ÄËß ÏÐÀÊÒÈ×ÅÑÊÈÕ ÂÐÀ×ÅÉ ÌÐÒ-ÄÈÀÃÍÎÑÒÈÊÀ ÑÎÑÒÎßÍÈß ÏÎÇÂÎÍÎ×ÍÈÊÀ ÏÎÑËÅ ÄÈÑÊÝÊÒÎÌÈÈ ÓÄÊ 616.721.1-089-073.756.8 À.Â. Õîëèí, Ê.È. Ñåáåëåâ ÃÎÓ ÄÏÎ «Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðãñêàÿ ìåäèöèíñêàÿ àêàäåìèÿ ïîñëåäèïëîìíîãî îáðàçîâàíèÿ Ðîñçäðàâà», ðåêòîð ä.ì.í. Î.Ã. Õóðöèëàâà Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã Ïåðå÷èñëåíû âîçìîæíûå áëèæàéøèå è îòäàëåííûå îñëîæíåíèÿ ïîñëå îïåðàöèè äèñêýêòîìèè, îïèñàíû èõ êëèíè÷åñêèå ïðîÿâëåíèÿ è ìåòîäû äèàãíîñòèêè. Äàíà ïîäðîáíàÿ ÌÐÒ-êàðòèíà ïîçâîíî÷íèêà â áëèæàéøèå 6 ìåñÿöåâ ïîñëå îïåðàòèâíîãî âìåøàòåëüñòâà. Êëþ÷åâûå ñëîâà: äèñêýêòîìèÿ, îñëîæíåíèÿ, ìàãíèòíî-ðåçîíàíñíàÿ òîìîãðàôèÿ. MAGNETIC RESONANCE TOMOGRAPHY OF SPINE AFTER DISKECTOMY A.V. Kholin, K.I. Sebelev The author lists then possible immediate and remote complications after diskectomy and describes clinical presentations and methods of diagnostics at this pathology. Detailed MR-imaging of spine in 6 months after operation is presented. Key words: diskectomy, complications, ìagnetic resonance tomography. Îöåíêà ñîñòîÿíèÿ ïîÿñíè÷íîãî îòäåëà ïîçâîíî÷íèêà ïîñëå îïåðàöèè ÿâëÿåòñÿ âàæíîé è ñëîæíîé çàäà÷åé. Îò ïðàâèëüíîé òðàêòîâêè âûÿâëåííûõ èçìåíåíèé çàâèñèò âûáîð äàëüíåéøåé òàêòèêè ëå÷åíèÿ ïàöèåíòà.  ïåðâûå äíè ïîñëå îïåðàöèè íàáëþäàåòñÿ îò¸ê ìÿãêèõ òêàíåé è èõ ïðîïèòûâàíèå êðîâüþ. Ìàññ-ýôôåêò â ýòîò ïåðèîä ìîæåò ñèìóëèðîâàòü íåóäàë¸ííóþ ãðûæó. ×àñòî òàêèå íàõîäêè ïðè ÌÐÒ íàçûâàþò «ïñåâäîãðûæåé». Èçâåñòíî, ÷òî å¸ íàëè÷èå è ðàçìåðû íå êîððåëèðóþò ñ îòäàë¸ííûìè ïîñëåîïåðàöèîííûìè èçìåíåíèÿìè. Îò¸ê èñ÷åçàåò ïðèìåðíî ÷åðåç 3 íåäåëè ïîñëå îïåðàöèè, õîòÿ ïñåâäîãðûæè ñîõðàíÿþòñÿ â òå÷åíèå 2 ìåñ. è äàæå äîëüøå.  ïåðâûå ìåñÿöû ïîñëå îïåðàöèè îòìå÷àåòñÿ ïîâûøåííûé ñèãíàë íà Ò2-çàâèñèìûõ ÌÐÒ îò êîñòíîãî ìîçãà, çàìûêàòåëüíûõ ïëàñòèíîê è ïóëüïîçíîãî ÿäðà. Ýòî îòðàæàåò îòåê è àñåïòè÷åñêîå âîñïàëåíèå. Äî 6 ìåñÿöåâ ïîñëå îïåðàöèè ñîõðàíÿþòñÿ ðåàêòèâíûé ýïèäóðèò, àðàõíîèäèò è äèñöèò. Îíè âèäíû êàê êîíòðàñòíîå óñèëåíèå îáîëî÷åê, ýïèäóðàëüíîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà è çàìûêàòåëüíûõ ïëàñòèí. Íàðóøåíèå ãåìàòîýíöåôàëè÷åñêîãî