-703.
7 Lund T, Oxland TR. Adjacent level disk disease--is it really a fusion disease? Orthop Clin North Am.2011 Oct;42(4):529-41,
8 Polikeit A, Nolte LP, Ferguson SJ. The effect of cement augmentation on the load transfer in an osteoporotic functional spinal unit:finite-element analysis.Spine.2003 May 15;28(10):991-6.
9 Costi JJ, Freeman BJ, Elliott DM. Intervertebral disc properties:challenges for biodevices. Expert Rev Med Devices.2011;8(3):357-76.
10 Imai A, Kaneoka K, Okubo Y.et al. Trunk muscle activity during lumbar stabilization exercises on both a stable and unstable surface. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.2010;40:369-75.
11 Tharin S, Mayer E, Krishnaney A.Lumbar microdiscectomy and lumbar decompression improve functional outcomes and depression scores. Evid Based Spine Care J.2012;3(4):65-6.
12 David T. Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty:minimum 10-year follow-up of the CHARITE artificial disc in 106 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007,15;32:661-6.
13 Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN.et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2004 Jul;86-A(7):1497-503.
14 Hilibrand AS, Robbins M. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease:the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J.2004;4:190-194.
15 Anandjiwala J, Seo JY, Ha KY. Adjacent segment degeneration after instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion:a prospective cohort study with a minimum five-year follow-up. Eur Spine J.2011;20:1951-60.
16 Jawahar A, Cavanaugh DA, Kerr EJ 3rd.et al. Total disc arthroplasty does not affect the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical spine:results of 93 patients in three prospective randomized clinical trials. Spine J. 2010;10:1043-8.
17 Matsumoto M, Okada E, Ichihara D, et al. Anterior cervical decompression and fusion accelerates adjacent segment degeneration:comparison with asymptomatic volunteers in a ten-year magnetic resonance imaging follow-up study. Spine.2010,1;35:36-43.
18 Heo DH, Cho YJ, Cho SM, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar dynamic stabilization using pedicle screws and a nitinol spring rod system with 2-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech.2012;25(8):409-14.
19 Videbaek TS, Egund N, Christensen FB, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion:the impact of anterior column support:a randomized clinical trial with an eight-to thirteen-year magnetic resonance imaging follow-up. Spine.2010,15;35:1955-64.
20 Helgeson MD, Bevevino AJ, Hilibrand AS. Update on the evidence for adjacent segment degeneration and disease. Spine J.2013;13(3):342-51.
21 Bae JS, Lee SH, Kim JS,et al. Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis:minimum 3 years of follow-up. Neurosurgery. 2010;67(6):1600-7; discussion 1607-8.
22 Wu Yajun, Zhu Yue, Han Xiuxin, et al. A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease Eur Spine J. 2010 August; 19(8):1250-1261.
23 Foulongne E, Derrey S, Ould Slimane M, et al.Lumbar spinal stenosis:which predictive factors of favorable functional results after decompressive laminectomy?Neurochirurgie.2013 Feb;59(1):23-9.
24 Radcliff K, Curry P, Hilibrand A, et al.Risk for Adjacent Segment and Same Segment Reoperation After Surgery for Lumbar Stenosis:A Subgroup Analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT).Spine. 2013;38(7):531-9.
25 Glaser J, Stanley M, Sayre H,A10-year follow-up evaluation of lumbar spine fusion with pedicle screw fixation. Spine.2003,1;28:1390-5.
26 Ki Ahn, Hoon Seok Park, Dae Jung Choi, et al, Survival and Prognostic Analysis of Adjacent Segments after Spinal Fusion Clin Orthop Surg.2010 September; 2(3):140-147.
27 Ragab AA, Fye MA, Bohhnan HH. Surgery of the lumbar spine for spinal stenosis in 118 patients 70 years of age or older. Spine,2003,4:148-153.Dong
28 Miyagi M, Ikeda O, Ohtori S, et al. Additional decompression at adjacent segments leads to adjacent segment degeneration after PLIF. Eur Spine J. 2013,13. [Epub ahead of print]
29 Daubs MD, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Decompression alone versus decompression with limited fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis in the elderly patient. Evid Based Spine Care J.2012;3(4):27-32.
