| Literature DB >> 29713406 |
Luis Alberto Ortega-Porcayo1,2, Andres Leal-López3, Miroslava Elizabeth Soriano-López4, Carlos Francisco Gutiérrez-Partida5, Luis Rodolfo Ramírez-Barrios5, Sergio Soriano-Solis5, Manuel Rodríguez-García5, Hector Antonio Soriano-Solis6, José Antonio Soriano-Sánchez5.
Abstract
STUDYEntities:
Keywords: Computed tomography; Functional cross-sectional area; Lumbar vertebrae; Minimally invasive; Paraspinal muscles
Year: 2018 PMID: 29713406 PMCID: PMC5913016 DOI: 10.4184/asj.2018.12.2.256
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian Spine J ISSN: 1976-1902
Fig. 1Measurement of the functional cross-sectional area from the paraspinal muscles at the superior (A) and at the inferior adjacent levels (B) 1 year after surgery. There are no significant differences between the surgical and nonsurgical contralateral side.
Fig. 2Boxplot showing FCSA after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and unilateral screw pedicle fixation at the superior adjacent level. There was a mean percentage increase of 4.06% at the surgical site (p=0.5). FCSA, functional cross-sectional area.
Fig. 3Boxplot showing FCSA after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and unilateral screw pedicle fixation at the inferior adjacent level. There was a mean percentage reduction of 3.3% 1 year after surgery at the surgical site (p=0.922). FCSA, functional cross-sectional area.
Muscle damage assessed using clinical imaging related to open and minimally invasive spine approaches
PLF, posterolateral lumbar fusion; CT, computed tomography; LPSF, lumbar pedicle screw fixation; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; GCSA, gross cross-sectional area; ALIF, anterior lumbar interbody fusion; PLIF, posterior lumbar interbody fusion; LAM, laminectomy; FCSA, functional cross-sectional area; TLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; PIA, paramedian interfascial approach; CSA, cross-sectional area; MEDS, micro endoscopic decompression of stenosis; MI, minimally invasive; TDR, total disc replacement.