Literature DB >> 15157298

Back pain and disability after lumbar laminectomy: is there a relationship to muscle retraction?

Gorav Datta1, Kanna K Gnanalingham, David Peterson, Nigel Mendoza, Kevin O'Neill, James Van Dellen, Alison McGregor, Sean P F Hughes.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Preliminary studies have suggested that prolonged retraction of the paraspinal muscle during spinal surgery may produce ischemic damage. We report the continuous measurement of intramuscular pressure (IMP) during decompressive lumbar laminectomy and its relationship to subsequent back pain and disability.
METHODS: Twenty patients undergoing two-level decompressive lumbar laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis were recruited. Back pain and disability were assessed by use of the Visual Analog Score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short-Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey. During surgery, IMP was recorded continuously from the multifidus muscle by use of a pressure transducer. The intramuscular perfusion pressure (IPP) was estimated as the difference between the patient's mean arterial pressure and IMP.
RESULTS: Two muscle retractors were used: the Norfolk and Norwich (n = 10) and the McCulloch (n = 10). The mean duration of deep muscle retraction was 62.7 +/- 8 minutes (range, 19-133 min). On application of deep muscle retraction, there was a rapid and sustained increase in IMP (P < 0.001), and overall, the calculated mean IPP approached 0 mm Hg or less during this period (P < 0.001). On release of deep muscle retraction, there was a rapid decrease in IMP to preoperative levels. The IPP was greater with the Norfolk and Norwich than the McCulloch retractor (P < 0.001). Compared with preoperative values, there was a decrease in ODI (P < 0.001) and VAS for back pain (P < 0.001) at discharge and 4 to 6 weeks and 6 months after surgery. In addition, there was a decrease in SF-36 scores at 6 months compared with preoperative values (P < 0.001). Total duration of muscle retraction greater than 60 minutes was associated with worse VAS scores for back pain and ODI and SF-36 scores for disability at 6 months after surgery (P < 0.05). There was no relationship between the VAS, ODI, and SF-36 scores and other parameters measured, including the mean IPP, retractor type, operating surgeon, and wound length.
CONCLUSION: The McCulloch retractor generates a higher IMP than the Norfolk and Norwich retractor. However, postoperative improvement in VAS, ODI, and SF-36 scores in these patients was associated with a shorter duration of muscle retraction and not the degree of IMP or IPP generated. In this respect, periodic relaxation of the paraspinal muscle retractors during surgery to allow muscle perfusion may help to reduce postoperative back pain and disability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15157298     DOI: 10.1227/01.neu.0000124751.57121.a6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurgery        ISSN: 0148-396X            Impact factor:   4.654


  30 in total

1.  Comparison of open versus percutaneous pedicle screw insertion in a sheep model.

Authors:  W Lehmann; A Ushmaev; A Ruecker; J Nuechtern; L Grossterlinden; P G Begemann; T Baeumer; J M Rueger; D Briem
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-04-04       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Prashanth J Rao; Andrew C Kam; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Iatrogenic injury to the erector spinae during posterior lumbar spine surgery: underlying anatomical considerations, preventable root causes, and surgical tips and tricks.

Authors:  Zhi-Jun Hu; Xiang-Qian Fang; Shun-Wu Fan
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2013-02-17

4.  Effect of pure muscle retraction on multifidus injury and atrophy after posterior lumbar spine surgery with 24 weeks observation in a rabbit model.

Authors:  Zhi-Jun Hu; Jian-Feng Zhang; Wen-Bin Xu; Feng-Dong Zhao; Ji-Ying Wang; Shun-Wu Fan; Xiang-Qian Fang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Quantification of Multifidus Atrophy and Fatty Infiltration Following a Minimally Invasive Microdiscectomy.

Authors:  Ehsan Tabaraee; Junyoung Ahn; Daniel D Bohl; Frank M Phillips; Kern Singh
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-06-26

6.  The quantitative analysis of back muscle degeneration after posterior lumbar fusion: comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open surgery.

Authors:  Sang-Hyuk Min; Myung-Ho Kim; Joong-Bae Seo; Jee-Young Lee; Dae-Hee Lee
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2009-12-31

7.  Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Alan T Villavicencio; Sigita Burneikiene; Cassandra M Roeca; E Lee Nelson; Alexander Mason
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2010-05-31

Review 8.  The clinical course of pain and disability following surgery for spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Authors:  Carolina G Fritsch; Manuela L Ferreira; Christopher G Maher; Robert D Herbert; Rafael Z Pinto; Bart Koes; Paulo H Ferreira
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Can intermuscular cleavage planes provide proper transverse screw angle? Comparison of two paraspinal approaches.

Authors:  Xiaofei Cheng; Bin Ni; Qi Liu; Jinshui Chen; Huapeng Guan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-08-11       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Postoperative changes in paraspinal muscle volume: comparison between paramedian interfascial and midline approaches for lumbar fusion.

Authors:  Seung Jae Hyun; Young Baeg Kim; Yang Soo Kim; Seung Won Park; Taek Kyun Nam; Hyun Jong Hong; Jeong Taik Kwon
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.153

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.