Literature DB >> 21556236

Paraspinal Muscle Sparing versus Percutaneous Screw Fixation : A Prospective and Comparative Study for the Treatment of L5-S1 Spondylolisthesis.

Kun Soo Jang1, Heyun Sung Kim, Chang Il Ju, Seok Won Kim, Sung Myung Lee, Ho Shin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Both the paraspinal muscle sparing approach and percutaneous screw fixation are less traumatic procedures in comparison with the conventional midline approach. These techniques have been used with the goal of reducing muscle injury. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and to compare the safety and efficacy of the paraspinal muscle sparing technique and percutaneous screw fixation for the treatment of L5-S1 spondylolisthesis.
METHODS: Twenty patients who had undergone posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) at the L5-S1 segment for spondylolisthesis were prospectively studied. They were divided into two groups by screw fixation technique (Group I : paraspinal muscle sparing approach and Group II: percutaneous screw fixation). Clinical outcomes were assessed by Low Back Outcome Score (LBOS) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain at different times after surgery. In addition, modified MacNab's grading criteria were used to assess subjective patients' outcomes 6 months after surgery. Postoperative midline surgical scarring, intraoperative blood loss, mean operation time, and procedure-related complications were analyzed.
RESULTS: Excellent or good results were observed in all patients in both groups 6 months after surgery. Patients in both groups showed marked improvement in terms of LBOSs all over time intervals. Postoperative midline surgical scarring and intraoperative blood loss were lower in Group II compared to Group I although these differences were not statistically significant. Low back pain (LBP) and leg pain in both groups also showed significant improvement when compared to preoperative scores. However, at 7 days and 1 month after surgery, patients in Group II had significantly better LBP scores compared to Group I.
CONCLUSION: In terms of LBP during the early postoperative period, patients who underwent percutaneous screw fixation showed better results compared to ones who underwent screw fixation via the paraspinal muscle sparing approach. Our results indicate that the percutaneous screw fixation procedure is the preferable minimally invasive technique for reducing LBP associated with L5-S1 spondylolisthesis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Back pain; Paraspinal muscle sparing approach; Percutaneous screw fixation; Spondylolisthesis

Year:  2011        PMID: 21556236      PMCID: PMC3085812          DOI: 10.3340/jkns.2011.49.3.163

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


  9 in total

1.  Advantages of the paraspinal muscle splitting approach in comparison with conventional midline approach for s1 pedicle screw placement.

Authors:  Masato Ota; Masashi Neo; Shunsuke Fujibayashi; Mitsuru Takemoto; Takashi Nakamura
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Anatomic and experimental basis for the insertion of a screw at the first sacral vertebra.

Authors:  F de Peretti; C Argenson; A Bourgeon; F Omar; P Eude; C Aboulker
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 1.246

3.  Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis.

Authors:  Y Kawaguchi; H Matsui; H Tsuji
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  The human lumbar dorsal rami.

Authors:  N Bogduk; A S Wilson; W Tynan
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  1982-03       Impact factor: 2.610

5.  Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study group.

Authors:  Peter Fritzell; Olle Hägg; Per Wessberg; Anders Nordwall
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  The effects of external compression by three different retractors on pressure in the erector spine muscles during and after posterior lumbar spine surgery in humans.

Authors:  J R Styf; J Willén
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1998-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  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

8.  Minimally invasive multilevel percutaneous correction and fusion for adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis: a technique and feasibility study.

Authors:  Neel Anand; Eli M Baron; Gowriharan Thaiyananthan; Kunwar Khalsa; Theodore B Goldstein
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2008-10

9.  The failed posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  F T Wetzel; H LaRocca
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 3.468

  9 in total
  3 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Paraspinal Muscle Sparing Versus Percutaneous Screw Fixation: A Comparative Enzyme Study of Tissue Injury during the Treatment of L4-L5 Spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Dong Am Park; Seok Won Kim; Sung Myung Lee; Chang Il Ju; Chong Gue Kim; Suk Jung Jang
Journal:  Korean J Spine       Date:  2012-12-31

3.  An Outcome Measure of Functionality and Pain in Patients with Low Back Disorder: A Validation Study of the Iranian version of Low Back Outcome Score.

Authors:  Parisa Azimi; Hossein Nayeb Aghaei; Shirzad Azhari; Sohrab Shazadi; Hamid Khayat Kashany; Hassan Reza Mohammadi; Ali Montazeri
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2016-08-16
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.