Objective To discuss the main points of technique and the range of fusion in posterior operation of spinal stenosis associated with lumbar degenerative kyphosis (LDK). Methods The cl inical data were retrospectively analysedfrom 20 cases of spinal stenosis associated with LDK which were performed posterior operation from February 2001 to February 2008. There were 1 male and 19 females, aged 52-81 years old with an average of 64 years old. The course of disease was 6-10 years. All patients had severe low back pain. According to Frankel’s neurologic function classification, there were 18 cases of grade E and 2 cases of grade D before operation. The apex of LDK included L1 in 3 cases, L2 in 10 and L3 in 7. The operational method was decided according to different characteristics of LDK. All patients were divided into three groups. Group 1 included 6 cases of sciatica and intermittent claudication with worse physical status, the segmental decompression of spinal canal, posterior intervertebral fusion and short transpedical instrument fixation were performed. Group 2 included 8 cases whose Cobb angle of LDK was less than 20°, the segmental decompression of spinal canal, posterior intervertebral fusion and one-level or multilevel lamina osteotomy were performed, instrumentation-assisted correction was used. Group 3 included 6 cases whose Cobb angle of LDK was more than 20°, the canal decompression and one-level transvertebral wedge osteotomy were performed, instrumentation-assisted correction, intervertebral fusion and posterior-lateral fusion were used. Results Incision healedby first intention in all patients. One patient suffered from superior mesenteric artery syndrome at 6 hours after operationand healed after symptomatic management. The neurologic function was improved to grade E at 2 weeks after opeartion. All patients were followed-up 24-54 months (average 26 months). At last follow-up，the Oswestry Disabil ity Index of all patients was 30.5% ± 9.6%; showing significant difference when compared with preoperation (55.9% ± 11.8%, P lt; 0.05). The back pain scoring and leg pain scoring were 2.8 ± 1.6 and 2.4 ± 1.6, respectively according to the Numeric Rating Scale score; showing significant differences when compared with preoperation (7.5 ± 0.5 and 7.3 ± 0.7, P lt; 0.05). The Numeric Rating Scale score and Oswestry Disabil ity Index in all patients were improved obviously when compared with before operation (P lt; 0.05). During the follow-up period, there was no instrumentation failure or correction loss and the fusion rate was up to 100%. Conclusion For spinal stenosis associated with LDK patients, the most important therapic purpose is to improve cl inical symptom through reconstruction lumbar stabil ization and spinal biomechanics l ine in sagittal plane. Overall estimate of the cl inical appearance and imageology character is necessary when making decision of which segments needed to be fixation and fusion. Individual ized treatment strategy may be the best choice.
【Abstract】 Objective To discuss the main points of techniques and ranges of fusion in posterior operation ofdegenerated lumbar scol iosis compl icated spinal stenosis. Methods From February 2001 to September 2006, 23 cases with degenerated lumbar scol iosis stenosis were treated by posterior operation. There were 9 males and 14 females, with the average age of 65.3 years (ranging from 52 years to 71 years). The course of the diseases was 4 to 8 years. All patients were presented with severe low back pain. All patients were measured for Cobb angle of curves(17° to 53°), and lordosis angle of lumbar (-20° to -10° 10 cases, -40° to -20° 13 cases). Ten cases in which Cobb angle was smaller than 20° were operated by l imited segmental decompression of spinal canal, posterior intervertebral fusion and short transpedical instrument fixation. For the rest 13 cases in which Cobb angle was bigger than 20° were operated by canal decompression, longer instrument for scol iosis correction, intervertebral fusion and posterior-lateral fusion. The fixation and fusion were located at L4-S1 in 6 cases, L1-5 in 5, L2-5 in 4, L1-S1 in 5, L2-S1 in 2 and T10-S1 in 1. Results There was no patient who died from the operation. Average Cobb angle in coronal plane was 0° to 21° with the average of 15.6°. The lumbar lordosis angle was -48.0° to -18.2° with the average of -36.4°. There were 21 cases (91%) with sciatica and intermittent claudication who were clearly released. There were 20 cases (87%) whose low back pain intensely decreased. Three cases with drop-foot returned to normal activities. During the mean 15-month (6 to 54 months) follow-up for 23 cases, there was no change of corrected results and fusion rate was 100%. Conclusion For degenerated lumbar scol iosis patients, the most important purpose of the treatment is to improve cl inical symptoms through sufficient decompression of neural structures. Lumbar stabil ization reconstruction and benign spinal biomechanics l ine conduce to longterm curative effect. Overall estimate of the cl inical appearances and imageology characters is necessary when the decision, that segments are needed to be fixed and fused should be made. The strategy of the individual ized treatment may be the best choice.