30 Jakola AS, Sortie A, Gulati S,et al. Clinical outcomes and safety assessment in elderly patients undergoing decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis:a prospective study. BMC Surg.2010,22;10:34.
31 Endres S, Aigner R, Wilke A. Instrumented intervertebral or posterolateral fusion in elderly patients:clinical results of a single center. BMC Musculoskelet Disord.2011,18;12:189.
32 Dae-Jean Jo, Jae-Kyun Jun, Ki-Tack Kim,et al. Lumbar Interbody Fusion Outcomes in Degenerative Lumbar Disease:Comparison of Results between Patients Over and Under 65 Years of Age. J Korean Neurosurg Soc.2010; 48(5): 412-418.
1 Ekman P, Moller H, Tullberg T,et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine. 2007,15;32(20):2178-83.
2 Wood KB, Fritzell P, Dettori JR,et al. Effectiveness of spinal fusion versus structured rehabilitation in chronic low back pain patients with and without isthmic spondylolisthesis:a systematic review. Spine.2011,1;36:S110-9.
3 Andres TM, Park JJ, Ricart Hoffiz PA,et al. Cost analysis of anterior-posterior circumferential fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine. 2013,23:S1529-9430.
4 Riouallon G, Lachaniette CH, Poignard A, Allain J. Outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion in low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults:A continuous series of 65 cases with an average follow-up of 6.6years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res.2013;99(2):155-61.
5 Hu MW, Liu ZL, Zhou Y,et al.Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using spinous process and laminae.J Bone Joint Surg Br.2012;94(3):373-7.
6 Hou Y, Shen Y, Liu Z, et al. Which posterior instrumentation is better for two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion:translaminar facet screw or pedicle screw? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg.2013;133(1):37-42.
7 Xu H, Tang H, Guan X, et al. Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by finite element analysis. Neurosurgery.2013 Mar;72(1 Suppl Operative):21-6
8 Turunen V, Nyyssonen T, Miettinen H, et al.Lumbar instrumented posterolateral fusion in spondylolisthetic and failed back patients:a long-term follow-up study spanning 11-13 years. Eur Spine J.2012;21(11):2140-8.
9 Cheung NK, Ferch RD, Ghahreman A, et al. Long-term follow-up of minimal-access and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. Neurosurgery.2013;72(3):443-50
10 Lee JH, Yu CH, Yang JJ, et al.Comparative study of fusion rate induced by different dosages of Escherichia coli-derived recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 using hydroxyapatite carrier. Spine J. 2012;12(3):239-48.
11 Xie Y, Ma H, Li H, et al.Comparative study of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthopedics. 2012;35(10):e1517-23.
12 Marchi L, Oliveira L, Coutinho E,et al.Results and complications after 2-level axial lumbar interbody fusion with a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine.2012;17(3):187-92.
13 Kimura H, Shikata J, Odate S, et al.Risk factors for cage retropulsion after posterior lumbar interbody fusion:analysis of 1070 cases.Spine. 2012,1;37(13):1164-9.
14 Tumialan LM, Ponton RP, Riccio AI, et al.Rate of return to military active duty after single level lumbar interbody fusion:a 5-year retrospective review.Neurosurgery.2012;71 (2):317-24;
15 Tobler WD, Ferrara LA.The presacral retroperitoneal approach for axial lumbar interbody fusion:a prospective study of clinical outcomes, complications and fusion rates at a follow-up of two years in 26 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2011;93(7):955-60.
16 Tomii M, Itoh Y, Numazawa S, et al. Spinous process plate (S-plate) fixation after posterior interbody fusion for lumbar canal stenosis due to spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Rev.2013;36(1):139-43;
1. Faldini C, Di Martino A, De Fine M,et al. Current classification systems for adult degenerative scoliosis. Musculoskelet Surg.2013 Apr;97(1):1-8.
2. Houten JK, Nasser R. Symptomatic progression of degenerative scoliosis after decompression and limited fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Neurosci.2013 Apr;20(4):613-5.
