• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Comparison of complications and clinical outcomes between extreme lateral/posterior and open anterior/posterior approaches in the treatment of adult scoliosis

    2017-03-05 09:07:00

    Introduction

    Adult scoliosis has become a significant health care challenge[1],with recent studies revealing that the prevalence of scoliosis may be as high as 68%within the elderly population[2].Patients with adult scoliosis usually present with back pain,sagittal imbalance, or radicular symptoms. Although conservative management is recommended as an initial treatment, outcomes are frequently unacceptable.Following nonspecific management,an instrumented arthrodesis and deformity correction surgery is often indicated.The goals of surgical intervention for adult scoliosis include alleviating back pain and radicularsymptoms,halting deformity progression,and restoring truncal balance[3-4].

    Combined anterior/posterior(A/P)fusion has traditionally been used to treat severe adult spinal deformities.These combined procedures include an anterior release with fusion which is performed via a thoracotomy or thoracoabdominalapproach followed by a posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion.This dual-approach surgery has been promoted to provide higher fusion rates and better deformity correction.However,while the above approaches provide excellentexposure to the anterior spinal column[5-7],they are associated with unacceptably high ratesofpostoperative pain(32.3%),abdominal wall bulging(43.5%),and functional disturbance(24.2%)[8].

    Therefore, an extreme lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine becomes increasingly popular[9].By allowing for the release of the contralateral and ipsilateral disc annuli and providing access for the placement of an interbody graft across the entire length of the disc space,this approach has been considered to be a potentially useful minimally invasive technique for spinal deformity correction.Indeed,severalsurgeons using this minimally invasive technique for the treatment of adult scoliosis,have reported it to be effective in providing maximal correction of scoliotic curves with less blood loss and morbidity[10-13].To our knowledge,no study has directly compared complications and clinical outcomes between extreme lateral/posterior(X/P)versus traditional open A/P approaches in adult scoliosis.The current study is a comparison between extreme lateral interbody fusion(XLIF)and classical operation,with the aim of analyzing the differences of clinical outcomes and postoperative complications between two approaches.

    Materials and methods

    Study design

    This study was performed under an Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved protocol,and evaluated patients with adult scoliosis were treated by a single surgeon at a major academic institution from Feb 2008 to July 2010.Clinicalrecords and radiographic studies for consecutive adult scoliosis patients who underwent primary X/P fusion or open A/P were reviewed.Based on a pre-existing database that contains operative and clinical details,75 potential X/P patients were identified.Patients with a primary diagnosis other than adult idiopathic scoliosis,adult kyphoscoliosis,or degenerative scoliosis were excluded.In addition,patients with any previous spine surgery,and those without minimum 2-year follow-up were also excluded.Of these patients,12 were identified for inclusion in the study.Due to anatomic consideration,patientsin X/P group frequently had anterior column support at L5/S1 and/or L4/L5 for enhanced fusion with an transforaminallumbarinterbody fusion (TLIF),posterior lumbar interbody fusion(PLIF)or axial lumbar interbody fusion(AxiaLIF).

    A group of18 patientswho underwent combined open A/P surgery for adult scoliosis was then matched against the previously identified X/P patients.On the basis of the previously described surgical database,133 potential A/P patients were identified.The inclusion and exclusion criteria were the same as X/P group.Patients were matched for age(older than 50 years)and diagnosis.The 2 cohorts of patients were carefully matched so that the mean values of the prognostic criteria for the two cohorts would be as similar as possible.

    Surgical procedure

    Patients in X/P group were placed in a lateral decubitus position with curve concavity side up with fluoroscopic guidance.The patient and the table were adjusted to optimize patient positioning referenced to radiographic spine rotation and a metallic marker on the skin,then they were prepped and draped in sterile fashion.With fluoroscopy confirmation,dilating tube was used to gain minimally invasive access under fluoroscopic and neuromonitoring guidance. The self-retaining retractor was deployed near the disc space.Target disc space vertical was referenced to a gravity line.Incision was designed with reference to the size of appropriate implant,and an appropriately sized polyetheretherketone(PEEK)cage was loaded with bone graftmatrix and/orbone morphogenetic protein(BMP).The graft-loaded cage was placed in the disc space with the guidance of fluoroscopy.The same procedure was repeated at all the segments being anteriorly fused,typically working from proximal and distal levels first,and the apical level last.