áàðüåðà ïðèâîäèò òàêæå è ê êîíòðàñòèðîâàíèþ êîðåøêà. Ó áîëüøåé ÷àñòè ïàöèåíòîâ â îòâåò íà îïåðàöèþ íàáëþäàåòñÿ êîíòðàñòèðîâàíèå äóãîîòðîñò÷àòîãî ñóñòàâà, ñîõðàíÿþùååñÿ áîëüøå 6 ìåñ. [4, 6]. ÒÐÀÂÌÀÒÎËÎÃÈß È ÎÐÒÎÏÅÄÈß Ïîñëå 6 ìåñ. ðåàêòèâíûé îò¸ê è âîñïàëåíèå ñòèõàþò, äèñê ïîñòåïåííî ïðèîáðåòàåò òèïè÷íî íèçêóþ èíòåíñèâíîñòü ñèãíàëà, è â í¸ì ïîÿâëÿåòñÿ ëèíèÿ ôèáðîçà. Ê 6 ìåñ. îò¸ê â ïåðåäíåì ýïèäóðàëüíîì ïðîñòðàíñòâå ñìåíÿåòñÿ ôèáðîçîì, êîòîðûé ó áîëüøèíñòâà ïàöèåíòîâ óæå íå óìåíüøàåòñÿ â îáú¸ìå, ëèáî óìåíüøàåòñÿ î÷åíü íåçíà÷èòåëüíî â òå÷åíèå ïåðâîãî ãîäà ïîñëå îïåðàöèè [24]. Ó ÷àñòè ïàöèåíòîâ ïîñëå îïåðàöèè äèñêýêòîìèè â ðàçíûå ñðîêè âîçíèêàþò ðåöèäèâíûå áîëè.  çàðóáåæíîé ëèòåðàòóðå òàêîå ñîñòîÿíèå îáîçíà÷àåòñÿ òåðìèíîì failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), ò. å. ñèíäðîì íåóäà÷íûõ îïåðàöèé. ×àñòîòà ýòîãî ñèíäðîìà ñîñòàâëÿåò 1040% [1, 8, 11, 14, 22]. Ñóùåñòâåííûé ðàçáðîñ â ñòàòèñòèêå ñâÿçàí ñ ðàçíûìè ïðè÷èíàìè: ïîäáîðîì áîëüíûõ äëÿ îïåðàöèîííîãî ëå÷åíèÿ, òèïîì îïåðàöèè, ðåàáèëèòàöèîííûìè ìåðîïðèÿòèÿìè è îöåíêîé ñîñòîÿíèÿ ïîñëå îïåðàöèè. Êëèíè÷åñêîå óõóäøåíèå ïî ñðàâíåíèþ ñ äîîïåðàöèîííûì ñîñòîÿíèåì íàõîäèòñÿ â ïðåäåëàõ 110%. Îñíîâíûå ïðè÷èíû ðåöèäèâíîãî áîëåâîãî ñèíäðîìà: 1) íåïîñðåäñòâåííî ñâÿçàííûå ñ îïåðàöèåé, âñòðå÷àþòñÿ îòíîñèòåëüíî ÷àñòî: àäãåçèâíûé àðàõíîèäèò; èíôåêöèè; ÿòðîãåííûå (ïîâðåæäåíèå êîðåøêà); ÐÎÑÑÈÈ 3 (57) 2010 143 ÄËß ÏÐÀÊÒÈ×ÅÑÊÈÕ ÂÐÀ×ÅÉ ïîñëåîïåðàöèîííîå ñîñòîÿíèå ýïèäóðàëüíûé ôèáðîç, ñòåíîç ïîçâîíî÷íîãî êàíàëà (îòâåðñòèÿ) ñ êîìïðåññèåé êîðåøêà; 2) íå ñâÿçàííûå ñ ãðûæåé äèñêà è îïåðàöèåé, âñòðå÷àþòñÿ ðåäêî: ïåðâè÷íûå îïóõîëè è ìåòàñòàçû â ïîçâîíêè; çàáîëåâàíèÿ ïîçâîíî÷íèêà îñòåîïîðîç è êîìïðåññèîííûå ïåðåëîìû, âîñïàëèòåëüíûå çàáîëåâàíèÿ ñóñòàâîâ (ðåâìàòîèäíûé àðòðèò, ñèíäðîì Ðåéòåðà è ò. ä.); èððàäèàöèÿ áîëåé ïðè ïàíêðåàòèòå, ðàññëàèâàþùåé àíåâðèçìå áðþøíîé àîðòû, ðàêå ïðåäñòàòåëüíîé æåëåçû. Áëèæàéøåå îñëîæíåíèå îïåðàöèè áàêòåðèàëüíûé ñïîíäèëîäèñöèò. Åãî ÷àñòîòà, ïî äàííûì ëèòåðàòóðû, ñîñòàâëÿåò 012% (â ñðåäíåì 13%). Íàñòîðàæèâàòü äîëæíî óñèëåíèå áîëåâîãî ñèíäðîìà è âîñïàëèòåëüíàÿ ðåàêöèÿ êðîâè. Ïðè