Literature DB >> 19652636

Mini-open versus conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparison of paraspinal muscle damage and slip reduction.

Takahiro Tsutsumimoto1, Mitsuhiko Shimogata, Hiroshi Ohta, Hiromichi Misawa.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A comparative analysis of paraspinal muscle damage and radiographic parameters after mini-open and conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether mini-open PLIF decreases paraspinal muscle damage and yields the same radiographic results as those in conventional open PLIF. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Compared with conventional open PLIF, mini-open PLIF using a paramedian approach reduces intraoperative hemorrhage and decreases postoperative back pain. However, whether the latter produces less paraspinal muscle damage than the former remains unclear. No comparative study has investigated slip reduction and segmental lordosis at the fusion level in the 2 techniques.
METHODS: We studied 20 patients (10 in each group) who had undergone single-level conventional (midline approach) or mini-open (bilateral Wiltse approach) PLIF with pedicle screws and interbody cages at the L4-L5 level for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. The rate of improvement in the Japanese Orthopedic Association score; radiographic parameters, including %slip; segmental lordotic angle at the L4-L5 level; and fusion rate were examined. Postoperative multifidus (MF) atrophy and degeneration were evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS.: No significant differences were detected between the 2 groups with respect to the rate of improvement in the Japanese Orthopedic Association score, segmental lordotic angle, and fusion rate. Both groups showed significant reduction in %slip after surgery. The degree of MF atrophy and the increase in T2-signal intensity in the MF muscle after mini-open PLIF were significantly lesser than those following open PLIF.
CONCLUSION: Mini-open PLIF is safe and effective. Mini-open PLIF was less invasive than open PLIF with regard to the MF muscle.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19652636     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a9d28e

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  41 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

Review 2.  A systematic review with meta-analysis of posterior interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Xiaoyang Liu; Yipeng Wang; Guixing Qiu; Xisheng Weng; Bin Yu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-06-30       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  South Korean degenerative spondylolisthesis patients had surgical treatment at earlier age than Japanese, American, and European patients: a published literature observation.

Authors:  Zoltán Káplár; Yì-Xiáng J Wáng
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2016-12

Review 4.  Comparison of MIS vs. open PLIF/TLIF with regard to clinical improvement, fusion rate, and incidence of major complication: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qu Jin-Tao; Tang Yu; Wang Mei; Tang Xu-Dong; Zhang Tian-Jian; Shi Guo-Hua; Chen Lei; Hu Yue; Wang Zi-Tian; Zhou Yue
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-03-28       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  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

6.  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

7.  Spinous process-splitting open pedicle screw fusion provides favorable results in patients with low back discomfort and pain compared to conventional open pedicle screw fixation over 1 year after surgery.

Authors:  Eiji Mori; Seiji Okada; Takayoshi Ueta; Yugue Itaru; Takeshi Maeda; Osamu Kawano; Keiichiro Shiba
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review.

Authors:  Christina L Goldstein; Kevin Macwan; Kala Sundararajan; Y Raja Rampersaud
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 9.  Minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review.

Authors:  Gursukhman S Sidhu; Erik Henkelman; Alexander R Vaccaro; Todd J Albert; Alan Hilibrand; D Greg Anderson; Jeffrey A Rihn
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive versus open approach for one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the 3- to 4-year follow-up.

Authors:  Javier Rodríguez-Vela; Antonio Lobo-Escolar; Eduardo Joven; Javier Muñoz-Marín; Antonio Herrera; José Velilla
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-06-14       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.