    Of the 18 patients who underwent combined A/P surgery, standard anterior releases were performed without anterior instrumentation.Fusions were grafted with allograft or autologous bone filled titanium mesh cages,ortricorticaliliac crest autografts.

    Patients in both groups then underwent posterior surgery and were positioned prone with the abdomen hanging freely.Pedicle screws were primarily used for fixation and correction.For patients with fi xed sagittal plane deformity,multiple Smith Peterson osteotomies were used to attain correction via a posterior approach.Some patients had decompressive procedures.

    Radiographic and clinical evaluation

    All patients had pre- and postoperative standing AP and lateral scoliosis radiographs that were digitally measured using the PACS software.Coronal Cobb measurements were used for the main and fractional scoliotic curves on the AP views.Lateral radiographs were used to measure T5-T12 and L1-sacrum sagittal Cobb angles,and proximal junctional kyphosis(PJK).We de fi ned the proximal junctional angle as the caudal endplate of the upper instrumented vertebrae(UIV)to the cephalad endplate of the vertebrae two levels supra-adjacentto the UIV.Proximaljunction sagittal Cobb angle of at least 10°greater than preoperative measurement was regarded as PJK.Outcome analysis was performed using Scoliosis Research Society(SRS)-22 score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)[14-15].Preoperative SRS questionnaires were available for 77%of patients(12/12 X/P and 11/18 A/P).Preoperative ODI questionnaires were available for 93%of patients(10/12 X/P and 18/18 A/P).Postoperative SRS and ODI questionnaires were completed for 100%of patients at over 2-year follow-up.Statistical methods

    Distribution of variables was calculated as a mean and standard deviation.Statistical analysis of radiographical parameters and clinical scores were performed using SPSS 18.0 software between preand post-operative records.Thet-test was used to assess the difference ofcontinuous measures between 2 groups.Fisher exact test was used to test for significance of categorical variables.Significance was set atP<0.05.

    Results

    Demographic Data

    There were no significant differences between groups for age,gender,diagnosis,and preoperative curve magnitudes(P>0.05,Table 1).Bone mineral density(BMD)recorded in 11 X/P patients was 1.12 versus 1.03 in 14 A/P patients.Furthermore,there were 4 patients with osteopenia and 1 patient with osteoporosis in X/P group comparing to 7 patients with osteopenia and 1 patientwith osteoporosis in A/P group.Body mass index(BMI)in X/P patients was 24.13 while 26.23 in A/P group.No statistical differences were observed between two groups for any of these parameters(P>0.05,Table 1).No patients were currently smoking at the time of surgery.Operative Data

    As shown in table 2,of 12 patients who had X/P fusion,5 were staged and 7 were same day while all A/P surgeries were performed under one anesthesia(P=0.006).In X/P group,surgery took an average of 493 min,while the average operating time in A/P group was 528 min(P=0.057).Estimate blood loss(EBL)in X/P fusion group averaged 2 304 versus 3 176 mL in A/P group(P=0.04).The transfusion of the X/P patients was 1 548 mL,with 1 423 mL in A/P group.Patients in X/P group had an average of 12.4 levels fused which was similar to A/P group with an average of 14.3 levels was included in the fusion(P=0.16).Interbody fusions at L5/S1 via PLIF/AxiaLIF in X/P patients with long fixation to S1 were similar to those via ALIF in A/P patients(8/11vs13/15,P=0.35).Similar pelvic fixation rate was also observed in two groups(P=0.35).

    Radiographic changes

    As shown in Table 3,the average preoperative thoracic cobb angle measured 38.47°with a mean of thracolumbar/lumbar cobb angle of 46.38°in X/P group.After surgery,the thoracic scoliosis was corrected to 23.13°while the thoracolumbar/lumbar was corrected to 19.14°.In A/P group,the average preoperative thoracic scoliosis measured 44.86°with 58.26°of thoracolumbar/lumbar deformity.After surgery,the thoracic correction was to 30.19°with 29.39°of thoracolumbar/lumbar cobb angle.The postoperative cobb angles were statistically less than preoperative for the patients in both groups,and there were no significant differences in the amount of scoliosis correction between two groups.