ÌÐÒ âèäíà ðàçìûòîñòü çàìûêàòåëüíûõ ïëàñòèíîê è îò¸ê êîñòíîãî ìîçãà. Ýòè ñèìïòîìû íåñïåöèôè÷íû, òàê êàê ðåàêòèâíûé àñåïòè÷åñêèé äèñöèò âûãëÿäèò òàê æå. Ôîðìèðîâàíèå ýïèäóðàëüíîãî àáñöåññà ïðîèñõîäèò ïîçæå, êîãäà êëèíè÷åñêèå ïðîÿâëåíèÿ óæå î÷åâèäíû. Îòäàë¸ííûìè ïîñëåäñòâèÿìè äèñêýêòîìèè ÿâëÿþòñÿ ñóæåíèå îòâåðñòèÿ çà ñ÷¸ò íèçêîãî äèñêà (åãî îñòàòêà) è ãèïåðòðîôèè äóãîîòðîñò÷àòîãî ñóñòàâà; ýïèäóðàëüíûé ôèáðîç ñ íàðóøåíèåì ïèòàíèÿ äèñêà. Èñòìè÷åñêèé ñïîíäèëîëèñòåç è áîêîâîé ñòåíîç ïîçâîíî÷íîãî êàíàëà ñîñòàâëÿþò ñâûøå 50% ïðè÷èí ðåöèäèâíûõ áîëåé [8, 29]. Ïðè óìåíüøåíèè âûñîòû äèñêà â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü ñòðàäàåò áîêîâîé (ñóáàðòèêóëÿðíûé) êàðìàí ìåñòî âõîäà êîðåøêà â ìåæïîçâîíî÷íûé êàíàë. Ïðè÷èíîé áîëåé ñëóæèò îò¸ê êîðåøêà. Îí âîçíèêàåò ïðè íàðóøåíèè âåíîçíîãî îòòîêà èç-çà êîìïðåññèè çàäíåãî êîðåøêà, îáû÷íî îñòåîôèòîì. Àäãåçèâíûé àðàõíîèäèò íàèìåíåå èçó÷åííàÿ ïðè÷èíà ðåöèäèâíîãî áîëåâîãî ñèíäðîìà. ×àñòî òåðìèíû «àðàõíîèäèò» è «ìåíèíãèò» èñïîëüçóþò êàê ðàâíîçíà÷íûå, ÷òî ïî ñóòè ñâîåé íåâåðíî. Ìåíèíãèò ýòî äèôôóçíîå âîñïàëåíèå îáîëî÷åê ìîçãà, êàê ïðàâèëî, áàêòåðèàëüíîé ýòèîëîãèè. Àðàõíîèäèò îãðàíè÷èâàåòñÿ òîëüêî ïàóòèííîé îáîëî÷êîé è ñâÿçàí ñ íåñïåöèôè÷åñêîé âîñïàëèòåëüíîé ðåàêöèåé. Ñâåäåíèÿ î í¸ì â ëèòåðàòóðå î÷åíü ïðîòèâîðå÷èâûå, îò ïîëíîãî îòðèöàíèÿ åãî ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ äî àáñîëþòèçàöèè åãî çíà÷åíèÿ. Êëèíè÷åñêèå ïðîÿâëåíèÿ ëþìáî-ñàêðàëüíîãî àðàõíîèäèòà â çàðóáåæíîé ëèòåðàòóðå ÷àñòî îáîçíà÷àþò êàê regional complex pain disorder (RCPD), à ó íàñ ÷àùå êàê «êàóçàëãèÿ». Ïîñëåîïåðàöèîííûé àðàõíîèäèò ïðèâîäèò ê ñëèïàíèþ êîðåøêîâ è ôîðìèðîâàíèþ «ïóñòîãî» äóðàëüíîãî ìåøêà. Ýòî ñîñòîÿíèå îòðàæàåò íå òîëüêî ðàñïîëîæåíèå êîðåøêîâ, íî è èõ àòðîôèþ âñëåäñòâèå íàðóøåíèÿ ïèòàíèÿ. 144 3 (57) 2010 Ïîñëå ñòèõàíèÿ ðåàêòèâíîãî ýïèäóðèòà îñòà¸òñÿ ãðàíóëÿöèîííàÿ òêàíü, èç êîòîðîé ïîñòåïåííî ôîðìèðóåòñÿ ýïèäóðàëüíûé ôèáðîç è ìÿãêîòêàííûé ðóáåö. Âûðàæåííîñòü ýïèäóðàëüíîãî ôèáðîçà çàâèñèò îò ñâîéñòâ òêàíåé, òèïà è îáú¸ìà îïåðàöèè (ãåìèëàìèíýêòîìèÿ, ìàëîèíâàçèâíàÿ è ò. ï.). Ñàìî ïî ñåáå ðàçâèòèå ýïèäóðàëüíîãî