收稿日期: 2018-03-21
网络出版日期: 2019-09-03
基金资助
国家自然科学基金(81441044);北京市自然科学基金(7144253)
Biomechanical changes of sheep cervical spine after unilateral hemilaminectomy and different degrees of facetectomy
Received date: 2018-03-21
Online published: 2019-09-03
Supported by
Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China(81441044);the Natural Science Foundation of Beijing(7144253)
目的:构建颈椎单侧半椎板以及不同程度小关节切除的动物模型,分析单侧半椎板以及不同程度小关节切除对颈椎生物力学的影响。方法:将20只实验羊随机分为A、B、C、D 4组,每组5只。A组为空白对照组,B组实施C4-C6右侧半椎板切除术,C组实施C4-C6 右侧半椎板+50%右侧C4-C5小关节切除术,D组实施C4-C6右侧半椎板+100%右侧C4-C5小关节切除术,各组常规饲养24周后处死并获得新鲜颈椎标本。比较术后24周生物力学改变:在脊柱三维运动试验机上,模拟生理活动状态对A、B、C和D组颈椎标本进行生物力学测定,并比较颈椎活动度差异。结果:(1)术后24周颈椎总活动度:D组在屈伸下的活动度(60.2° ±8.6°)显著大于A组(40.7°±6.4°)和B组(41.2°±13.1°);D组在侧弯状态下的活动度(81.5°±15.7°)显著大于A组(56.7°±12.2°)和B组(57.7°±12.8°);D组在旋转状态下的活动度(38.5°±17.5°)较A组(26.4°±9.9°)和B组(27.1°±10.9°)无明显增加;C组在屈伸状态的活动度(44.1°±11.7°)、侧弯状态下的活动度(73.6°±11.4°)及旋转状态下的活动度(31.3°±11.5°)较A组和B组无明显增加;(2)术后24周节段间活动度:D组在屈伸状态下的C4-C5活动度(20.3°±4.6°)显著大于A组(11.7°±3.4°)和B组(11.9°±2.1°),在侧弯状态下的C4-C5活动度(26.8°±3.5°)显著大于A组(15.2°±3.1°)和B组(16.2°±3.2°),在旋转状态下的C4-C5活动度(15.2°±3.5°)显著大于A组(6.6°±2.3°)和B组(7.1°±1.9°);C组在侧弯状态下的C4-C5活动度(21.2°±4.1°)显著大于A组和B组,在屈伸状态下的C4-C5活动度(15.7°±3.7°)及旋转状态下的C4-C5活动度(10.3°±3.1°)较A组和B组无明显增加。结论:单纯半椎板切除术不影响颈椎稳定性,半椎板合并50%同侧小关节切除不影响术后远期的颈椎稳定性,半椎板合并100%同侧小关节切除会明显降低术后远期在侧弯和屈伸下的颈椎稳定性。
吴超 , 王振宇 , 林国中 , 于涛 , 刘彬 , 司雨 , 张一博 , 李元超 . 单侧半椎板及不同程度小关节切除术对羊颈椎生物力学的影响[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2019 , 51(4) : 728 -732 . DOI: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2019.04.023
Objective: To establish animal models and investigate the impact of unilateral hemilaminectomy(ULHL) and different degrees of facetectomy (FT) on the cervical spinal biomechanics.Methods: Twenty sheep were randomly and evenly divided into 4 groups. No operation was performed for group A, right C4-C6 ULHL was performed for group B, right C4-C6 ULHL and 50% ipsilateral C4-C5 FT was performed for group C, right C4-C6 ULHL and 100% ipsilateral C4-C5 FT was performed for group D. Animals of group A, B, C and D were sacrificed 24 weeks after operating and fresh cervical spine specimens were acquired, biomechanically tested and these data were compared to determine whether ULHL and different degrees of FT led to long-term differences in range of motion.Results: (1) Changes of the total range of motion of cervical spine 24 weeks after surgery: the total range of motion of group D (60.2°±8.6°) was significantly greater than group A (40.7°±6.4°) and group B (41.2°±13.1°) under flexion-extension station,the total range of motion of group D (81.5°±15.7°) was significantly greater than that of group A (56.7°±12.2°) and group B (57.7°±12.8°) under lateral bending station,and the total range of motion of group D (38.5°±17.5°) had no obvious increase compared with group A (26.4°±9.9°) and group B (27.1°±10.9°) under axial rotation station. The total range of motion of group C had no obvious increase compared with group A and group B under flexion-extension station (44.1°±11.7°), lateral bending station (73.6°±11.4°) and axial rotation station (31.3°±11.5°). (2) Changes of the intersegmental motion 24 weeks after surgery: the intersegmental motion of group D (20.3°±4.6°) at C4-C5 was significantly greater than that of group A (11.7°±3.4°) and group B (11.9°±2.1°) under flexion-extension station, the intersegmental motion of group