3. Kim H, Lee CK, Yeom JS,et al. Asymmetry of the cross-sectional area of paravertebral and psoas muscle in patients with degenerative scoliosis. Eur Spine J.2013 Mar 21. [Epub ahead of print]
4. Di Silvestre M, Lolli F, Bakaloudis G. Degenerative lumbar scoliosis in elderly patients:dynamic stabilization without fusion versus posterior instrumented fusion. Spine.2012,17. S1529-9430
5. Kotani T, Nagaya S, Sonoda M,et al. Virtual endoscopic imaging of the spine. Spine.2012 May 20;37(12):E752-6.
6. Seo JY, Ha KY, Hwang TH,et al. Risk of progression of degenerative lumbar scoliosis. J Neurosurg Spine.2011 Nov;15(5):558-66.
7. Jimbo S, Kobayashi T, Aono K,et al. Epidemiology of degenerative lumbar scoliosis:a community-based cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2012 Sep 15;37(20):1763-70.
8. Sanchez-Mariscal F, Gomez-Rice A, Izquierdo E, et al. Correlation of radiographic and functional measurements in patients who underwent primary scoliosis surgery in adult age. Spine.2012,1;37(7):592-8.
9. Makino T, Kaito T, Fujiwara H,et al. Morphometric analysis using multiplanar reconstructed CT of the lumbar pedicle in patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis characterized by a Cobb angle of 30° or greater. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17(3):256-62.
10. Fu KM, Rhagavan P, Shaffrey CI, et al. Prevalence, severity, and impact of foraminal and canal stenosis among adults with degenerative scoliosis. Neurosurgery.2011 Dec;69(6):1181-7.
11. Reutlinger C, Hasler C, Scheffler K, et al. Intraoperative determination of the load-displacement behavior of scoliotic spinal motion segments:preliminary clinical results. Eur Spine J.2012; 21:S860-7.
12. Isaacs RE, Hyde J, Goodrich JA, et al. A prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter evaluation of extreme lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis:perioperative outcomes and complications.Spine. 2010,5;35:S322-30.
13. Wilson J, Buchowski JM. Post-traumatic deformity:prevention and management. Handb Clin Neurol.2012;109:369-84
14. Wang JC, Arnold PM, Hermsmeyer JT,et al. Do lumbar motion preserving devices reduce the risk of adjacent segment pathology compared with fusion surgery? A systematic review. Spine.2012,15;37:S133-43.
15. Cho SK, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al.Major complications in revision adult deformity surgery:risk factors and clinical outcomes with 2-to 7-year follow-up.Spine.2012 Mar 15;37(6):489-500.
16. Matsumura A, Namikawa T, Terai H, et al.The influence of approach side on facet preservation in microscopic bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Clinical article.J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13(6):758-65.
17. SomoskeSy S, Tunyogi-Csapo M, Bogyo C,et al. Clinical validation of coronal and sagittal spinal curve measurements based on three-dimensional vertebra vector parameters. Spine J.2012;12(10):960-8.
18. Charosky S, Guigui P, Blamoutier A,et al. Complications and risk factors of primary adult scoliosis surgery:a multicenter study of 306 patients. Spine 2012,15;37(8):693-700.
19. O'Shaughnessy BA, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al.Does a long-fusion "T3-sacrum" portend a worse outcome than a short-fusion "T10-sacrum" in primary surgery for adult scoliosis? Spine.2012,1;37(10):884-90.
20. Kasliwal MK, Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, et al. Does prior short-segment surgery for adult scoliosis impact perioperative complication rates and clinical outcome among patients undergoing scoliosis correction? J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17(2):128-33.
21. Kebaish KM, Neubauer PR, Voros GD, et al.Scoliosis in adults aged forty years and older:prevalence and relationship to age, race, and gender. Spine. 2011,20;36(9):731-6.
22. Toyone T, Shiboi R, Ozawa T,et al. Asymmetrical pedicle subtraction osteotomy for rigid degenerative lumbar kyphoscoliosis. Spine.2012,1;37(21):1847-52.
23. Llado RJ, Hwang S, Cuddihy L, et al.Intraoperative disc herniation during posterior spinal fusion for correction of Scheuermann's Kyphosis. Spine. 2011,20;36(9):E615-7.