ôèáðîçà íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïàòîëîãè÷åñêèì ñîñòîÿíèåì. Îäíàêî, åñëè ôèáðîç ìóôòîîáðàçíî îõâàòûâàåò êîðåøîê, îí íàðóøàåò åãî ïèòàíèå [19]. Ïðåäïîëîæèòåëüíî, ñ ôèáðîçîì ñâÿçàíî îêîëî 8% ðåöèäèâíûõ áîëåé. Ñêîðåå âñåãî, ìåæäó âûðàæåííîñòüþ ôèáðîçà è âåðîÿòíîñòüþ ðåöèäèâíîãî áîëåâîãî ñèíäðîìà èìååòñÿ êîððåëÿöèÿ [20, 25], ÷òî çàìå÷åíî íå âñåìè èññëåäîâàòåëÿìè [10]. Ðåöèäèâíûå ãðûæè äèñêîâ ïîñëå ëàìèíýêòîìèè ñîñòàâëÿþò 1520% [3] è íåñêîëüêî íèæå ïîñëå ìèêðîõèðóðãè÷åñêèõ îïåðàöèé [2], ÷òî ïðèìåðíî â 2 ðàçà ÷àùå ýïèäóðàëüíîãî ôèáðîçà. Ðåöèäèâíîé ñ÷èòàåòñÿ âûÿâëåííàÿ ãðûæà íà óðîâíå îïåðàöèè, íà òîé æå èëè ïðîòèâîïîëîæíîé ñòîðîíå, ïîñëå áåçáîëåâîãî èíòåðâàëà íå ìåíüøå 6 ìåñ.  ëèòåðàòóðå èìåþòñÿ âåñüìà ïðîòèâîðå÷èâûå ñâåäåíèÿ î ôàêòîðàõ ðèñêà ðåöèäèâà ãðûæè. Åñòü äàííûå, ÷òî ïðè äèàáåòå ðåöèäèâû ãðûæè âñòðå÷àþòñÿ ÷àùå [26], íî ýòî ïîäòâåðæäàåòñÿ íå âñåìè èññëåäîâàíèÿìè [21]. Îòñóòñòâèå ôðàãìåíòà äèñêà â ãðûæå (äèôôóçíûé ïðîëàïñ ôèáðîçíîãî êîëüöà), ïî äàííûì E.J. Carragee ñ ñîàâòîðàìè, ñâÿçàíî ñ áîëåå âûñîêîé ÷àñòîòîé å¸ ðåöèäèâîâ ïîñëå îïåðàöèè [9]. Äðóãèå èññëåäîâàòåëè íå âèäåëè ñâÿçè ðåöèäèâîâ ñ ôîðìîé è òèïîì ãðûæè [17, 27]. Äèôôåðåíöèàëüíàÿ äèàãíîñòèêà ìåæäó ôèáðîçîì è ðåöèäèâíîé ãðûæåé ÿâëÿåòñÿ êëþ÷åâûì ìîìåíòîì â âûáîðå òàêòèêè ëå÷åíèÿ. Èíòåíñèâíîñòü ñèãíàëà íà íåêîíòðàñòèðîâàííûõ ÌÐÒ ïðè ýòèõ çàáîëåâàíèÿõ îäèíàêîâàÿ. Ãðûæà ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðîäîëæåíèåì äèñêà, è îíà îáû÷íî îòãðàíè÷èâàåòñÿ ãèïîèíòåíñèâíîé çàäíåé ïðîäîëüíîé ñâÿçêîé. Îäíàêî ïðè ñåêâåñòðàöèè ýòà ñâÿçü òåðÿåòñÿ è ïîäîáíî ôèáðîçó ñåêâåñòð ìîæåò ðàñïîëàãàòüñÿ â ñòîðîíå îò äèñêà. Ðåòðàêöèÿ äóðàëüíîãî ìåøêà â ñòîðîíó îáðàçîâàíèÿ êîñâåííî óêàçûâàåò íà ôèáðîç [25], êîìïðåññèÿ äóðàëüíîãî ìåøêà õàðàêòåðíåå äëÿ ãðûæè. Ýòè ïðèçíàêè èìåþò î÷åíü íåâûñîêóþ ñòåïåíü ñïåöèôè÷íîñòè. Äèñê è ãðûæà îáðàçîâàíèÿ áåññîñóäèñòûå, à ãðàíóëÿöèîííàÿ òêàíü è ôèáðîç, íàïðîòèâ, ñîäåðæàò ñîñóäû. Ïîýòîìó îíè êîíòðàñòèðóþòñÿ, ÷òî ïîçâîëÿåò îòëè÷àòü ðóáåö îò ðåöèäèâíîé ãðûæè (ðèñ.). Êîíòðàñòèðîâàíèå ñâÿçàíî ñ íàëè÷èåì âàñêóëÿðèçàöèè, òî÷íîñòü ìåòîäà ïðåâûøàåò 