Analysis of the clinical effect of BacFuse in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation with rheumatoid arthritis
10.3760/cma.j.cn115396-20200429-00123
- VernacularTitle:BacFuse治疗合并类风湿关节炎的腰椎间盘突出症的临床效果分析
- Author:
Shuangjiang ZHANG
1
;
Li BAO
;
Haibo SUN
;
Fei FENG
;
Jinjun LI
;
Jianlin SHAN
;
Pu JIA
;
Hai TANG
Author Information
1. 首都医科大学附属北京友谊医院骨科 100050
- From:
International Journal of Surgery
2020;47(7):476-480
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To evaluate the clinical effect of interspinous process fusion (BacFuse) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods:A retrospective analysis of the clinical data of 50 patients with RA and LDH from May 2013 to June 2018 in department of orthopedics, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University was conducted. Among them, there were 9 males and 41 females, aged (66.60±4.23) years, with an age ranging from 54 to 84 years. According to different surgical methods, the patients were divided into posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) group ( n=26) and BacFuse group ( n=24). Operative time, intraoperative blood loss and operative complications of the two groups were observed. Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores were used to evaluate the clinical effect at preoperative, 3 days of postoperative and the last follow-up. The measurement data were expressed as mean±standard deviation( Mean± SD), comparison between groups used t test and the count data were expressed as percentage(%), the chi-square test was used for comparison between the two groups. The clinical effect of the two groups were compared by repeated analysis of variance. Results:In the PLIF group, the operation time and bleeding volume were (174.62±55.59) min, (309.62±30.26) mL, respectively. In the BacFuse group, the operation time and bleeding volume were (71.25±12.96) min, (57.92±9.32) mL, respectively. The differences between the two groups were statistically significant ( P<0.05). The operative complications in the PLIF group (8 cases) was significantly higher than that in the BacFuse group (2 cases) , the difference between the two groups was statistically significant ( χ2 = 3.926, P=0.048). There were significant differences between every two scores among the preoperative, 3 days of postoperative and last follow-up in ODI of the PLIF group( F=760.231, P<0.001). The preoperative, 3 days of postoperative and last follow-up ODI scores of the BacFuse group were significant differences between every two scores ( F= 952.525, P<0.001). There were no significant differences in ODI scores between the two groups [( t=-1.13, P=0.263), ( t=0.706, P=0.483), ( t=0.389, P=0.699)]. There were significant differences between every two scores among the preoperative, 3 days of postoperative and last follow-up in JOA of the PLIF group( F=406.012, P<0.001). The preoperative, 3 days of postoperative and last follow-up in JOA scores of the BacFuse group were significant difference between every two scores ( F=457.760, P<0.001). There were no significant differences in JOA scores between the two groups [( t=0.825, P=0.414), ( t=1.909, P=0.062), ( t=1.086, P=0.283). Conclusions:Compared with PLIF, BacFuse has a similar clinical effect in the treatment of LDH with RA, but BacFuse is less invasive and has fewer postoperative complications. BacFuse is an effective minimally surgical method for the treatment of LDH with RA.
