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

Spine

Volumn 35, Issue 11, 2010, Pages

  Ota, Masato ^a   Neo, Masashi ^a   Fujibayashi, Shunsuke ^a   Takemoto, Mitsuru ^a   Nakamura, Takashi ^a  

^a KYOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Complication; Mechanical strength; Paraspinal approach; Pedicle screw; Sacral screw fixation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; ILIAC VEIN; IMPLANTATION; MALE; PARASPINAL MUSCLE SPLITTING; PEDICLE SCREW; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHESIS FIXATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SACRAL SPINAL CORD; SKELETAL MUSCLE; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE;

ADULT; AGED; BONE SCREWS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SACRUM; SPINAL DISEASES; SPINAL FUSION; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 77952371041     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ce0696     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Beguiristain JL, Martinez-Peric R, Barrios RH, et al. Lumbosacral arthrodesis with Louis technique. Eur Spine J 1994;3:169-71.
2. Ogilvie JW, Schengel M. Comparison of lumbosacral fixation devices. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986;203:120-5.
3. Jackson RP, Hamilton AC. CD screws with oblique canal for improved sacral fixation: a prospective clinical study of the first fifty patients. In: Seventh Proceeding of the International Congress on Cotrel-Dubousset Instrumentation. Montpellier, France: Sauramps Medical; 1990:75-86.
4. Emami A, Deviren V, Berven S, et al. Outcome and complications of long fusions to the sacrum in adult spine deformity: luque-galveston, combined iliac and sacral screws, and sacral fixation. Spine 2002;27:776-86.
5. Devlin VJ, Boachie-Adjei O, Bradford DS, et al. Treatment of adult spinal deformity with fusion to the sacrum using CD instrumentation. J Spinal Disord 1991;4:1-14.
6. Carlson GD, Abitbol JJ, Anderson DR, et al. Screw fixation in the human sacrum: an in vitro study of the biomechanics of fixation. Spine 1992;17(Suppl): S197-203.
7. Peretti F, Argenson C, Bourgeon A, et al. Anatomic and experimental basis for the insertion of a screw at the first sacral vertebra. Surg Radiol Anat 1991;13:133-7.
8. Lehman RA, Kuklo TR, Belmont PJ Jr, et al. Advantage of pedicle screw fixation directed into the apex of the sacral promontory over bicortical fixation. Spine 2002;27:806-11.
9. Von Strempel A, Trenkmann S, Kronauer I, et al. The stability of bone screws in the so sacrum. Eur Spine J 1998;7:313-20.
10. Zindrick MR, Wiltse LL, Widell EH, et al. A biomechanical study of intrape-duncular screw fixation in the lumbosacral spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986;203:99-111.
11. Ruland CM, Mcafee PC, Warden KE, et al. Triangulation of pedicular instrumentation: a biomechanical analysis. Spine 1991;16(6 Suppl): S270-6.
12. Smith SA, Abittbol JJ, Carlson GD, et al. The effects of depth of penetration, screw orientation, and bone density on sacral screw fixation. Spine 1993;18:1006-10.
13. Zheng YZ, Lu WW, Zhu Q, et al. Variation in bone mineral density of the sacrum in young adults and its significance foe sacral fixation. Spine 2000;25:353-7.
14. Barber JW, Boden SD, Ganey T, et al. Biomechanical study of lumbar pedicle screws: does convergence affect axial pullout strength? J Spinal Disord 1998;11:215-20.
15. Luk KD, Chen L, Lu WW. A stronger bicortical sacral pedicle screw fixation through the S1 endplate. Spine 2005;30:525-9.
16. Mirkovic S, Abitbol JJ, Strinman J, et al. Anatomic consideration for sacral screw placement. Spine 1991;16(6 Suppl): S289-94.
17. Esses SI, Botsford DJ, Huller RJ, et al. Surgical anatomy of the sacrum. A guide for rational screw fixation. Spine 1991;16(6 Suppl): S283-8.
18. Ergur I, Akcali O, Kiray A, et al. Neurovascular risks of sacral screws with bicortical purchase: an anatomical study. Eur Spine J 2007;16:1519-23.
19. Licht NJ, Rowe DE, Ross LM. Pitfalls of pedicle screw fixation in the sacrum. A cadaver model. Spine 1992;17:892-6.
20. Wiltse LL, Bateman JG, Hutchison RH, et al. The paraspinal sacrospinalis-splitting approach to the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg 1968;50:919-26.
21. Vialle R, Wicart P, Drain O, et al. The Wiltse paraspinal approach to the lumbar spine revisited. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006;445:175-80.
22. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine 2003;28:26-35.
23. Hyun SJ, Lim YB, Kim YS, et al. Postoperative changes in paraspinal muscle volume: comparison between paramedical interfacial and midline approaches for lumbar fusion. J Korean Med Sci 2007;22:646-51.
24. Datta G, Gnanalingham KK, Peterson D, et al. Back pain and disability after lumbar laminectomy: is there a relationship to muscle retraction? Neurosurgery 2004;54:1413-20.
25. Weaver EN Jr. Lateral intramuscular planar approach to the lumbar spine and sacrum. J Neurosurg Spine 2007;7:270-3.
26. Robertson PA, Plank LD. Pedicle screw placement at the sacrum: anatomical characterization and limitations at S1. J Spinal Disord 1999;12:227-33.
27. Kaptanoglu E, Okutan O, Tekdemir I, et al. Closed posterior superior iliac spine impeding pediculocorporeal S-1 screw insertion. J Neurosurg 2003;99:229-34.
28. Asher MA, Strippgen WE. Antrhopometric studies of the human sacrum relating to dorsal transsacral implant. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986;203:58-62.
29. Xu R, Ebraheim NA, Mohamed A, et al. Anatomic considerations for dorsal sacral plate-screw placement. J Spinal Disord 1995;8:352-6.
30. Krag MH, Beynnon BD, Pope MH, et al. Depth of insertion of transpedicular vertebral screws into human vertebrae: effect upon screw-vertebra interface strength. J Spinal Disord 1989;1:287-94.