姚强;夏阳;贾长青;

• 1:中国医科大学附属盛京医院脊柱关节外科

摘要(Abstract)：

[目的]系统评价颈椎间盘置换联合颈椎椎间融合(Hybrid手术)与传统的颈前路减压植骨融合(ACDF)治疗多节段退变性颈椎病效果的差异。[方法]计算机检索Pubmed,Medline,荷兰医学文摘,Cochrane图书馆、Cochrane协作网背痛专业试验数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库,CNKI,手工检索中文文献,收集1995~2013年12月发表的关于颈椎间盘置换联合颈椎椎间融合(Hybrid手术)与颈前路减压植骨融合比较治疗多节段退变性颈椎病的随机、半随机对照试验,进行严格的质量评价,利用RevMan 5.2软件对纳入研究结果进行Meta分析。[结果]共纳入5个研究160例病例,Meta分析结果显示:Hybrid手术组与颈前路减压植骨融合术组比较手术时间、术前及术后VAS评分、术前C2~7ROM、上位临近节段ROM、下位临近节段差异无统计学意义;手术平均出血量Hybrid手术组少于ACDF组,术后24个月C2~7ROM Hybrid手术组大于ACDF组、术后24个月上位临近间盘ROM及下位临近间盘ROM Hybrid手术组少于ACDF组,且差异有统计学意义。[结论]Hybrid手术对于治疗多节段颈椎病拥有满意的临床疗效和影像学结果,Hybrid手术患者在随访期间相邻节段颈椎活动度降低,而ACDF手术患者在随访期间相邻节段颈椎活动度增加,术后C2~7整体活动度Hybrid手术组较ACDF组大,颈椎活动度更接近生理水平。但上述结果因样本量较小、文献质量不高等可能存在各种偏倚,以及Hybrid手术的远期临床效果,需要更多高质量的临床随机对照试验来得出更为可靠的结论。

关键词(KeyWords)： 颈椎间盘置换联合颈椎椎间融合;多节段;Hybrid手术;Meta分析

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation): 辽宁省科技厅资助项目(编号:2012225019)

作者(Author): 姚强;夏阳;贾长青;

Email:

DOI:

参考文献(References)：

• [1]Wigfield C,Gill S,Nelson R,et al.Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease[J].J Neurosurg,2002,1:17-21.
• [2]Bryan VE Jr.Cervical motion segment replacement[J].Eur Spine J,2002,2:92-97.
• [3]Mummaneni PV,Amin BY,Wu JC,et al.Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine:a systematic review comparing long-term follow-up results from two FDA trials[J].Evid Based Spine Care J,2012,1:59-66.
• [4]Coric D,Nunley PD,Guyer RD,et al.Prospective,randomized,multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty:269 patients from the Kineflex artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum2-year follow-up:clinical article[J].J Neurosurg Spine,2011,4:348-358.
• [5]Anderson PA,Hashimoto R.Total disc replacement in the cervical spine:a systematic review evaluating long-term safety[J].Evid Based Spine Care J,2012,1:9-18.
• [6]Zhang X,Zhang X,Chen C,et al.Randomized,controlled,multicenter,clinical trial comparing BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion in China[J].Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2012,6:433-438.
• [7]Sasso RC,Smucker JD,Hacker RJ,et al.Artificial disc versus fusion:a prospective,randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients[J].Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2007,26:2933-2940.
• [8]Buchowski JM,Anderson PA,Sekhon L,et al.Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy.Surgical technique[J].J Bone Joint Surg Am,2009,2:223-232.
• [9]Barbagallo GM,Assietti R,Corbino L,et al.Early results and review of the literature of a novel hybrid surgical technique combining cervical arthrodesis and disc arthroplasty for treating multilevel degenerative disc disease:opposite or complementary techniques[J].EurSpine J,2009,1:29-39.
• [10]Dong AS,Seong Y,Do HY,et al.Artificial disc replacement combined with fusion versus two-level fusion in cervical two-level disc disease[J].Spine,2009,34:1153-1159.
• [11]Hwee WDH,Choon CH,Ai SL,et al.Is hybrid surgery of the cervical spine a good balance between fusion and arthroplasty?Pilot results from a single surgeon series[J].Eur Spine J,2013,22:116-122.
• [12]Kang LQ,Lin DS,Ding ZQ,et al.Artificial disk replacement combined with midlevel ACDF versus multilevel fusion for cervical disk disease involving 3 levels[J].Orthopedics January,2013,1:88-94.
• [13]Liu HY,Xu XN,Wang B,et al.Clinical outcomes of Hybrid-Surgery to treat the two-level cervical disease[J].Chin J Surg,2012,3:238-243.
• [14]Shen CH,Shen Y,Ding WY,et al.Contrastive analysis of neck axial symptoms after hubrid surgery or traditionalanterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of two-level cervical disease[J].Chin J Repar Reconstr Surg,2013,1:58-61.
• [15]Cho BY,Lim J,Sim HB,et al.Biomechanical analysis of the range of motion after placement of a two-level cervical Pro Disc-C versus hybrid construct[J].Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2010,19:1769-1776.
• [16]Lee MJ,Dumonski M,Phillips FM,et al.Disc replacement adjacent to cervical fusion:a biomechanical comparison of hybrid construct versus two-level fusion[J].Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2011,23:1932-1939.
• [17]Kim SW,Limson MA,Kim SB,et al.Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bilevel cases[J].Eur Spine J,2009,2:218-231.
• [18]Wenger M,Hoonacker P,Zachee B,et al.Bryan cervical disc prostheses:preservation of function over time[J].J Clin Neurosci,2009,2:220-225.