2 Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ,et al Lumbar spinal stenosis:conservative or surgical management:a prospective 10-year study. Spine (2000)25:1424-1435
3 Sigmundsson FG, Jonsson B, Stromqvist B.The Impact of Pain on Function and Health Related Quality of Life in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis:A Register Study of 14.821 patients. Spine.2013 Apr 15.
4 Baumgartner H. Lumbar pain in old age. Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax.1996, 22;85:1347-1353.
5 Hermansen E, Moen G, Barstad J, et al.Laminarthrectomy as a surgical approach for decompressing the spinal canal:assessment of preoperative versus postoperative dural sac cross-sectional areal (DSCSA).Eur Spine J.2013,15, PMED:23494757
6 Lee BH, Park H, Kim SH,et al.The Prevalence of Osteoporosis or Degenerative Osteoarthritis of Knee in Female Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Over 50 Years.Korean J Bone Metab.2011;18:33-38. Korean.
7 Hanakita J, Suwa H, Mizuno M. Surgical treatment of lumbar canal stenosis in the elderly. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo).1999,7:519-523.
8 Ragab AA, Fye MA, Bohlman HH. Surgery of the lumbar spine for spinal stenosis in 118 patients 70 years of age or older. Spine,2003,4:148-153.
9 Azimi P, Shahzadi S, Safdari Ghandehari H, et al.Severity of symptoms, physical functioning and satisfaction in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis:a validation study of the Iranian version of the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Score (SSS). J Inj Violence Res.2012;4. No.76.
10 Ishimoto Y, Yoshimura N, Muraki S, et al. Associations between radiographic lumbar spinal stenosis and clinical symptoms in the general population:the Wakayama Spine Study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage.2013 Mar 5. doi:S1063-4584 (13)00706-1
11黄公怡等300例老年人矫形外科手术分析.中华老年医学杂志,1991,10：210-213.
12 Knutsson B, Michaelsson K, Sanden B. Obesity is associated with inferior results after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis:a study of 2633 patients from the Swedish spine register.Spine.2013;38(5):435-41.
13 Ishimoto Y, Yoshimura N, Muraki S,et al.Prevalence of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis and its association with physical performance in a population-based cohort in Japan:the Wakayama Spine Study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage.2012;20:1103-8.
14 Katz JN, Stucki G, Lipson SJ, Fossel AH, et al. Predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine,1999,24:2229-33.
15 Issack PS, Cunningham ME, Pumberger M,et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis:evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg.2012;20 (8):527-35.
16 Park HJ, Kim SS, Lee YJ, et al. Clinical correlation of a new practical MRI method for assessing central lumbar spinal stenosis. Br J Radiol.2013;86 (1025):20120180.
17 Pulido-Rivas P, Sola RG, Pallares-Fernandez JM, et al. Lumbar spinal surgery in elderly patients. Rev Neurol,2004,39:501-507.
18 Rompe JD, Eysel P, Zollner J, et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Long-term results after undercutting decompression compared with decompressive laminectomy alone or with instrumented fusion. Neurosurg Rev, 199922:102-106.
19 Nandakumar A, Clark NA, Smith FW, et al. Two-year results of X-stop interspinous implant for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis:a prospective study. J Spinal Disord Tech.2013;26(1):1-7.
20 Park CH, Lee SH. Effectiveness of percutaneous transforaminal adhesiolysis in patients with lumbar neuroforaminal spinal stenosis. Pain Physician. 2013;16:E37-43.
1 Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M. Clinical and radiographic results of expansive lumbar laminoplasty in patients with spinal stenosis [J]. J Bone Joint Surg (Am), 2004,86(8):1698-1703.
2 Sharma H, Lee SW, Cole AA.The management of weakness caused by lumbar and lumbosacral nerve root compressionJ Bone Joint Surg Br.2012;94:1442-7.
3 Liu X, Yuan S, Tian Y.Modified Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis-Technical Note. Spine.2013 Mar 5.
4 Bisschop A, van Dieen JH, Kingma I,et al.Torsion biomechanics of the spine following lumbar laminectomy:a human cadaver study.Eur Spine J.2013 Mar 5.
5 Joaquim AF, Cheng I, Patel AA.Postoperative spinal deformity after treatment of intracanal spine lesions.Spine.2012; 12(11):1067-74.