90% [13]. Ïðîáëåìà ñîñòîèò â òîì, ÷òî ðåöèäèâíàÿ ãðûæà è ýïèäóðàëüíûé ôèáðîç íå èñêëþ÷àþò äðóã äðóãà, à ÷àñòî ñîñóùåñòâóþò. Ýòî ñóùåñòâåííî çàòðóäíÿåò ïîñòàíîâêó ïðàâèëüíîãî äèàãíîçà. ÒÐÀÂÌÀÒÎËÎÃÈß È ÎÐÒÎÏÅÄÈß ÐÎÑÑÈÈ ÄËß ÏÐÀÊÒÈ×ÅÑÊÈÕ ÂÐÀ×ÅÉ à á Ðèñ. Ñîñòîÿíèå ïîñëå ãåìèëàìèíýêòîìèè è äèñêýêòîìèè íà óðîâíå L5/S1: à Ò2-çàâèñèìàÿ ñàãèòòàëüíàÿ òîìîãðàììà, ýïèäóðàëüíûé ôèáðîç; á àêñèàëüíàÿ Ò1-çàâèñèìàÿ òîìîãðàììà Ëèòåðàòóðà 1. Ãåëüôåíáåéí, Ì.Ñ. Ìåæäóíàðîäíûé êîíãðåññ, ïîñâÿùåííûé ëå÷åíèþ õðîíè÷åñêîãî áîëåâîãî ñèíäðîìà ïîñëå îïåðàöèé íà ïîÿñíè÷íîì îòäåëå ïîçâîíî÷íèêà PAIN MANAGEMENT 98 (FAILED BACK SURGERY SYNDROME) / Ì.Ñ. Ãåëüôåíáåéí // Íåéðîõèðóðãèÿ. 2000. ¹ 12. Ñ. 65. 2. Ùåðáóê Þ.À. Çíà÷åíèå ýíäîñêîïè÷åñêîãî âèäåîìîíèòîðèíãà â ïðåäóïðåæäåíèè ðåöèäèâîâ äèñêîãåííûõ ïîÿñíè÷íî-êðåñòöîâûõ ðàäèêóëèòîâ ïðè èõ õèðóðãè÷åñêîì ëå÷åíèè / Þ.À. Ùåðáóê, Â.Å. Ïàðôåíîâ, Ñ.Â. Òîïòûãèí // Íåéðîõèðóðãèÿ. 1999. ¹ 3. Ñ. 912. 3. Þìàøåâ, Ã.Ñ. Îñòåîõîíäðîç ïîçâîíî÷íèêà / Ã.Ñ. Þìàøåâ, Ì.Å. Ôóðìàí. Ì. : Ìåäèöèíà, 1984. 382 ñ. 4. Babar, S. MRI of the post-discectomy lumbar spine / S. Babar, A. Saifuddin // Clin. Radiol. 2002. Vol. 57. P. 969981. 5. Barrera, M.C. Post-operative lumbar spine: comparative study of TSE T2 and turbo-FLAIR sequences vs contrastenhanced SE / M.C. Barrera [et al.] //Clin. Radiol. 2001. Vol. 56. P. 133137. 6. Boden, S.D. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging performed after successful lumbar disk surgery: prospective study / S.D. Boden [et al.] // Radiology. 1992. Vol. 182. P. 5964. 7. Bosscher H.A. Incidence and severity of epidural fibrosis after back surgery: an endoscopic study // Pain Pract. 2009. Vol. 10, N 1. P. 1824. 8. Burton, C.V. Causes of failure of surgery on the lumbar spine / C.V. Burton, W.H. Kirkaldy-Willis, K. YongHing, K.B. Heithoff // Clin. Orthopaedics. 1981. Vol. 157. P. 192195. 9. Carragee, E.J. Clinical outcomes after lumbar discectomy for sciatica: the effects of fragment type and anular competence / E.J. Carragee [et al.] // J. Bone Joint Surg. 2003. Vol. 85-A. P. 102108. 