Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

The Korean Neurosurgical Society (대한신경외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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

  • Jang, Kun-Soo (Department of Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Heyun-Sung (Department of Neurosurgery, Heori Sarang Hospital) ;
  • Ju, Chang-Il (Department of Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Seok-Won (Department of Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, Chosun University) ;
  • Lee, Sung-Myung (Department of Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, Chosun University) ;
  • Shin, Ho (Department of Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, Chosun University)
  • Received : 2010.11.12
  • Accepted : 2011.03.03
  • Published : 2011.03.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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.

Keywords

References

  1. Anand N, Baron EM, Thaiyananthan G, Khalsa K, Goldstein TB : Minimally invasive multilevel percutaneous correction and fusion for adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis : a technique and feasibility study. J Spinal Disord Tech 21 : 459-467, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e318167b06b
  2. Bogduk N, Wilson AS, Tynan W : The human lumbar dorsal rami. J Anat 134 : 383-397, 1982
  3. de Peretti F, Argenson C, Bourgeon A, Omar F, Eude P, Aboulker C : Anatomic and experimental basis for the insertion of a screw at the first sacral vertebra. Surg Radiol Anat 13 : 133-137, 1991 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01623887
  4. Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A : Chronic low back pain and fusion : a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine 27 : 1131-1141, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200206010-00002
  5. Hyun SJ, Kim YB, Kim YS, Park SW, Nam TK, Hong HJ, et al. : Postoperative changes in paraspinal muscle volume : comparison between paramedian interfascial and midline approaches for lumbar fusion. J Korean Med Sci 22 : 646-651, 2007 https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2007.22.4.646
  6. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H : Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine 21 : 941-944, 1996 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199604150-00007
  7. Kim HS, Park IH, Ryu JK, Kim SW, Shin H : Bone cement augmentation of pedicular screwing in severe osteoporotic spondylolisthetic patients. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 42 : 6-10, 2007
  8. Ota M, Neo M, Fujibayashi S, Takemoto M, Nakamura T : Advantages of the paraspinal muscle splitting approach in comparison with conventional midline approach for s1 pedicle screw placement. Spine 35 : E452-E457, 2010 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ce0696
  9. Styf JR, Willen J : 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. Spine 23 : 354-358, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199802010-00014
  10. Wetzel FT, LaRocca H : The failed posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 16 : 839-845, 1991 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199107000-00027

Cited by

  1. Paraspinal Muscle Sparing Versus Percutaneous Screw Fixation: A Comparative Enzyme Study of Tissue Injury during the Treatment of L4-L5 Spondylolisthesis vol.9, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.14245/kjs.2012.9.4.321
  2. 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 vol.10, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2016.10.4.719