6 Du Bois M, Szpalski M, Donceel P.A decade's experience in lumbar spine surgery in Belgium:sickness fund beneficiaries,2000-2009.Eur Spine J. 2012;21(12):2693-703.
7 Lund T, Oxland TR. Adjacent level disk disease--is it really a fusion disease? Orthop Clin North Am.2011 Oct;42(4):529-41,
8 Polikeit A, Nolte LP, Ferguson SJ. The effect of cement augmentation on the load transfer in an osteoporotic functional spinal unit:finite-element analysis.Spine.2003 May 15;28(10):991-6.
9 Costi JJ, Freeman BJ, Elliott DM. Intervertebral disc properties:challenges for biodevices. Expert Rev Med Devices.2011;8(3):357-76.
10 Imai A, Kaneoka K, Okubo Y.et al. Trunk muscle activity during lumbar stabilization exercises on both a stable and unstable surface. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.2010;40:369-75.
11 Tharin S, Mayer E, Krishnaney A.Lumbar microdiscectomy and lumbar decompression improve functional outcomes and depression scores. Evid Based Spine Care J.2012;3(4):65-6.
12 David T. Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty:minimum 10-year follow-up of the CHARITE artificial disc in 106 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007,15;32:661-6.
13 Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN.et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2004 Jul;86-A(7):1497-503.
14 Hilibrand AS, Robbins M. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease:the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J.2004;4:190-194.
15 Anandjiwala J, Seo JY, Ha KY. Adjacent segment degeneration after instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion:a prospective cohort study with a minimum five-year follow-up. Eur Spine J.2011;20:1951-60.
16 Jawahar A, Cavanaugh DA, Kerr EJ 3rd.et al. Total disc arthroplasty does not affect the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical spine:results of 93 patients in three prospective randomized clinical trials. Spine J. 2010;10:1043-8.
17 Matsumoto M, Okada E, Ichihara D, et al. Anterior cervical decompression and fusion accelerates adjacent segment degeneration:comparison with asymptomatic volunteers in a ten-year magnetic resonance imaging follow-up study. Spine.2010,1;35:36-43.
18 Heo DH, Cho YJ, Cho SM, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar dynamic stabilization using pedicle screws and a nitinol spring rod system with 2-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech.2012;25(8):409-14.
19 Videbaek TS, Egund N, Christensen FB, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion:the impact of anterior column support:a randomized clinical trial with an eight-to thirteen-year magnetic resonance imaging follow-up. Spine.2010,15;35:1955-64.
20 Helgeson MD, Bevevino AJ, Hilibrand AS. Update on the evidence for adjacent segment degeneration and disease. Spine J.2013;13(3):342-51.
21 Bae JS, Lee SH, Kim JS,et al. Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis:minimum 3 years of follow-up. Neurosurgery. 2010;67(6):1600-7; discussion 1607-8.
22 Wu Yajun, Zhu Yue, Han Xiuxin, et al. A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease Eur Spine J. 2010 August; 19(8):1250-1261.
23 Foulongne E, Derrey S, Ould Slimane M, et al.Lumbar spinal stenosis:which predictive factors of favorable functional results after decompressive laminectomy?Neurochirurgie.2013 Feb;59(1):23-9.
24 Radcliff K, Curry P, Hilibrand A, et al.Risk for Adjacent Segment and Same Segment Reoperation After Surgery for Lumbar Stenosis:A Subgroup Analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT).Spine. 2013;38(7):531-9.
25 Glaser J, Stanley M, Sayre H,A10-year follow-up evaluation of lumbar spine fusion with pedicle screw fixation. Spine.2003,1;28:1390-5.
26 Ki Ahn, Hoon Seok Park, Dae Jung Choi, et al, Survival and Prognostic Analysis of Adjacent Segments after Spinal Fusion Clin Orthop Surg.2010 September; 2(3):140-147.
27 Ragab AA, Fye MA, Bohhnan HH. Surgery of the lumbar spine for spinal stenosis in 118 patients 70 years of age or older. Spine,2003,4:148-153.Dong
28 Miyagi M, Ikeda O, Ohtori S, et al. Additional decompression at adjacent segments leads to adjacent segment degeneration after PLIF. Eur Spine J. 2013,13. [Epub ahead of print]
29 Daubs MD, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Decompression alone versus decompression with limited fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis in the elderly patient. Evid Based Spine Care J.2012;3(4):27-32.
