• <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.

    少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 日日夜夜操网爽| 国产精品九九99| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 久久精品亚洲熟妇少妇任你| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| av视频免费观看在线观看| 黄色成人免费大全| 91大片在线观看| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 高清av免费在线| av片东京热男人的天堂| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| a在线观看视频网站| 91成年电影在线观看| 国产av精品麻豆| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 大型av网站在线播放| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 夫妻午夜视频| 亚洲国产av新网站| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 在线 av 中文字幕| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 日本五十路高清| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 亚洲精品在线美女| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影 | 两个人看的免费小视频| 五月天丁香电影| 波多野结衣av一区二区av| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 精品高清国产在线一区| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 三级毛片av免费| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费 | 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影 | 激情视频va一区二区三区| 热99久久久久精品小说推荐| 大香蕉久久成人网| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 久久久欧美国产精品| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 国产成人精品无人区| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 成人永久免费在线观看视频 | 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 777久久人妻少妇嫩草av网站| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人 | 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 99久久国产精品久久久| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av | 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 一进一出抽搐动态| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 又大又爽又粗| 成人精品一区二区免费| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 桃花免费在线播放| 99国产精品一区二区三区| av在线播放免费不卡| 一夜夜www| 1024视频免费在线观看| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 国产精品1区2区在线观看. | 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站| 性少妇av在线| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | cao死你这个sao货| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女 | netflix在线观看网站| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 一区二区三区激情视频| 国产成人精品在线电影| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 免费看a级黄色片| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 十八禁网站免费在线| 久久99一区二区三区| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 香蕉丝袜av| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| 蜜桃国产av成人99| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区 | 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 国产成人精品在线电影| 国产精品免费大片| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 91av网站免费观看| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 成人免费观看视频高清| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 欧美日韩av久久| 亚洲av美国av| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 久热这里只有精品99| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 精品少妇内射三级| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 午夜福利视频精品| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 两性夫妻黄色片| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 热99久久久久精品小说推荐| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 露出奶头的视频| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区 | 一夜夜www| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 在线观看人妻少妇| 免费看十八禁软件| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 91字幕亚洲| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 电影成人av| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 满18在线观看网站| 黄片播放在线免费| 老熟女久久久| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 国产av又大| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 一区福利在线观看| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 欧美在线黄色| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 日本欧美视频一区| 99久久国产精品久久久| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 国产成人精品久久二区二区91| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址 | 91国产中文字幕| 午夜久久久在线观看| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| a级毛片黄视频| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 搡老乐熟女国产| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 久久 成人 亚洲| 亚洲国产看品久久| 久久这里只有精品19| 欧美日韩精品网址| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 国产激情久久老熟女| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 在线观看www视频免费| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 亚洲国产欧美网| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 人人澡人人妻人| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 国产av又大| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 在线天堂中文资源库| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 99九九在线精品视频| 国产不卡av网站在线观看| 在线av久久热| 久久久久久久国产电影| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 精品一区二区三卡| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| h视频一区二区三区| 免费看十八禁软件| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的| 免费观看人在逋| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 亚洲免费av在线视频| 午夜视频精品福利| 国产精品成人在线| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 丝袜美足系列| 大香蕉久久网| 国产av国产精品国产| h视频一区二区三区| 99香蕉大伊视频| 曰老女人黄片| 热99久久久久精品小说推荐| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区 | 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 啦啦啦在线免费观看视频4| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 久久久精品区二区三区| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 成年版毛片免费区| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区 | 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 美国免费a级毛片| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区 | 91麻豆av在线| 18禁观看日本| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯 | 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 大型av网站在线播放| 丰满少妇做爰视频| av有码第一页| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 1024香蕉在线观看| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| avwww免费| 在线av久久热| 国产在线观看jvid| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 成人国语在线视频| 精品亚洲成国产av| 亚洲免费av在线视频| 乱人伦中国视频| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 久久久久久久国产电影| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| 久久久久久久国产电影| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 老司机靠b影院| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 中文字幕色久视频| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 精品久久久久久电影网| 国产野战对白在线观看| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 久久九九热精品免费| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 国产av精品麻豆| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| netflix在线观看网站| 一个人免费在线观看的高清视频| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 国产1区2区3区精品| 国产三级黄色录像| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 久久久久精品人妻al黑| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 亚洲国产欧美网| 天天添夜夜摸| 精品高清国产在线一区| 露出奶头的视频| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 天天躁日日躁夜夜躁夜夜| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕 | 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 香蕉久久夜色| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 久久这里只有精品19| 男女免费视频国产| 最黄视频免费看| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 99九九在线精品视频| 亚洲中文av在线| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 欧美精品av麻豆av| tube8黄色片| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 久久久精品区二区三区| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 大香蕉久久成人网| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 亚洲国产av新网站| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久 | 桃花免费在线播放| 99久久人妻综合| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 露出奶头的视频| av国产精品久久久久影院| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月 | 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线 | 美国免费a级毛片| 亚洲精品中文字幕一二三四区 | 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 在线观看人妻少妇| 一级毛片电影观看| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕 | 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 天堂动漫精品| 天天躁日日躁夜夜躁夜夜| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| 人人澡人人妻人| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 一本久久精品| 免费看十八禁软件| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 91麻豆av在线| 人妻一区二区av| 精品高清国产在线一区| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 99久久国产精品久久久| 美女午夜性视频免费| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区 | 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区 | 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区 | 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 亚洲色图av天堂| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 国产精品免费大片| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 欧美性长视频在线观看| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 嫩草影视91久久| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 亚洲成人免费av在线播放| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区久久| 一级片免费观看大全| 不卡一级毛片| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 国产精品电影一区二区三区 | 国产精品免费大片| 啦啦啦 在线观看视频| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 日韩免费av在线播放| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕 | 麻豆国产av国片精品| av线在线观看网站| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 大香蕉久久网| 下体分泌物呈黄色| 制服诱惑二区| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 50天的宝宝边吃奶边哭怎么回事| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 成年动漫av网址| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 男女免费视频国产| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 最新的欧美精品一区二区| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| svipshipincom国产片| 在线天堂中文资源库| 在线 av 中文字幕| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 一区福利在线观看| 午夜福利视频精品| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| av一本久久久久| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| bbb黄色大片| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月 | 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| svipshipincom国产片| videosex国产| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 国产av又大| 日韩视频在线欧美| 丁香六月欧美| 精品福利永久在线观看| www.自偷自拍.com| 成人影院久久| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 久久精品亚洲精品国产色婷小说| 日本av免费视频播放| 欧美在线黄色| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 麻豆av在线久日| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| videosex国产| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 在线天堂中文资源库| 欧美性长视频在线观看| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 美国免费a级毛片| 久久精品亚洲av国产电影网| 亚洲第一av免费看| 脱女人内裤的视频| 日韩人妻精品一区2区三区| 精品人妻1区二区| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 国产亚洲精品久久久久5区| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲 | 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 性少妇av在线| www.999成人在线观看| 欧美日韩av久久| 性少妇av在线| 91精品三级在线观看| 亚洲色图av天堂| 免费不卡黄色视频| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| av不卡在线播放| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影 | 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 久久99一区二区三区| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| cao死你这个sao货| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 中国美女看黄片| 国产在线观看jvid| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区久久| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 久久久欧美国产精品| www日本在线高清视频| 国产国语露脸激情在线看|