臨床整形外科51巻9号

2016年09月発行

臨床経験

頚椎症性脊髄症に対する観音開き式と棘突起還納式椎弓形成術の前向き無作為比較—治療コストの比較

著者： 重松英樹¹ 岩田栄一朗¹ 田中誠人¹ 奥田哲教¹ 森本安彦¹ 増田佳亮¹ 植田百合人² 小泉宗久³ 田中康仁¹

所属機関： ¹奈良県立医科大学整形外科 ²香芝旭ヶ丘病院整形外科 ³奈良県総合医療センター脊椎脊髄外科

ページ範囲：P.873 - P.877

背景：頚椎症性脊髄症(以下CSM)の治療で用いる椎弓形成術は安定した長期成績を得られるが，術式間での手術成績とその費用について検討された報告は少ない．

対象と方法：CSMに手術を行い，術式を前向きランダム化し観音開き式椎弓形成術：18例，棘突起還納式椎弓形成術：13例の31名を対象とした．成績は日本整形外科学会頚髄症治療成績判定基準(JOAスコア)を用い術後2年で検討を行った．手術費用についても検討を行った．

結果：術前後のJOAスコア，改善率に有意差はなかった．手術費用は観音開き式のほうが有意に低かった．

まとめ：観音開き式は還納式と比較し，同じ手術成績が得られ，費用を低減できる．

参考文献

1) 岩崎洋明．頸部脊柱管拡大術．中部整災誌1996；39：10-1．

2) Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, et al. Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine 1981;6:354-64.

3) Butler JC, Whitecloud TS, 3rd. Postlaminectomy kyphosis. Causes and surgical management. Orthop Clin North Am 1992;23:505-11.

4) Cerisoli M, Vernizzi E, Giulioni M. Cervical spine changes following laminectomy. Clinico-radiological study. J Neurosurg Sci 1980;24:63-70.

5) Gregorius FK, Estrin T, Crandall PH. Cervical spondylotic radiculopathy and myelopathy. A long-term follow-up study. Arch Neurol 1976;33:618-25.

6) Guigui P, Benoist M, Deburge A. Spinal deformity and instability after multilevel cervical laminectomy for spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 1998;23:440-7.

7) Heller JG, Edwards CC 2nd, Murakami H, et al. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy:an independent matched cohort analysis. Spine 2001;26:1330-6.

8) 平林　冽．頚髄症に対する後方除圧術としての片開き式頚部脊柱管拡大術について．手術1978；32：1159-63．

9) Chiba K, Ogawa Y, Ishii K, et al. Long-term results of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy--average 14-year follow-up study. Spine 2006;31:2998-3005.

10) Seichi A, Takeshita K, Ohishi I, et al. Long-term results of double-door laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine 2001;26:479-87.

11) Sakaura H, Hosono N, Mukai Y, et al. Medium-term outcomes of C3-6 laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy:a prospective study with a minimum 5-year follow-up. Euro Spine J 2011;20:928-33.

12) Frank E, Keenen TL. A technique for cervical laminoplasty using mini plates. Bri J Neurosurg 1994;8:197-9.

13) Nakano K, Harata S, Suetsuna F, et al. Spinous process-splitting laminoplasty using hydroxyapatite spinous process spacer. Spine 1992;17:S41-3.

14) Lee JY, Hanks SE, Oxner W, et al. Use of small suture anchors in cervical laminoplasty to maintain canal expansion:a technical note. J Spinal Disord Tech 2007;20:33-5.

15) Kaminsky SB, Clark CR, Traynelis VC. Operative treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy. A comparison of laminectomy and laminoplasty at five year average follow-up. Iowa Orthop J 2004;24:95-105.

16) Nurick S. The natural history and the results of surgical treatment of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 1972;95:101-8.

17) Maurer PK, Ellenbogen RG, Ecklund J, et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy:treatment with posterior decompression and Luque rectangle bone fusion. Neurosurgery 1991;28:680-3;discussion 3-4.

18) Highsmith JM, Dhall SS, Haid RW Jr, et al. Treatment of cervical stenotic myelopathy:a cost and outcome comparison of laminoplasty versus laminectomy and lateral mass fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2011;14:619-25.