摘要目的 依据影像学评价标准及颈前路手术减压方式的选择探讨颈椎人工椎间盘置换手术的适应证.方法 回顾性分析2008年1月至2009年7月具有完整资料的175例行颈前路手术的颈椎病及颈椎间盘突出症病例,行融合手术145例,人工椎间盘置换术30例.依据术前影像学评价标准对患者进行不同手术:(1)椎间隙减压融合术;(2)游离型椎间盘突出超过相邻椎体后缘高度1/2者,先通过椎间隙摘除游离的间盘组织碎块,再通过椎体次全切除确认是否将游离的间盘组织碎块完全摘除;(3)椎体次全切减压融合术;(4)ProDisc-C人工颈椎间盘置换术.单节段病变的脊髓型颈椎病按融合术及人工椎间盘置换术分组,比较两组日本矫形外科协会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA)脊髓功能评分,评价两种手术方式疗效;统计并分析术前和术后1、3、6、12个月人工椎间盘置换节段运动范围.结果 单纯椎间盘突出、轻度椎间盘钙化、椎体后缘有较小骨赘形成的颈椎病可以通过椎间隙达到彻底减压行人工椎间盘置换术.椎体后缘有巨大骨赘形成、严重椎间盘钙化、相应椎间隙严重狭窄或融合、后纵韧带骨化、广泛的椎管狭窄需行椎体次全切除才能达到彻底减压.JOA评分平均改善率:融合术者为66.05%,人工椎间盘置换术者为67.13%,差异无统计学意义;人工椎间盘置换节段术后1、3、6、12个月运动范围与术前相比差异无统计学意义.结论 颈椎病及颈椎间盘突出症,只要能通过前路椎间隙达到彻底减压就可行人工椎间盘置换术.单节段脊髓型颈椎病行人工椎间盘置换术和前路植骨融合内固定术近期手术疗效均良好,但人工椎间盘置换术使置换节段的运动范围得到保留.

abstractsObjective To explore the indications of cervical artificial disc replacement (ADR) based on radiographic evaluation and different anterior decompression methods. Methods From January 2008 to July 2009, 175 patients with cervical spondylosis or disc herniation who underwent anterior decompression were involved in this study. Patients were distributed to different operative groups based on the preoperative radiographic evaluation. One hundred and forty-five cases were treated with fusion operation, and the others received ADR. Operative methods were as follows: 1) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF); 2)Anterior cervical discectomy and subtotal vertebrectomy; 3) Anterior subtotal vertebreetomy and fusion; 4)ProDisc-C ADR. The patients with single-level of cervical spondylotic myelopathy were divided into ACDF and ADR groups according to different operative methods. Clinical outcomes of two groups were evaluated by Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score. The range of motion (ROM) of the segment was recorded in ADR group at the 1st month, 3rd month, 6th month and 12th month postoperatively. Results The indication of ADR was cervical spondylosis with slight disc calcification or small vertebral posterior osteophytes. Under this condition, decompression could be obtained thorough intervertebral space and ADR be implanted. If cervical spondylosis was associated with vertebral posterior huge osteophytes, serious intervertebral narrow or fusion, serious disc calcification ,ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament and extensive cervical spinal stenosis, subtotal vertebrectomy was necessary. The mean improvement rates of ACDF and ADR were 66.05% and 67.13%. There was no difference between two groups (P ＞ 0.05). No difference of ROM was found before and after surgery in ADR group (P ＞0.05). Conclusion Only decompression can be achieved thorough through the intervertebral space, and ADR is suitable for cervical spondylosis. ACDF and ADR have similar outcomes in treatment of single-level of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. But ADR has the advantage of maintaining ROM of the operative segment.