D (26.8°±3.5°) at C4-C5 was significantly greater than that of group A (15.2°±3.1°) and group B (16.2°±3.2°) under lateral bending station, the intersegmental motion of group D (15.2°±3.5°) at C4-C5 was significantly greater than that of group A (6.6°±2.3°) and group B (7.1°±1.9°) under axial rotation station. The intersegmental motion of group C (21.2°±4.1°) at C4-C5 was significantly greater than that of group A and group B under lateral bending station, the intersegmental motion of group C at C4-C5 had no obvious increase compared with group A and group B under flexion-extension station (15.7°±3.7°) and axial rotation station (10.3°±3.1°).Conclusion: ULHL does not affect cervical stability, ULHL and 50% ipsilateral FT does not affect the long-term cervical stability, ULHL and 100% ipsilateral FT can lead to long-term instability under lateral bending and flexion-extension station.
Key words： Cervical spine; Hemilaminectomy; Facetectomy; Biomechanics
| [1] | Safaee MM, Lyon R, Barbaro NM , et al. Neurological outcomes and surgical complications in 221 spinal nerve sheath tumors[J]. J Neurosurg Spine, 2017,26(1):103-111. |
| [2] | Nori S, Iwanami A, Yasuda A , et al. Risk factor analysis of kyphotic malalignment after cervical intramedullary tumor resection in adults[J]. J Neurosurg Spine, 2017,27(5):518-527. |
| [3] | Lau D, Winkler EA, Than KD , et al. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with posterior spinal fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: influence of cervical alignment on outcomes[J]. J Neurosurg Spine, 2017,27(5):508-517. |
| [4] | Huang Y, Wang Z, Chen Z , et al. Posterior hemi-/laminectomy and facetectomy approach for the treatment of dumbbell-shaped schwannomas in the subaxial cervical spine: A retrospective study of 26 cases[J]. Eur Neurol, 2017,78(3/4):188-195. |
| [5] | Mobbs RJ, Maharaj MM, Phan K , et al. Unilateral hemilaminectomy for intradural lesions[J]. Orthop Surg, 2015,7(3):244-249. |
| [6] | Turel MK , D’Souza WP, Rajshekhar V. Hemilaminectomy approach for intradural extramedullary spinal tumors: an analysis of 164 patients[J]. Neurosurg Focus, 2015,39(2):E9. |
| [7] | Xie T, Qian J, Lu Y , et al. Unilateral multilevel interlaminar fenestration: a minimally invasive approach for cervical intrame-dullary lesions[J]. J Clin Neurosci, 2014,21(7):196-204. |
| [8] | Villalonga JF, Cervio A . Surgical treatment of intradural extra-medullary lesions by hemilaminectomy[J]. Surg Neurol Int, 2017,8(Suppl 2):S11-S17. |
| [9] | Afathi M, Peltier E, Adetchessi T , et al. Minimally invasive transmuscular approach for the treatment of benign intradural extramedullary spinal cord tumours: Technical note and results[J]. Neurochirurgie, 2015,61(5):333-338. |
| [10] | Taylor-Brown FE, Cardy TJ, Liebel FX , et al. Risk factors for early post-operative neurological deterioration in dogs undergoing a cervical dorsal laminectomy or hemilaminectomy: 100 cases (2002-2014)[J]. Vet J, 2015,206(3):327-331. |
| [11] | Munting E, R?der C, Sobottke R , et al. Patient outcomes after laminotomy, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and laminectomy with instrumented fusion for spinal canal stenosis: a propensity score-based study from the Spine Tango registry[J]. Eur Spine J, 2015,24(2):358-368. |
| [12] | 林国中, 王振宇, 谢京城 , 等. 半椎板入路显微手术治疗颈椎椎管内肿瘤[J]. 中国临床神经外科杂志, 2010,15(7):390-392. |
