Literature DB >> 21082049

Minimally Invasive Muscle Sparing Transmuscular Microdiscectomy : Technique and Comparison with Conventional Subperiosteal Microdiscectomy during the Early Postoperative Period.

Beom-Seok Park1, Young-Joon Kwon, Yu-Sam Won, Hyun-Chul Shin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The authors introduce a minimally invasive muscle sparing transmuscular microdiscectomy (MSTM) to treat herniated lumbar disc disease. Its results are compared with conventional subperiosteal microdiscectomy (CSM) to validate the effectiveness.
METHODS: Muscle sparing transmuscular microdiscectomy, which involves muscle dissection approach using the natural fat cleavage plane between the multifidus to expose the interlaminar space, was performed in 23 patients to treat a single level unilateral lumbar radiculopathy. The creatine phosphokinase (CPK)-MM serum levels were measured on admission and at 1, 3, and 5 days postoperatively. Postoperative pain was evaluated using a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) and recorded on admission and at 1, 3, and 5 days postoperatively. The results were compared to those from the conventional subperiosteal microdiscectomy (43 patients).
RESULTS: The CPK-MM levels were significantly lower in the serum of the MSTM group compared to the CSM group on postoperative days three and five (p = 0.03 and p = 0.02, respectively). The clinical scales for back pain using VAS were significantly lower in the MSTM group than in the CSM group on postoperative days three (p = 0.04). The mean VAS scores for leg pain in both groups showed no significant differences during the early postoperative period.
CONCLUSION: Muscle sparing transmuscular microdiscectomy is a minimally invasive surgical option to treat lumbar radiculopathy due to herniated disc. The approach affected minimal injury to posterior lumbar supporting structures with alleviated postoperative back pain.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Lumbar spine; Microdiscectomy; Minimally invasive surgery; Muscle sparing technique

Year:  2010        PMID: 21082049      PMCID: PMC2966723          DOI: 10.3340/jkns.2010.48.3.225

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc        ISSN: 1225-8245


  18 in total

Review 1.  Lumbar microdiscectomy and microendoscopic discectomy.

Authors:  Ron I Riesenburger; Carlos A David
Journal:  Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.442

2.  Clinical applications of the tubular retractor on spinal disorders.

Authors:  Young Baeg Kim; Seung Jae Hyun
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2007-10-20

3.  Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Topographic evaluation of intramuscular pressure and blood flow in the porcine back muscle during surgery.

Authors:  Y Kawaguchi; S Yabuki; J Styf; K Olmarker; B Rydevik; H Matsui; H Tsuji
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Objective assessment of reduced invasiveness in MED. Compared with conventional one-level laminotomy.

Authors:  Ryuichi Sasaoka; Hiroaki Nakamura; Sadahiko Konishi; Ryuichi Nagayama; Eisuke Suzuki; Hidetomi Terai; Kunio Takaoka
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-05-31       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Changes in serum creatine phosphokinase MM isoenzyme after lumbar spine surgery.

Authors:  Y Kawaguchi; H Matsui; H Tsuji
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Serum creatine phosphokinase activity and histological changes in the multifidus muscle: a prospective randomized controlled comparative study of discectomy with or without retraction.

Authors:  Kadir Kotil; Tamer Tunckale; Zeynep Tatar; Macit Koldas; Alev Kural; Turgay Bilge
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2007-02

Review 7.  Lumbar microdiscectomy: a historical perspective and current technical considerations.

Authors:  Christopher J Koebbe; Joseph C Maroon; Adnan Abla; Hikmat El-Kadi; Jeffery Bost
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2002-08-15       Impact factor: 4.047

8.  The efficacy of microendoscopic discectomy in reducing iatrogenic muscle injury.

Authors:  Dong Ah Shin; Keung Nyun Kim; Hyun Cheol Shin; Do Heum Yoon
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2008-01

9.  Lumbar microdiscectomy: subperiosteal versus transmuscular approach and influence on the early postoperative analgesic consumption.

Authors:  Marko Brock; Philip Kunkel; Luca Papavero
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-01-26       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Benefits of the paraspinal muscle-sparing approach versus the conventional midline approach for posterior nonfusion stabilization: comparative analysis of clinical and functional outcomes.

Authors:  Neel Anand; Eli M Baron; Robert S Bray
Journal:  SAS J       Date:  2007-08-01
View more
  1 in total

1.  Comparing the Incidence of Index Level Fusion Following Minimally Invasive Versus Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy.

Authors:  Steven J McAnany; Samuel C Overley; Muhammad A Anwar; Holt S Cutler; Javier Z Guzman; Jun S Kim; Robert K Merrill; Samuel K Cho; Andrew C Hecht; Sheeraz A Qureshi
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-09-22
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.