    Table 1 Patients'preoperative demographic and radiographic data in two groups

    Table 2 Surgical data of patients in two groups

    Sagittal plane alignment was also evaluated in these two groups.In X/P group,overall thoracic kyphosis measured 36.86°and lumbar lordosis measured 38.97°;the postoperative improvement was to 34.67°and 39.23°respectively.In A/P group,mean thoracic kyphosis changed from 39.33°to 39.92°and lumbar lordosis changed from 39.31°to 45.02°.The changes in thoracic kyphosis and lumbar lordosis between preoperation and postoperation were comparable in two groups.Typical case was shown as Figure 1.Complications

    Of the 12 patients in X/P group,there were 14 complications including 4 perioperative ones and 10 late ones.Intraoperative complications were smallperitoneal opening without visceral injury in one patient,dural tear in posterior approach in 2 patients,ipsilateral thigh pain in 1 patient that recoverd after 6 months.Long-term postoperative complications were found in 5 patients who needed late revision surgery.Of those patients,3 had pseudarthrosisin lumbosacraljunction,1 had sacroiliac joint pain and 1 had coronal imbalance.PJK occurred in 5 patients without revision surgery.In A/P group, we found 11 perioperative

    complications and 12 late complications.Three patients experienced postoperative thigh pain or weakness and fully resolved by the 6-month visit.Another 2 patients complained about the abdominal bulge and flank incision pain.One had superficial wound infection with delayed healing and 2 had deep infection needed early reoperation.Another patient needed early revision surgery because of postoperative L4 pedicle screw malposition.Later revision surgery was performed in 5 patients.2 patients received revision surgery because of distal adjacent segment disease and pseudarthrosis respectively.Sacroiliac pain and back pain were observed in 3 patients,2 of which needed removal of implants.PJK developed in 7 patients,one of which required extension fusion.

    Table 3 Patients'radiographic data before and after surgery in two groups(x- ± s,°)

    Figure1 Preoperative and postoperative X-ray for patient with lumbar scoliosis(Female,54,complain of back pain for 2 years,underwent XLIF at L2-L3,L3-L4,L4-L5,PLIF at L5/S1,and posterior instrumentation at T11-S1)1A Preoprative image:Cobb angle was 25°at T5-T11,35°at T11-L4,20°at L4-S1;lumbar lordosis was 3°1B Image at two years after surgery:Cobb angel was 21°at T5-T11,14°at T11-L4,5°at L4-S1;lumbar lordosis was 26°

    There were no reports of deep vein thrombosis,stroke, pulmonary embolism, or death. No significant differences were found in complication rates or revision rates between two groups,with a trend toward X/P group having a lower rate of perioperative complication(4/12vs11/18,P=0.14),wound infection(0/12vs3/18,P=0.26)and early reoperation(0/12 vs 3/18,P=0.26).(Table 4)Clinical Outcomes

    The mean follow-up duration for X/P group was 38.8 months which was significantly shorter than A/P group with 58.6 months(P=0.001).SRS-22 and ODI at the last follow-up all improved in two groups when compared with preoperative ones(P<0.05,Table 5),indicating statistically significant improvements of clinical outcomes for both groups at greater than 2-year follow-up.There was no significant differences of preoperative or postoperative scores between two groups for clinical outcome(Table 5).

    Discussion

    Table 4 Perioperative complications and late complications in two groups

    The efficacy of a combined A/P fusion in adult spinal deformity surgery is well documented in the literature.The benefits of anterior approaches for arthrodesis in deformity correction surgery are well known,including load sharing,higher fusion rates and better deformity correction. But, these traditional thoracotomy or thoracoabdominal anteriorapproachesrequire largeincisionsfor adequate exposure,and appear to be associated with high rates of postoperative pain,abdominal bulging,and functional disturbance[8].As a result,a novel lateral retroperitoneal approach was first reported by Pimenta in 2001 and later popularized by Ozgur et al.as"Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion"[9].Compared with traditionalanteriorapproaches,potential bene fi ts of the lateral approach include the avoidance of vascular, visceral, and sexual dysfunction complications sometimes experienced in open anteriorprocedures.Severalprevious studies have indicated the advantages include less tissue disruption,less postoperative pain,shorter hospital stays,and faster return to normal activities of daily life.Nevertheless,all of these data were collected in lumbardegenerative patients and previously were only seldom used in adult scoliosis patients[16-24].To our knowledge,here are no previous studies directly comparing X/P and A/P in the treatment of adult scoliosis.