| [13] | Inoue A, Ikata T, Katoh S . Spinal deformity following surgery for spinal cord tumors and tumorous lesions: analysis based on an assessment of the spinal functional curve[J]. Spinal Cord, 1996,34(9):536-542. |
| [14] | Raynor RB, Pugh J, Shapiro I . Cervical facetectomy and its effect on spine strength[J]. J Neurosurg, 1985,63(2):278-282. |
| [15] | Raynor RB, Moskovich R, Zidel P , et al. Alterations in primary and coupled neck motions after facetectomy[J]. Neurosurgery, 1987,21(5):681-687. |
| [16] | Zdeblick TA, Zou D, Warden KE , et al. Cervical stability after foraminotomy. A biomechanical in vitro analysis[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1992,74(1):22-27. |
| [17] | Nowinski GP, Visarius H, Nolte LP , et al. A biomechanical comparison of cervical laminaplasty and cervical laminectomy with progressive facetectomy[J]. Spine, 1993,18(14):1995-2004. |
| [18] | Kandziora F, Pflugmacher R, Scholz M , et al. Comparison between sheep and human cervical spines: an anatomic, radiographic, bone mineral density, and biomechanical study[J]. Spine, 2001,26(9):1028-1037. |
| [19] | 吴荣, 闵继康, 黄曙峰 , 等. 颈椎棘突骨折累及后方韧带复合体损伤对羊颈椎生物力学稳定性的影响[J]. 医用生物力学, 2017,32(05):422-426. |
| [20] | Si Y, Wang Z, Yu T , et al. Results of cervical recapping laminoplasty: gross anatomical changes, biomechanical evaluation at different time points and degrees of level involvement[J]. PLoS One, 2014,9(6):e100689. |
| [21] | Porto MA, Silva P, Rosa R , et al. Experimental in vivo acute and chronic biomechanical and histomorphometrical comparison of self-drilling and self-tapping anterior cervical screws[J]. Eur Spine J, 2012,21(5):956-963 |
| [22] | De Vries Watson NA, Gandhi AA, Fredericks DC , et al. Sheep cervical spine biomechanics: a finite element study[J]. Iowa Orthop J, 2014,34(6):137-143. |
| [23] | Walsh WR, Pelletier MH, Bertollo N , et al. Does PEEK/HA enhance bone formation compared with PEEK in a sheep cervical fusion model?[J]. Clin Orthop Relat R, 2016,474(11):2364-2372. |
| [24] | Daentzer D, Welke B, Hurschler C , et al. In vitro-analysis of kinematics and intradiscal pressures in cervical arthroplasty versus fusion: a biomechanical study in a sheep model with two semi-constrained prosjournal[J]. Bio Med Eng Online, 2015,14:27. |
| [25] | Daentzer D, Floerkemeier T, Bartsch I , et al. Preliminary results in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with an experimental bioabsorbable cage: clinical and radiological findings in an ovine animal model[J]. Springer Plus, 2013,8(2):418. |
| [26] | Xie T, Qian J, Lu Y , et al. Biomechanical comparison of laminectomy, hemilaminectomy and a new minimally invasive approach in the surgical treatment of multilevel cervical intradural tumour: a finite element analysis[J]. Eur Spine J, 2013,22(12):2719-2730. |
| [27] | Ogden AT, Bresnahan L, Smith JS , et al. Biomechanical com-parison of traditional and minimally invasive intradural tumor exposures using finite element analysis[J]. Clin Biomech, 2009,24(2):143-147. |
| [28] | Crawford NR, Duggal N, Chamberlain RH , et al. Unilateral cervical facet dislocation: injury mechanism and biomechanical consequences[J]. Spine, 2002,27(17):1858-1864. |
| [29] | Zdeblick TA, Abitbol JJ, Kunz DN , et al. Cervical stability after sequential capsule resection[J]. Spine, 1993,18(14):2005-2008. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