10. Cervellini P. Computed tomography of epidural fibrosis after discectomy: a comparison between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients / P. Cervellini [et al.] // Neurosurgery. 1988. Vol. 23. P. 710713. ÒÐÀÂÌÀÒÎËÎÃÈß È ÎÐÒÎÏÅÄÈß 11. Davis, R.A. A long-term outcome analysis of 984 surgically treated herniated lumbar discs / R.A. Davis / / J. Neurosurg. 1994. Vol. 80. P. 415421. 12. Deutsch, A.L. Lumbar spine following successful surgical discectomy. Magnetic resonance imaging features and implications / A.L. Deutsch [et al.] // Spine. 1993. Vol. 18. P. 10541060. 13. Fan, Y.F. Failed back surgery syndrome: differentiating epidural fibrosis and recurrent disc prolapsed with GD-DTPA enhanced MRI / Y.F. Fan, V.F. Chong, S.K. Tan // Singapore Med. J. 1995. Vol. 36. P. 153156. 14. Fritsch, E.W. The failed back surgery syndrome: reasons, intraoperative findings, and long-term results: a report of 182 operative treatments / E.W. Fritsch, J. Heisel, S. Rupp // Spine. 1996. Vol. 21. P. 626633. 15. Georgy, B.A. Fat-suppression contrast- enhanced MRI in the failed back surgery syndrome: a prospective study / B.A. Georgy, J.R. Hesselink, M.S. Middleton / / Neuroradiology. 1995. Vol. 37. P. 5157. 16. Glickstein, M.F. Time-dependent scar enhancement in magnetic resonance imaging of the postoperative lumbar spine / M.F. Glickstein, S.K. Sussman // Skeletal Radiol. 1991. Vol. 20. P. 333337. 17. Grane, P. Postoperative lumbar MR imaging with contrast enhancement. Comparison between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients / P. Grane [et al.] // Acta Radiol. 1996. Vol. 37. P. 366372. 18. Haughton, V. Contrast between scar and recurrent herniated disk on contrast-enhanced MR images / V. Haughton, K. Schreibman, A. De Smet // Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2002. Vol. 23. P. 16521656. 19. Jayson, M. The role of vascular damage and fibrosis in the pathogenesis of nerve root damage / M. Jayson // Clin. Orthop. 1992. Vol. 279. P. 4048. 20. Maroon, J. Association between periradicular scar and persistent low back pain after lumbar discectomy / J. Maroon, A. Abla, J. Bost // Neurol. Res. 1999. Vol. 21, Suppl. 