    Table 5 Comparsion of SRS-22 score and ODI before and after surgery in two groups(x-±s)

    In this study,12 patients who had X/P fusion for primary adult spine deformity surgery were matched with a cohort of 18 patients who had A/P treatment.Allpatients had minimum 2-year follow-up,which included radiographic,clinical,and outcomes data.The results showed no statistical differences between the groups for age,gender,diagnosis,neurologic status,smoking status,and preoperative curve magnitudes.However,higher EBL and a trend toward longer operating time were observed in A/P group than X/P group.We believe that EBL and operating time findings reflect that XLIF is a minimally invasive surgery to anteriorly access the spine that has lower morbidity than traditional method,although there is a learning curve of this technique for surgeons.Other surgical details including the number of fusion levels,transfusion,the number of L5/S1 interbody fusion and pelvic fixation were similar.Moreover,both techniques resulted in comparably significant correction of coronal plane deformity which was consistent with other reports in the literature[16-18].

    Regarding the perioperative complications,Tormenti et al.[25]observed 2 motor deficits(one permanent)and 6 sensory deficits(5 permanent)in a series of 8 patients treated with multilevel XLIF plus posterior instrumentation,other complications included one bowelperforation,one infection progressing to meningitis and sepsis, one pulmonary embolism and one dural tear(in the posterior approach).In a series of 25 patients with degenerative scoliosis,Dakwar et al.[19]observed one case of implant failure and one of cage subsidence,transient anterior thigh numbness was present in 12%,and one case presented with rhabdomyolysis.About one-third of patients did not obtain a good sagittal profile.Wang et al.[20]reported on 23 patients undergoing XLIF plus posterior percutaneous pedicle screws.Thigh dysesthesia and pain or weakness was present in 30%patients,in which one was permanent.A large series of 107 patients with a mean preoperative Cobb angle of 24 degrees has been reported in a prospective multicenter study by Isaacs et al[26].Seven patients had severe or protracted motor deficit,21%patients had hip flexor weakness that was transient in 86%and considered as an expected effect of surgical wound in the psoas muscle,and 1 patient was found kidney laceration.Khajaviand Shen[21]reported hip flexion weakness in 24%of patients and postoperative foot drop in 5%of patients.In the study by Castro et al.[22],6%of patients presented postoperative radiculopathy and cage subsidence was observed in 29% of patients by 6 week follow-up.Caputo et al.[23]found that lateral wound breakdown in 7% of patients,hernia at lateral incision in 3%,uncontrolled atrial fibrillation after XLIF stage in 3%,and iatrogenic rupture of anterior longitudinal ligament in 7%of patients.

    In our study,we only found 1 patient with thigh pain,1 patient with peritoneal opening related with XLIF technique and 2 patients with dural tear in the posterior approach in X/P group.Thus perioperative complications related to the XLIF technique in this study are lower than previous reported[19-26]and show a trend to be lower than A/P group(4/12vs11/18,P=0.14).Our data also shows that minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion does not increase surgical complications over the open anterior procedure even in the treatment of adult scoliosis,although a learning curve certainly exists in treating patients with this technique.Detailed review of preoperatively obtained MRI or CT scan is essential in understanding the location of the vasculature during lateralapproach.This becomes particularly important when the anterior margin of the vertebral body in a rotated segment must be identified[12].Moreover,it is important to note that XLIF procedure involves the use of integrated neural monitoring with all instruments that traverse the psoas muscle providing real-time neural feedback.

    Another early complication is surgical site infection (SSI)following adultspinalsurgery,which has been reported to occur in 0.7%to 12.0%of patients,and result in higher postoperative morbidity,mortality and health care costs[27].In this study,there was 1 patient with superficial infection and 2 patients with deep infection in A/P group,which showed a trend to be higher than X/P group(17%vs0%).Previousreportssuggestthat increased EBL[28],prolonged surgical time[22]and multilevel surgery fusions extending to the sacrum[29]are risk factors for SSI.Furthermore,use of a minimally invasive approach was associated with a lower rate of infection compared with a traditional open approach[30].In addition,an A/P procedure on the same day has a tendency to increase the risk for SSI[27].These findings may account for potential higher incidence of SSI in A/P group,although body mass index in two groups had no statistical difference.

