Literature DB >> 16760779

Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies.

Kathryn J Stevens1, David B Spenciner, Karen L Griffiths, Kee D Kim, Marike Zwienenberg-Lee, Todd Alamin, Roland Bammer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion results in less paraspinal muscle damage than conventional open posterior fusion.
METHODS: The maximum intramuscular pressure (IMP) generated by a minimally invasive and standard open retractor was compared in cadavers using an ultra-miniature pressure transducer. In a second clinical study, eight patients with either minimally invasive or open posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning approximately 6 months post surgery. MRI was used to estimate edema and atrophy within multifidus, with T2 mapping and diffusion-weighted imaging allowing quantification of differences between the two surgical techniques.
RESULTS: IMP measured with the minimally invasive retractor was 1.4 versus 4.7 kPa with the open retractor (P < 0.001). The minimally invasive retractor produced a transient maximal IMP only on initial expansion. Maximum IMP was constant throughout open retractor deployment. Striking visual differences in muscle edema were seen between open and minimally invasive groups on MRI. The mean T2 relaxation time at the level of fusion was 47 milliseconds in the minimally invasive and 90 milliseconds in the open group (P = 0.013). The mean apparent diffusion coefficient was 1357 x 10(-6) mm/s and 1626 x 10(-6) mm(2)/s (P = 0.0184), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The peak IMP generated by the minimally invasive retractor was significantly less than with the open retractor. Postoperatively, less muscle edema was demonstrated after the minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion, with lower mean T2 and apparent diffusion coefficient measurements supporting the hypothesis that less damage occurs using a minimally invasive approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16760779     DOI: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000193820.42522.d9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech        ISSN: 1536-0652


  37 in total

1.  Percutaneous pars interarticularis screw fixation: a technical note.

Authors:  Lester Wilson; Farhaan Altaf; Philippa Tyler
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-26       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  A comparison of feasibility and safety of percutaneous fluoroscopic guided thoracic pedicle screws between Europeans and Asians: is there any difference?

Authors:  Mun Keong Kwan; Chee Kidd Chiu; Chris Yin Wei Chan; Reza Zamani; Nils Hansen-Algenstaedt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Biomechanical evaluation of a new AxiaLIF technique for two-level lumbar fusion.

Authors:  Serkan Erkan; Chunhui Wu; Amir A Mehbod; Brian Hsu; Douglas W Pahl; Ensor E Transfeldt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-04-08       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach.

Authors:  ShunWu Fan; ZhiJun Hu; FengDong Zhao; Xing Zhao; Yue Huang; Xiangqian Fang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-10-30       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  Complexities of spine surgery in obese patient populations: a narrative review.

Authors:  Gennadiy A Katsevman; Scott D Daffner; Nicholas J Brandmeir; Sanford E Emery; John C France; Cara L Sedney
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2019-12-24       Impact factor: 4.166

6.  Comparison of pedicle fixation by the Wiltse approach and the conventional posterior open approach for thoracolumbar fractures, using MRI, histological and electrophysiological analyses of the multifidus muscle.

Authors:  Liu Junhui; Pang Zhengbao; Xu Wenbin; Hao Lu; Li Shengyun; Fan Shunwu; Zhao Fengdong
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Minimally invasive spinal decompression surgery in diabetic patients: perioperative risks, complications and clinical outcomes compared with non-diabetic patients' cohort.

Authors:  G J Regev; R Lador; K Salame; L Mangel; A Cohen; Z Lidar
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-08-11       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  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

Review 9.  Cutting-edge imaging of the spine.

Authors:  A Talia Vertinsky; Michael V Krasnokutsky; Michael Augustin; Roland Bammer
Journal:  Neuroimaging Clin N Am       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.264

10.  Perioperative and short-term advantages of mini-open approach for lumbar spinal fusion.

Authors:  J Rodríguez-Vela; A Lobo-Escolar; E Joven-Aliaga; A Herrera; J Vicente; E Suñén; A Loste; A Tabuenca
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-04-28       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.