[1]盛红枫,徐卫星,卢笛,等.上中胸椎经椎弓根-肋骨单元途径置钉的安全性及稳定性研究[J].中医正骨,2017,29(02):1-5.
　SHENG Hongfeng,XU Weixing,LU Di,et al.Study on the safety and stability of upper-middle thoracic pedicle screw insertion through pedicle rib unit approach[J].The Journal of Traditional Chinese Orthopedics and Traumatology,2017,29(02):1-5.
点击复制

上中胸椎经椎弓根-肋骨单元途径置钉的安全性及稳定性研究()
分享到：

《中医正骨》[ISSN:1001-6015/CN:41-1162/R]

卷:
第29卷
期数:
2017年02期
页码:
1-5
栏目:
基础研究
出版日期:
2017-02-20

文章信息/Info

Title:
Study on the safety and stability of upper-middle thoracic pedicle screw insertion through pedicle rib unit approach
作者:
盛红枫; 徐卫星; 卢笛; 丁伟国; 许新伟
浙江省立同德医院,浙江 杭州 310012
Author(s):
SHENG Hongfeng; XU Weixing; LU Di; DING Weiguo; XU Xinwei
Tongde hospital of Zhejiang province,Hangzhou 310000,Zhejiang,China
关键词:
胸椎;  椎弓根;  椎弓根-肋骨单元;  骨折固定术; 内
Keywords:
thoracic vertebrae;  pedicle of vertebral arch;  pedicle rib unit;  fracture fixation; internal
摘要:
目的:探讨上中胸椎经椎弓根-肋骨单元(pedicle rib unit,PRU)途径置钉的安全性及稳定性。方法:对10名无脊柱病变的志愿者进行脊柱T1～T8节段CT扫描,在获得的CT图像上测定各节段的PRU途径置钉安全角度范围、椎弓根横径、PRU横径、椎弓根纵径、PRU纵径及PRU重叠纵径。取4具尸体脊柱标本(T1～T8节段),对应肋骨保留10 cm左右。随机于每个脊柱标本的两侧分别经经典椎弓根途径和PRU途径置入椎弓根螺钉,两侧螺钉的直径及长度分别为对应的椎弓根横径的70%和各自钉道最长值的70%。应用Instron 5569电子万能试验机测定螺钉的抗拔出力。结果:10名志愿者T1～T8经PRU途径置钉的安全角度范围分别为19.71°±1.64°、19.42°±1.88°、17.17°±0.67°、17.22°±1.17°、19.36°±1.31°、18.67°±1.58°、18.82°±2.60°、18.72°±1.58°。10名志愿者T1～T8椎弓根横径均小于同节段的PRU横径[(8.78±0.05)mm,(18.23±2.46)mm,t=18.192,P=0.013;(7.59±0.08)mm,(16.80±1.31)mm,t=20.175,P=0.002;(6.29±0.07)mm,(15.12±1.22)mm,t=20.271,P=0.004;(5.50±0.05)mm,(14.43±1.00)mm,t=27.403,P=0.004;(5.52±0.06)mm,(14.02±0.85)mm,t=20.312,P=0.001;(5.90±0.06)mm,(14.19±1.12)mm,t=16.772,P=0.047;(6.31±0.07)mm,(14.77±1.31)mm,t=14.229,P=0.017;(6.64±0.03)mm,(15.53±1.90)mm,t=13.000,P=0.048]。10名志愿者T1～T8椎弓根纵径、PRU纵径、PRU重叠纵径三者之间总体比较,差异均有统计学意义[(8.04±1.01)mm,(11.05±1.83)mm,(6.37±0.68)mm,F=236.422,P=0.000;(10.72±0.99)mm,(13.09±1.30)mm,(7.46±1.12)mm,F=60.570,P=0.000;(11.34±0.99)mm,(13.45±0.92)mm,(8.99±0.62)mm,F=67.560,P=0.000;(10.67±0.91)mm,(12.49±0.94)mm,(7.94±0.84)mm,F=64.965,P=0.000;(10.34±0.94)mm,(11.96±0.95)mm,(7.96±0.96)mm,F=44.926,P=0.000;(11.33±0.96)mm,(12.36±0.62)mm,(7.72±0.88)mm,F=85.197,P=0.000;(11.30±0.82)mm,(12.16±0.71)mm,(8.34±0.47)mm,F=92.350,P=0.000;(11.39±0.78)mm,(13.71±1.51)mm,(9.34±0.93)mm,F=37.867,P=0.000]。T1～T8椎弓根纵径和PRU纵径均大于PRU重叠纵径(P=0.004,P=0.003,P=0.001,P=0.002,P=0.013,P=0.030,P=0.025,P=0.001; P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000),椎弓根纵径均小于PRU纵径(P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000)。T1～T8各节段经椎弓根途径置入螺钉的抗拔出力均大于经PRU途径[(663.60±22.13)N,(470.33±33.09)N,t=27.876,P=0.000;(702.82±24.23)N,(531.76±13.53)N,t=38.402,P=0.000;(713.58±37.90)N,(544.98±14.22)N,t=37.518,P=0.000;(700.70±35.66)N,(590.80±24.72)N,t=10.512,P=0.000;(805.28±64.67)N,(591.50±62.55)N,t=19.546,P=0.000;(808.68±42.84)N,(629.08±43.09)N,t=19.436,P=0.000;(864.62±35.49)N,(591.60±52.91)N,t=24.350,P=0.000;(909.18±46.05)N,(640.70±21.41)N,t=15.162,P=0.000]。结论:上中胸椎经PRU途径置入椎弓根螺钉的安全性优于经椎弓根途径,但置入螺钉的稳定性不及后者。
