摘要
目的观察应用经皮椎体成形术（PVP）以及经皮椎体后凸成形术（PKP）治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折（osteoporosis vertebra compressed fracture，OVCF）的临床疗效。方法选择2007年8月-2009年7月收治的42例采用PVP或PKP治疗的OVCF患者，应用视觉模拟疼痛评分（VAS）及健康调查简表SF-36评估患者疼痛及生活质量改变情况，同时通过手术节段的x线测量计算伤椎高度恢复率及受伤节段后凸矫正率，并结合胸片判断有无骨水泥渗漏发生。结果两组骨水泥渗漏率有差异。PVP组或PKP组患者术后2周及术后6个月的VAS、SF-36评分均较术前明显改善（P〈0．05）。PVP组与PKP组术后6个月VAS及SF-36评分与术后2周比较，差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。术后2周及术后6个月两组VAS及SF-36评分比较，差异无统计学意义。术后2周PKP组伤椎前、中柱高度恢复率略优于PVP组（P〈0．05）。术后2周PKP组后凸矫正率略优于PVP组，但差异无统计学意义。结论对于OVCF的治疗，PVP和PKP的疼痛缓解率相似，两者对椎体高度及后凸畸形均能有一定程度的恢复．PVP的骨水泥渗漏率要多于PKP。
Objective To observe the clinical effect of percutaneous vertebroplasty （PVP） and percutaneous kyphoplasty （PKP） in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compressive fracture. Methods Forty-two patients with osteoporotic vertebral compressive fractures were treated with PVP or PKP from August 2007 to July 2009. VAS and SF-36 scoring systems were employed to evaluate the pain and quality of life. X-ray was used to evaluate the vertebral height restoration rate and the kyphosis correction rate. The bone cement leakage was determined based on the Chest X-ray. Results There was staitistical difference on PMMA leakage between PVP and PKP group. VAS and SF-36 scores at 2 weeks and 6 months after operation were much better than those counted before operation in both PVP and PKP groups （P 〈0.05）. The VAS and SF-36 scores at 6 months after operation showed no statistical difference in comparison with those before operation between PVP and PKP groups （P 〉 0.05）. At two weeks after operation, the height restoration rate of the fractured vertebral body （ anterior and central column） in the PKP group was better than that in the PVP group （P 〈 0.05 ）. The kyphotic correction rate in the PKP group was a little better than that in the PVP group （P 〉 0.05）. Conclusions In the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compressive fracture, PVP and PKP have the similar effect on the pain relief, can refresh the height of the fractured vertebral body and correct the kyphotic angel of the fracture level to some extent. PVP has more PMMA leakage than PKP.
出处
《中华创伤杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2011年第3期236-240,共5页
Chinese Journal of Trauma