    Besides perioperative complications, late complications tended to increase in frequency as more complex surgical procedures were required.The late reoperation rate in X/P versus A/P group(5/12vs5/18)did not reach statistical significance.Likewise,incidence of lumbosacral pseudarthrosis was higher in X/P group than in A/P group(3/12vs1/18)without significant difference.This compares favorably with otherstudiesin the literature,documenting pseudarthrosis rates for long fusions to the sacrum in the range of 19% to 33%[31-32].Difference between fusion rates in our study can potentially be explained by the different approaches to do L5/S1 interbody fusion.Most of X/P patients had PLIF by removing posterior bone construct,decreasing fusion area,while all of the A/P patients had ALIF which is more helpful to stabilize the lumbosacral base.It has been biomechanically proved thatanteriorly placed graftsaremore stable[33].Despite the small number of patients in this study, the higher rate of lumbosacral pseudarthrosis may suggest PLIF technique for fusion at lumbosacral junction is less successful than ALIF for patients receiving long fusion to the pelvis.

    In addition,late major complication in adult fusion patients was PJK and sacroiliac joint(SIJ)pain.In this series,the incidence of PJK was found to be almost same in X/P and A/P groups(5/12vs7/18).This is also similar to the ranges of 10%to 39%reported in the literature[30,33-35].Older age has also identified risk factor for the occurrence of PJK.One patient in A/P group needed revision surgery twice because of local pain.The rest of radiographic changes of PJK without any clinical complaints only needed continued follow-up[34-36]. Recent studies have shown thatSIJ degeneration is common in lumbar spine fusion and can reach up to 75%of the cases when a long lumbar fusion ends with a sacral fixation[37].We found SIJ pain in 1 X/P patient and 3 A/P patients without significance.Two patients in A/P group were revised to remove the iliac screws before 2005 while one patient in X/P group was performed percutaneous SIJ fixation in 2011 with good result.This minimally invasive surgery allows for fixation of the joints under fluoroscopy guidance without the need of a large surgical exposure[38].It is becoming more popular over the last years.Our early results with this surgery are being prepared foran upcoming manuscript.

    In this study,clinical outcome analysis using SRS-22 score and ODI was possible as the large majority of patients completed both preoperative and postoperative questionnaires. Statistically significant improvement in SRS subscores and ODI from preoperative to postoperative was seen in both groups.For X/P group,SRS subscores and ODI improved from 2.9 to 3.6,and from 18.9 to 13.6 respectively(P<0.05).For X/P group,SRS subscores and ODI improved from 3.0 to 3.6,and from 17.3 to 11.1 respectively(P<0.05).There is no significant difference between improvements of scores in two groups(P>0.05).These results indicate clinical and statistical improvements for both groups at greater than 2-year follow-up and they are not different.

    Limitations

    The limitations of the study are its retrospective nature,and the small number of patients in this series.Another is that the shorter follow-up for X/P group than A/P group.Additional late complications may be identified in the continued follow-up.

    Conclusions

    In this series,adult scoliosis with X/P surgery achieved similar correction to A/P surgery with decreased blood loss,and a trend toward shorter surgical time.X/P surgery also showed a trend to decrease perioperative complications,infection rate and early reoperation rate.Late complications and clinical outcomes were similar at over 2-year follow-up.

    [1]Schwab FJ,Lafage V,Farcy JP,et al.Predicting outcome and complications in the surgical treatment of adult scoliosis[J].Spine,2008,33(20):2243-2247.

    [2] Schwab F,Dubey A,Gamez L,et al.Adult scoliosis:prevalence,SF-36,and nutritional parameters in an elderly volunteer population[J].Spine,2005,30(9):1082-1085.

    [3] Bradford DS,Tay BK,Hu SS.Adult scoliosis:surgical indications, operative management, complications, and outcomes[J].Spine,1999,24(24):2617-2629.

    [4]Daffner SD,Vaccaro AR.Adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis[J].Am J Orthop,2003,32(2):77-82.

    [5]Byrd JA 3rd,Scoles PV,Winter RB,et al.Adult idiopathic scoliosis treated by anterior and posterior spinal fusion[J].J Bone Joint Surg Am,1987,69(6):843-850.

    [6]Dick J,Boachie-Adjei O,Wilson M.One-stage versus twostage anterior and posterior spinal reconstruction in adults:comparison of outcomes including nutritional status,complications rates,hospital costs,and other factors[J].Spine,1992,17(8 suppl):S310-S316.