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the safety and stability of upper-middle thoracic pedicle screw insertion through pedicle rib unit(PRU)approach.Methods:Ten volunteers with no spinal disease received CT scanning at T1-8 vertebral segments,and safe angle range of pedicle screw insertion through PRU approach,transverse diameter of pedicle of vertebral arch,transverse diameter of PRU,longitudinal diameter of pedicle of vertebral arch,longitudinal diameter of PRU and PRU overlapped longitudinal diameter of all segments were measured on the obtained CT images.Four cadaveric T1-8 specimens were selected and 10 cm long ribs were reserved.The pedicle screws were randomly inserted into both sides of each spine specimen through classical pedicle of vertebral arch approach and PRU approach respectively.The diameters of the screws were 70% of transverse diameter of corresponding pedicles of vertebral arch and the lengths of the screws were 70% of the maximal values of corresponding screw path lengths.The pull-out strength of the screws were measured by using instron 5569 electronic universal testing machine.Results:The safe angle ranges of pedicle screw insertion through PRU approach were 19.71+/-1.64,19.42+/-1.88,17.17+/-0.67,17.22+/-1.17,19.36+/-1.31,18.67+/-1.58,18.82+/-2.60,18.72+/-1.58 degrees respectively at T1-8 vertebral segments of 10 volunteers.The transverse diameters of pedicle of vertebral arch were less than the transverse diameter of PRU at T1-8 vertebral segments of the 10 volunteers(8.78+/-0.05 vs 18.23+/-2.46 mm,t=18.192,P=0.013; 7.59+/-0.08 vs 16.80+/-1.31 mm,t=20.175,P=0.002; 6.29+/-0.07 vs 15.12+/-1.22 mm,t=20.271,P=0.004; 5.50+/-0.05 vs 14.43+/-1.00 mm,t=27.403,P=0.004; 5.52+/-0.06 vs 14.02+/-0.85 mm,t=20.312,P=0.001; 5.90+/-0.06 vs 14.19+/-1.12 mm,t=16.772,P=0.047; 6.31+/-0.07 vs 14.77+/-1.31 mm,t=14.229,P=0.017; 6.64+/-0.03 vs 15.53+/-1.90 mm,t=13.000,P=0.048).In general,there was statistical difference between longitudinal diameter of pedicle of vertebral arch,longitudinal diameter of PRU and PRU overlapped longitudinal diameter at T1-8 vertebral segments of the 10 volunteers(8.04+/-1.01,11.05+/-1.83,6.37+/-0.68 mm,F=236.422,P=0.000; 10.72+/-0.99,13.09+/-1.30,7.46+/-1.12 mm,F=60.570,P=0.000; 11.34+/-0.99,13.45+/-0.92,8.99+/-0.62 mm,F=67.560,P=0.000; 10.67+/-0.91,12.49+/-0.94,7.94+/-0.84 mm,F=64.965,P=0.000; 10.34+/-0.94,11.96+/-0.95,7.96+/-0.96 mm,F=44.926,P=0.000; 11.33+/-0.96,12.36+/-0.62,7.72+/-0.88 mm,F=85.197,P=0.000; 11.30+/-0.82,12.16+/-0.71,8.34+/-0.47 mm,F=92.350,P=0.000; 11.39+/-0.78,13.71+/-1.51,9.34+/-0.93 mm,F=37.867,P=0.000).The longitudinal diameter of pedicle of vertebral arch and the longitudinal diameter of PRU were larger than PRU overlapped longitudinal diameter of the 10 volunteers at T1-8 vertebral segments(P=0.004,P=0.003,P=0.001,P=0.002,P=0.013,P=0.030,P=0.025,P=0.001; P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000),and the longitudinal diameter of pedicle of vertebral arch was less than longitudinal diameter of PRU(P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000,P=0.000).The pull-out strengths of the screws inserted through the pedicle of vertebral arch approach were greater than those through PRU approach at T1-8 vertebral segments(663.60+/-22.13 vs 470.33+/-33.09 N,t=27.876,P=0.000; 702.82+/-24.23 vs 531.76+/-13.53 N,t=38.402,P=0.000; 713.58+/-37.90 vs 544.98+/-14.22 N,t=37.518,P=0.000; 700.70+/-35.66 vs 590.80+/-24.72 N,t=10.512,P=0.000; 805.28+/-64.67 vs 591.50+/-62.55 N,t=19.546,P=0.000; 808.68+/-42.84 vs 629.08+/-43.09 N,t=19.436,P=0.000; 864.62+/-35.49 vs 591.60+/-52.91 N,t=24.350,P=0.000; 909.18+/-46.05 vs 640.70+/-21.41 N,t=15.162,P=0.000).Conclusion:PRU approach surpasses pedicle of vertebral arch approach in the safety of upper-middle thoracic pedicle screw insertion,however,the latter surpasses the former in the stability of inserted screws.

参考文献/References:

[1] 洪有志,吴小涛,庄苏阳,等.经胸椎椎弓根-肋骨途径置钉固定中上位胸椎[J].脊柱外科杂志,2013,11(1):40-44.
[2] 步国强,毛仲轩.Mimics软件模拟置钉在腰椎关节突重度退变椎弓根螺钉内固定中的应用[J].中国组织工程研究,2015,19(17):2745-2751.
[3] HUSTED DS,HAIMS AH,FAIRCHILD TA,et al.Morphometric comparison of the pedicle rib unit to pedicles in the thoracic spine[J].Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2004,29(2):139-146.
[4] LILJENQVIST U,LEPSIEN U,HACKENBERG L,et al.Comparative analysis of pedicle screw and hook instrumentation in posterior correction and fusion of idiopathic thoracic scoliosis[J].Eur Spine J,2002,11(4):336-343.
[5] 韦兴,侯树勋,史亚民,等.胸椎经“椎弓根-肋骨间”螺钉与椎弓根螺钉固定的抗拔出力比较[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2006,16(8):623-625.
[6] 崔新刚,张佐伦,孙建民,等.胸椎椎弓根根外固定螺钉拔出力的实验研究[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2007,17(7):535-538.
[7] 马云兵,夏云祥,杨庆秋,等.经椎弓根-肋骨结构单元途径置入螺钉安全角度的应用解剖学测量[J].昆明医科大学学报,2013,34(1):11-14.
[8] 贺聚良,肖增明,杨立井.上胸椎前路逆向椎弓根螺钉内固定技术的可行性研究[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2014,24(4):359-365.
[9] 谢陶敢,陈其昕,李方才,等.胸椎椎弓根-肋骨单元与椎弓根的CT测量[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2008,18(9):665-668.
[10] HUSTED DS,YUE JJ,FAIRCHILD TA,et al.An extrapedicular approach to the placement of screws in the thoracic spine:an anatomic and radiographic assessment[J].Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2003,28(20):2324-2330.
[11] DICK JC,ZDEBLICK TA,BARTEL BD,et al.Mechanical evaluation of cross-link designs in rigid pedicle screw systems[J].Spine(Phila Pa 1976),1997,22(4):370-375.
[12] 崔新刚,丁自海,蔡锦芳.胸椎横突与邻近骨性结构的解剖关系及意义[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2014,16(6):518-520.
[13] LILJENQVIST UR,ALLKEMPER T,HACKENBERG L,et al.Analysis of vertebral morphology in idiopathic scoliosis with use of magnetic resonance imaging and multiplanar reconstruction[J].J Bone Joint Surg Am,2002,84-A(3):359-368.
[14] 王欢喜,邓展生,燕好军,等.经肋横突结合区入路生物力学研究[J].中国现代医学杂志,2007,17(20):2541-2543.
[15] 伞有利,尹绍猛,王成,等.经肋骨入路穿刺椎体成形术治疗胸椎压缩骨折的安全性[J].中国骨与关节损伤杂志,2015,30(3):297-298.
[16] 邢文华,贾连顺,霍洪军,等.胸椎椎弓根-肋骨复合体螺钉置入内固定的应用解剖学特征[J].中国组织工程研究与临床康复,2011,15(43):8063-8067.

相似文献/References:

[1]钟熙强,何少奇,董伊隆,等.上胸椎后路椎板螺钉固定的可行性研究[J].中医正骨,2016,28(01):1.
　ZHONG Xiqiang,HE Shaoqi,DONG Yilong,et al.A feasibility study of upper thoracic vertebral plate screw fixation through posterior approach[J].The Journal of Traditional Chinese Orthopedics and Traumatology,2016,28(02):1.
[2]金勤富.后路经伤椎置钉内固定治疗胸腰椎骨折[J].中医正骨,2020,32(07):65.
[3]顾王健.微创经皮椎弓根钉内固定治疗胸腰椎骨折[J].中医正骨,2020,32(12):46.
[4]韩同坤,吴科.健康成人胸椎棘突偏歪的X线研究[J].中医正骨,2022,34(01):13.
　HAN Tongkun,WU Ke.A X-ray study of thoracic vertebral spinous process deviation in healthy adults[J].The Journal of Traditional Chinese Orthopedics and Traumatology,2022,34(02):13.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
基金项目:全国名老中医药专家传承工作室建设项目[国中医药人教发2014(20)号]
通讯作者:盛红枫 E-mail:shenghongfeng123@163.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2017-08-07