30 Jakola AS, Sortie A, Gulati S,et al. Clinical outcomes and safety assessment in elderly patients undergoing decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis:a prospective study. BMC Surg.2010,22;10:34.
31 Endres S, Aigner R, Wilke A. Instrumented intervertebral or posterolateral fusion in elderly patients:clinical results of a single center. BMC Musculoskelet Disord.2011,18;12:189.
32 Dae-Jean Jo, Jae-Kyun Jun, Ki-Tack Kim,et al. Lumbar Interbody Fusion Outcomes in Degenerative Lumbar Disease:Comparison of Results between Patients Over and Under 65 Years of Age. J Korean Neurosurg Soc.2010; 48(5): 412-418.
1 Ekman P, Moller H, Tullberg T,et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine. 2007,15;32(20):2178-83.
2 Wood KB, Fritzell P, Dettori JR,et al. Effectiveness of spinal fusion versus structured rehabilitation in chronic low back pain patients with and without isthmic spondylolisthesis:a systematic review. Spine.2011,1;36:S110-9.
3 Andres TM, Park JJ, Ricart Hoffiz PA,et al. Cost analysis of anterior-posterior circumferential fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine. 2013,23:S1529-9430.
4 Riouallon G, Lachaniette CH, Poignard A, Allain J. Outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion in low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults:A continuous series of 65 cases with an average follow-up of 6.6years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res.2013;99(2):155-61.
5 Hu MW, Liu ZL, Zhou Y,et al.Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using spinous process and laminae.J Bone Joint Surg Br.2012;94(3):373-7.
6 Hou Y, Shen Y, Liu Z, et al. Which posterior instrumentation is better for two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion:translaminar facet screw or pedicle screw? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg.2013;133(1):37-42.
7 Xu H, Tang H, Guan X, et al. Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by finite element analysis. Neurosurgery.2013 Mar;72(1 Suppl Operative):21-6
8 Turunen V, Nyyssonen T, Miettinen H, et al.Lumbar instrumented posterolateral fusion in spondylolisthetic and failed back patients:a long-term follow-up study spanning 11-13 years. Eur Spine J.2012;21(11):2140-8.
9 Cheung NK, Ferch RD, Ghahreman A, et al. Long-term follow-up of minimal-access and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. Neurosurgery.2013;72(3):443-50
10 Lee JH, Yu CH, Yang JJ, et al.Comparative study of fusion rate induced by different dosages of Escherichia coli-derived recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 using hydroxyapatite carrier. Spine J. 2012;12(3):239-48.
11 Xie Y, Ma H, Li H, et al.Comparative study of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthopedics. 2012;35(10):e1517-23.
12 Marchi L, Oliveira L, Coutinho E,et al.Results and complications after 2-level axial lumbar interbody fusion with a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine.2012;17(3):187-92.
13 Kimura H, Shikata J, Odate S, et al.Risk factors for cage retropulsion after posterior lumbar interbody fusion:analysis of 1070 cases.Spine. 2012,1;37(13):1164-9.
14 Tumialan LM, Ponton RP, Riccio AI, et al.Rate of return to military active duty after single level lumbar interbody fusion:a 5-year retrospective review.Neurosurgery.2012;71 (2):317-24;
15 Tobler WD, Ferrara LA.The presacral retroperitoneal approach for axial lumbar interbody fusion:a prospective study of clinical outcomes, complications and fusion rates at a follow-up of two years in 26 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2011;93(7):955-60.
16 Tomii M, Itoh Y, Numazawa S, et al. Spinous process plate (S-plate) fixation after posterior interbody fusion for lumbar canal stenosis due to spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Rev.2013;36(1):139-43;
1. Faldini C, Di Martino A, De Fine M,et al. Current classification systems for adult degenerative scoliosis. Musculoskelet Surg.2013 Apr;97(1):1-8.
2. Houten JK, Nasser R. Symptomatic progression of degenerative scoliosis after decompression and limited fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Neurosci.2013 Apr;20(4):613-5.