    [7] Khan SN,Hofer MA,Gupta MC.Lumbar degenerative scoliosis:outcomes of combined anterior and posterior pelvis surgery with minimum 2-year follow-up[J].Orthopedics,2009,32(4):258.

    [8]Kim YB,Lenke LG,Kim YJ,et al.The morbidity of an anterior thoracolumbar approach:adultspinaldeformity patients with greater than five-year follow-up[J].Spine,2009,34(8):822-826.

    [9]Ozgur BM,Aryan HE,Pimenta L,et al.Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF):a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion[J].Spine J,2006,6(4):435-443.

    [10]Anand N,Baron EM,Khandehroo B.Does Minimally invasive transsacral fixation provide anterior column support in adult scoliosis?[J].Clin Orthop Relat Res,2014,472(6):1769-1775.

    [11]Berjano P,Lamartina C.Far lateral approaches(XLIF)in adult scoliosis[J].Eur Spine J,2013,22(Suppl 2):S242-S253.

    [12]Mundis GM,Akbarnia BA,Phillips FM.Adult deformity correction through minimally invasive lateral approach techniques[J].Spine,2010,35(26 Suppl):S312-S321.

    [13]Anand N,Baron EM,Khandehroo B,et al.Long term 2 to 5 year clinical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive surgery(MIS)for adult scoliosis[J].Spine,2013,38(18):1566-1575.

    [14]Asher M,Min Lai S,Burton D,et al.The reliability and concurrent validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis[J].Spine,2003,28(1):63-69.

    [15]Fairbank JC,Pynsent PB.The Oswestry Disability Index[J].Spine,2000,25(22):2940-2952.

    [16]Le TV,Vivas AC,Dakwar E,et al.The effect of the retroperitoneal transpsoas minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion on segmental and regional lumbar lordosis[J].Sci World J,2012:516706.

    [17]Moller DJ,Slimack NP,Acosta FL,et al.Minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion and transpsoas approachrelated morbidity[J].Neurosurg Focus,2011,31(4):E4.

    [18]Berjano P,Lamartina C.Minimally invasive lateral transpsoas approach with advanced neurophysiologicmonitoring for lumbar interbody fusion [J].EurSpine J,2011,20(9):1584-1586.

    [19]Dakwar E,Cardona RF,Smith DA,et al.Early outcomes and safety ofthe minimally invasive,lateralretroperitoneal transpsoasapproach foradultdegenerative scoliosis[J].Neurosurg Focus,2010,28(3):E8.

    [20]Wang MY,Mummaneni PV.Minimally invasive surgery for thoracolumbar spinal deformity:initial clinical experience with clinical and radiographic outcomes[J].Neurosurg Focus,2010,28(3):E9.

    [21]Khajavi K,Shen AY.Two-year radiographic and clinical outcomes of a minimally invasive, lateral, transpsoas approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis[J].Eur Spine J,2014,23(6):1215-1223.

    [22]Castro C,Oliveira L,Amaral R,et al.Is the lateral transpsoas approach feasible for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis? [J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2014, 472(6):1776-1783.

    [23]Caputo AM,Michael KW,Chapman TM,et al.Extreme lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis[J].J Clin Neurosci,2013,20(11):1558-1563.

    [24]Phillips FM,Isaacs RE,Rodgers WB,et al.Adult degenerative scoliosis treated with XLIF: clinical and radiographical results of a prospective multicenter study with 24-month follow-up[J].Spine,2013,38(21):1853-1861.

    [25]Tormenti MJ,Maserati MB,Bonfield CM,et al.Complications and radiographic correction in adultscoliosis following combined transpsoasextreme lateralinterbody fusion and posteriorpedicle screw instrumentation [J].Neurosurg Focus,2010,28(3):E7.

    [26]Isaacs RE,Hyde J,Goodrich JA,et al.A prospective,nonrandomized,multicenterevaluation ofextreme lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis:perioperative outcomes and complications [J].Spine,2010,35(26 suppl):S322-S330.

    [27]Pull ter Gunne AF,van Laarhoven CJ,Cohen DB.Incidence of surgical site infection following adult spinal deformity surgery:an analysis of patient risk[J].Eur Spine J,2010,19(6):982-988.

    [28]Wimmer C,Gluch H,Franzreb M,et al.Predisposing factors for infection in spine surgery:a survey of 850 spinal procedures[J].J Spinal Disord,1998,11(2):124-128.

