Paraspinal muscle sparing versus percutaneous screw fixation: A prospective and comparative study for the treatment of L5-S1 spondylolisthesis

Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 163-166

  Jang, Kun Soo ^a   Kim, Heyun Sung ^a   Ju, Chang Il ^b   Kim, Seok Won ^a   Lee, Sung Myung ^a   Shin, Ho ^a  

^a Chosun University   (South Korea)

^b Yonsei Sarang Hospital   (South Korea)

Author keywords

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

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; BONE SCREW; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LEG PAIN; LOW BACK PAIN; LUMBAR SPINE; MALE; OPERATION DURATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SAFETY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SACRAL SPINAL CORD; SCAR FORMATION; SCORING SYSTEM; SPINE FUSION; SPINE STABILIZATION; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; SURGICAL APPROACH; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

EID: 79955372277     PISSN: 20053711     EISSN: 15987876     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3340/jkns.2011.49.3.163     Document Type: Article

References (10)

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
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
4. Fritzell P, Hägg 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
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
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
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
9. Styf JR, Willén 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
10. Wetzel FT, LaRocca H: The failed posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 16: 839-845, 1991