1. S. 4346. 21. Mobbs, R.J. Lumbar discectomy and the diabetic patient: incidence and outcome / R.J. Mobbs, R.L. Newcombe, K.N. Chandran // J. Clin. Neurosci. 2001. Vol. 8. P. 1013. ÐÎÑÑÈÈ 3 (57) 2010 145 ÄËß ÏÐÀÊÒÈ×ÅÑÊÈÕ ÂÐÀ×ÅÉ 22. Robertson, J.T. Role of peridural fibrosis in the failed back: A review / J.T. Robertson // Eur. Spine J. 1996. Vol. 5, Suppl. 1. S. 26. 23. Ross, J. MR evaluation of epidural fibrosis: proposed grading system with intra- and inter-observer variability / J. Ross, N. Obuchowski, M. Modic // Neurol. Res. 1999. Vol. 21, Suppl. 1. S. 2326. 24. Ross, J. The postoperative lumbar spine: evaluation of epidural scar over 1-year period / J. Ross, N. Obuchowski, R. Zepp // Am. J. Neuroradiol. 1998. Vol. 19. P. 183186. 25. Ross, J.S. MR imaging of the postoperative lumbar spine / J.S. Ross // Magn. Reson. Imaging Clin. N. Am. 1999. Vol. 7. P. 513524. 26. Simpson, J.M. The results of operations on the lumbar spine in patients who have diabetes mellitus / J.M. Simpson [et al.] // J. Bone Joint Surg. 1993. Vol. 75-A. P. 18231829. 27. Suk, K.S. Recurrent lumbar disc herniation: results of operative management / K.S. Suk [et al.] // Spine. 2001. Vol. 26. P. 672676. 28. Van de Kelft, E.J. Early postoperative gadolinium-DTPAenhanced MR imaging after successful lumbar discectomy / E.J. Van de Kelft [et al.] // Br. J. Neurosurg. 1996. Vol. 10. P. 4149. 29. Waguespack, A. Etiology of long-term failures of lumbar spine surgery / A. Waguespack, J. Schofferman, P. Slosar, J. Reynolds // Pain Med. 2002. Vol. 3. Ð. 1822. ÑÂÅÄÅÍÈß ÎÁ ÀÂÒÎÐÀÕ: Õîëèí Àëåêñàíäð Âàñèëüåâè÷ ä.ì.í. ïðîôåññîð, çàâåäóþùèé êàôåäðîé ëó÷åâîé äèàãíîñòèêè Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðãñêîé ìåäèöèíñêîé àêàäåìèè ïîñëåäèïëîìíîãî îáðàçîâàíèÿ e-mail: [email protected]; Ñåáåëåâ Êîíñòàíòèí Èâàíîâè÷ ê.ì.í. äîöåíò êàôåäðû ëó÷åâîé äèàãíîñòèêè Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðãñêîé ìåäèöèíñêîé àêàäåìèè ïîñëåäèïëîìíîãî îáðàçîâàíèÿ. 146 3 (57) 2010 ÒÐÀÂÌÀÒÎËÎÃÈß È ÎÐÒÎÏÅÄÈß ÐÎÑÑÈÈ