    [29]Picada R,Winter RB,Lonstein JE,et al.Postoperative deep wound infection in adults after posterior lumbosacral spine fusion with instrumentation:incidence and management[J].J Spinal Disord,2000,13(1):42-45.

    [30]Smith JS,Shaffrey CI,Sansur CA,et al.Rates of infection after spine surgery based on 108,419 procedures:a report from the Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Committee[J].Spine,2011,36(7):556-563.

    [31]Boachie-Adjei O,Dendrinos GK,Ogilvie JW,et al.Management of adult spinal deformity with combined anteriorposteriorarthrodesisand Luque-Galveston instrumentation[J].J Spinal Disord,1991,4(2):131-141.

    [32]Emami A,Deviren V,Berven S,et al.Outcome and complications of long fusions to the sacrum in adult spine deformity:luque-galveston,combined iliac and sacral screws,and sacral fixation[J].Spine,2002,27(7):776-786.

    [33]Voor MJ,Mehta S,Wang M,et al.Biomechanical evaluation of posterior and anterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques[J].J Spinal Disord,1998,11(4):328-334.

    [34]Kim YJ,Bridwell KH,Lenke LG,et al.Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity after segmental posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion: minimum five-year follow-up[J].Spine,2008,33(20):2179-2184.

    [35]Yagi M,Akilah KB,Boachie-Adjei O.Incidence,risk factors and classification of proximal junctional kyphosis:surgical outcomes review of adult idiopathic scoliosis[J].Spine,2011,36(1):E60-E68.

    [36]Kim HJ,Yagi M,Nyugen J,et al.Combined anteriorposteriorsurgery isthe mostimportantrisk factorfor developing proximal junctional kyphosis in idiopathic scoliosis[J].Clin Orthop Relat Res,2012,470(6):1633-1639.

    [37]Ha KY,Lee JS,Kim KW.Degeneration of sacroiliac joint after instrumented lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: a prospective cohort study over five-year follow-up[J].Spine,2008,33(11):1192-1198.

    [38]Kim JT,Rudolf LM,Glaser JA.Outcome of percutaneous sacroiliac joint fixation with porous plasma-coated triangular titanium implants:an independent review[J].Open Orthop J,2013,7:51-56.

    亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 免费在线观看完整版高清| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 999久久久国产精品视频| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 午夜免费鲁丝| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看| 99久久国产精品久久久| 咕卡用的链子| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 国产av又大| 制服人妻中文乱码| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费 | 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看 | 久久99一区二区三区| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 18在线观看网站| svipshipincom国产片| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 精品亚洲成国产av| 男女免费视频国产| 在线播放国产精品三级| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线 | 满18在线观看网站| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 亚洲全国av大片| av线在线观看网站| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看 | 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 日韩视频在线欧美| 亚洲九九香蕉| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区 | 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 嫩草影视91久久| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 美女午夜性视频免费| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 成人免费观看视频高清| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 成人国产av品久久久| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 黄片小视频在线播放| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 国产精品 国内视频| 久久亚洲真实| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 电影成人av| 一进一出抽搐动态| av片东京热男人的天堂| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 高清欧美精品videossex| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 久久精品成人免费网站| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人 | 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av | 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 久久中文看片网| 国产色视频综合| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 亚洲伊人色综图| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 久久精品亚洲熟妇少妇任你| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 精品少妇内射三级| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| 中文字幕制服av| 国产av精品麻豆| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 香蕉丝袜av| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 国产单亲对白刺激| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 成人免费观看视频高清| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| 99久久人妻综合| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 国产又爽黄色视频| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 一本久久精品| 国产不卡av网站在线观看| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| av电影中文网址| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 两性夫妻黄色片| 精品少妇内射三级| av欧美777| 制服诱惑二区| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 亚洲精品一二三| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 久久狼人影院| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 日韩视频一区二区在线观看| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 日韩免费av在线播放| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 丁香六月天网| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看 | 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| 香蕉国产在线看| 天天躁日日躁夜夜躁夜夜| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 久久久精品区二区三区| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 超色免费av| 色播在线永久视频| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| av网站在线播放免费| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 麻豆av在线久日| 精品少妇内射三级| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 操美女的视频在线观看| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 久久免费观看电影| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 亚洲第一青青草原| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人 | 十八禁网站免费在线| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9 | 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 搡老乐熟女国产| www日本在线高清视频| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 精品久久久久久电影网| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 国产精品免费视频内射| 久热这里只有精品99| 满18在线观看网站| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 日韩欧美三级三区| 国产成人影院久久av| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 美女主播在线视频| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| videos熟女内射| 青草久久国产| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 一区二区三区激情视频| 夜夜爽天天搞| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 后天国语完整版免费观看| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 国产麻豆69| 午夜两性在线视频| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| av电影中文网址| 国产在线视频一区二区| 精品第一国产精品| 国产不卡av网站在线观看| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 亚洲精品在线美女| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | 国产精品免费视频内射| 满18在线观看网站| 成人永久免费在线观看视频 | 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 岛国毛片在线播放| 久久青草综合色| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| tube8黄色片| 视频区图区小说| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 国产激情久久老熟女| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 99香蕉大伊视频| 午夜两性在线视频| 最新的欧美精品一区二区| 久久久久网色| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 丁香六月欧美| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕 | 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 国产又爽黄色视频| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| av片东京热男人的天堂| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 久久免费观看电影| 黄色成人免费大全| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 欧美日韩av久久| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 美国免费a级毛片| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| av视频免费观看在线观看| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| 国产成人系列免费观看| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 日韩制服丝袜自拍偷拍| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 在线看a的网站| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 无限看片的www在线观看| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸| 日日夜夜操网爽| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 国产高清videossex| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 黄色 视频免费看| 超色免费av| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 手机成人av网站| 国产成人精品无人区| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 久久99一区二区三区| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 天天添夜夜摸| av电影中文网址| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | 丁香六月天网| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 精品一区二区三卡| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 中国美女看黄片| 精品国产国语对白av| 日本欧美视频一区| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 另类亚洲欧美激情| av福利片在线| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 无人区码免费观看不卡 | 黄频高清免费视频| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 中文欧美无线码| av不卡在线播放| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区 | 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影 | 午夜福利视频精品| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 一本久久精品| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 一级黄色大片毛片| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 久久久久视频综合| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 天天操日日干夜夜撸| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看| 国产不卡av网站在线观看| 视频区图区小说| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 久久亚洲真实| 99九九在线精品视频| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 一本综合久久免费| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 亚洲综合色网址| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 中国美女看黄片| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9 | 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 宅男免费午夜| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色 | 午夜福利视频精品| 国产一卡二卡三卡精品| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 国产精品免费大片| 91成人精品电影| 成人手机av| 午夜激情av网站| 香蕉丝袜av| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| av天堂久久9| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 欧美黑人精品巨大| 91老司机精品| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说 | 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 成人手机av| 91字幕亚洲| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 久久99一区二区三区| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 久久久国产成人免费| 嫩草影视91久久| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频 | 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 成年动漫av网址| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 在线 av 中文字幕| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 老熟女久久久| www.精华液| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 满18在线观看网站| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 成人手机av| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 蜜桃国产av成人99| 在线av久久热| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 99国产精品99久久久久| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久 | 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 国产av精品麻豆| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 日韩有码中文字幕| 亚洲第一av免费看| 9色porny在线观看| 久久中文字幕人妻熟女| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 日韩有码中文字幕| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 久久中文字幕人妻熟女| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 精品国产亚洲在线| 成人国语在线视频| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 欧美黑人精品巨大| 夫妻午夜视频| 久久久欧美国产精品| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 乱人伦中国视频| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 悠悠久久av| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美| 国产av又大| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| tocl精华| 另类精品久久| 久久性视频一级片| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 亚洲人成电影观看| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 欧美乱妇无乱码| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 三级毛片av免费| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| av一本久久久久| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 久久国产精品影院| 操美女的视频在线观看| 日韩欧美三级三区| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 久久九九热精品免费| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕 | 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av | 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 一区二区av电影网| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 日本av免费视频播放| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 91老司机精品| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av | 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色 | 男女免费视频国产| 久久国产精品影院| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 天天添夜夜摸| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽 | 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 满18在线观看网站| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 欧美日韩黄片免| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| 午夜老司机福利片| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线 | 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 久久久久久亚洲精品国产蜜桃av| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 精品久久久久久电影网| 天堂动漫精品| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女 | 亚洲av美国av| 激情在线观看视频在线高清 | 超碰成人久久| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影 | 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| av不卡在线播放| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站|