3. Kim H, Lee CK, Yeom JS,et al. Asymmetry of the cross-sectional area of paravertebral and psoas muscle in patients with degenerative scoliosis. Eur Spine J.2013 Mar 21. [Epub ahead of print]
4. Di Silvestre M, Lolli F, Bakaloudis G. Degenerative lumbar scoliosis in elderly patients:dynamic stabilization without fusion versus posterior instrumented fusion. Spine.2012,17. S1529-9430
5. Kotani T, Nagaya S, Sonoda M,et al. Virtual endoscopic imaging of the spine. Spine.2012 May 20;37(12):E752-6.
6. Seo JY, Ha KY, Hwang TH,et al. Risk of progression of degenerative lumbar scoliosis. J Neurosurg Spine.2011 Nov;15(5):558-66.
7. Jimbo S, Kobayashi T, Aono K,et al. Epidemiology of degenerative lumbar scoliosis:a community-based cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2012 Sep 15;37(20):1763-70.
8. Sanchez-Mariscal F, Gomez-Rice A, Izquierdo E, et al. Correlation of radiographic and functional measurements in patients who underwent primary scoliosis surgery in adult age. Spine.2012,1;37(7):592-8.
9. Makino T, Kaito T, Fujiwara H,et al. Morphometric analysis using multiplanar reconstructed CT of the lumbar pedicle in patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis characterized by a Cobb angle of 30° or greater. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17(3):256-62.
10. Fu KM, Rhagavan P, Shaffrey CI, et al. Prevalence, severity, and impact of foraminal and canal stenosis among adults with degenerative scoliosis. Neurosurgery.2011 Dec;69(6):1181-7.
11. Reutlinger C, Hasler C, Scheffler K, et al. Intraoperative determination of the load-displacement behavior of scoliotic spinal motion segments:preliminary clinical results. Eur Spine J.2012; 21:S860-7.
12. Isaacs RE, Hyde J, Goodrich JA, et al. A prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter evaluation of extreme lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis:perioperative outcomes and complications.Spine. 2010,5;35:S322-30.
13. Wilson J, Buchowski JM. Post-traumatic deformity:prevention and management. Handb Clin Neurol.2012;109:369-84
14. Wang JC, Arnold PM, Hermsmeyer JT,et al. Do lumbar motion preserving devices reduce the risk of adjacent segment pathology compared with fusion surgery? A systematic review. Spine.2012,15;37:S133-43.
15. Cho SK, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al.Major complications in revision adult deformity surgery:risk factors and clinical outcomes with 2-to 7-year follow-up.Spine.2012 Mar 15;37(6):489-500.
16. Matsumura A, Namikawa T, Terai H, et al.The influence of approach side on facet preservation in microscopic bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Clinical article.J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13(6):758-65.
17. SomoskeSy S, Tunyogi-Csapo M, Bogyo C,et al. Clinical validation of coronal and sagittal spinal curve measurements based on three-dimensional vertebra vector parameters. Spine J.2012;12(10):960-8.
18. Charosky S, Guigui P, Blamoutier A,et al. Complications and risk factors of primary adult scoliosis surgery:a multicenter study of 306 patients. Spine 2012,15;37(8):693-700.
19. O'Shaughnessy BA, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al.Does a long-fusion "T3-sacrum" portend a worse outcome than a short-fusion "T10-sacrum" in primary surgery for adult scoliosis? Spine.2012,1;37(10):884-90.
20. Kasliwal MK, Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, et al. Does prior short-segment surgery for adult scoliosis impact perioperative complication rates and clinical outcome among patients undergoing scoliosis correction? J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17(2):128-33.
21. Kebaish KM, Neubauer PR, Voros GD, et al.Scoliosis in adults aged forty years and older:prevalence and relationship to age, race, and gender. Spine. 2011,20;36(9):731-6.
22. Toyone T, Shiboi R, Ozawa T,et al. Asymmetrical pedicle subtraction osteotomy for rigid degenerative lumbar kyphoscoliosis. Spine.2012,1;37(21):1847-52.
23. Llado RJ, Hwang S, Cuddihy L, et al.Intraoperative disc herniation during posterior spinal fusion for correction of Scheuermann's Kyphosis. Spine. 2011,20;36(9):E615-7.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |