目的 分析两种椎体成形术在老年骨质疏松性脊柱压缩骨折(OVCF)中的应用效果。方法 选择2020年1月—2022年10月收治的210例OVCF患者作为研究对象,根据手术方式的不同分为经皮椎体成形术(PVP)组和椎体后凸成形术(PKP)组,每组各105例,记录两组治疗效果。结果 PKP组手术时长短于PVP组,术中出血量少于PVP组,骨水泥量显著少于PVP组(P<0.05)。PKP组治疗优良率显著高于PVP组(P<0.05)。术前,两组脊柱功能、Cobb角、疼痛程度和日常生活能力进行比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后1个月,两组脊柱功能、Cobb角、疼痛程度和日常生活能力改善显著且PKP组显著优于PVP组(P<0.05)。PKP组并发症发生率显著低于PVP组(P<0.05)。结论 与PVP进行比较,PKP可显著缩短手术时长、减少术中出血量、减少骨水泥灌注量,改善脊柱功能,改善Cobb角,提高日常生活能力,提升治疗优良率。
Objective To analyze the effects of two vertebroplasty procedures in the elderly with osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF). Methods A total of 210 patients with OVCF admitted to our hospital from January 2020 to October 2022 were selected as study subjects. According to different surgical methods, they were divided into a percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) group and a percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) group, with 105 cases in each group, and the therapeutic effects of the two groups were recorded. Results Operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, and bone cement volume in the PKP group were significantly lower than those in the PVP group (P<0.05). The excellent and good rate of treatment of the PKP group was significantly higher than that of the PVP group (P<0.05). Before surgery, there were no significant differences in spinal function, Cobb angle, pain degree, and daily living activities between the two groups (P>0.05). One month after surgery, spinal function, Cobb angle, pain degree, and daily living activities were significantly improved in both groups, and the PKP group was significantly better than the PVP group (P<0.05). The complication rate of the PKP group was significantly lower than that of the PVP group (P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with PVP, PKP can significantly shorten the duration of surgery, reduce intraoperative blood loss and the amount of bone cement perfusion, improve spinal function, Cobb angle, and daily living activities, and increase the rate of excellent and good treatment.
[1] 刘丙科. 经皮椎弓根内固定术后骨水泥强化治疗老年骨质疏松性脊柱压缩骨折效果[J].中国医学创新,2023,20(11):61-65.
[2] 黄华生,詹晨光,郭惠智,等. 两种椎体成形术治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折的疗效比较[J].临床骨科杂志,2023,26(2):158-162.
[3] 中华医学会骨科学分会. 骨质疏松骨折诊疗指南[J].中华骨科杂志,2008,28(10):875-878.
[4] 杜佳泷,张光祥,韩晓强,等. 椎体成形术治疗老年骨质疏松性脊柱骨折的临床效果[J].临床医学研究与实践,2023,8(11):50-53.
[5] 齐德重,张伟涛. 单侧经后外上方入路椎体成形术治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折的临床效果[J].临床医学,2023,43(4):5-8.
[6] 张子龙,杨俊松,郝定均. 经皮椎体成形术与经皮椎体后凸成形术治疗相邻双椎体急性骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折的临床对比研究[J].骨科,2021,12(1):1-7.
[7] 王伍贵. PKP、PVP分别联合骨折复位器治疗OVCF对患者伤椎形态及腰背功能的影响比较[J]. 基层医学论坛,2023,27(8):38-40.
[8] 李坚,张金喜,张海明,等.PKP与PVP在骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折术后疼痛及椎体高度恢复的比较[J]. 浙江创伤外科,2022,27(6):1077-1079.
[9] 赵中男,刘亚明,陈丽娟,等. 经皮椎体支架成形术与经皮椎体后凸成形术治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折疗效比较[J].临床军医杂志,2023,51(3):318-320.
[10] 李战营. 经皮椎体后凸成形术与经皮椎体成形术治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折患者的效果比较[J].中国民康医学,2023,35(3):72-74.