Medialized, Muscle-Splitting Approach for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Spine

Volumn 41, Issue , 2016, Pages s90-s96

  Khanna, Nitin ^a   Deol, Gurvinder ^b   Poulter, Gregory ^c   Ahuja, Arvind ^d  

^a Orthopaedic Specialists of Northwest Indiana   (United States)

^b Wake Orthopaedics   (United States)

^c ORTHOINDY   (United States)

^d Neurosurgery and Endovascular Assoc   (United States)

Author keywords

Cortical; cortical bone trajectory; interbody; lumbar; medialized; mini open; minimally invasive; MIS; multifidus; pedicle; posterior; posterior lumbar interbody fusion; screw; sparing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORTICAL BONE; DEBRIDEMENT; DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTRAMEDULLARY NAILING; LAMINECTOMY; LENGTH OF STAY; LIQUORRHEA; LOW BACK PAIN; LUNG EMBOLISM; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; MORBIDITY; OPERATION DURATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PEDICLE SCREW; PEROPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTERIOR LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION; POSTERIOR SPINE FUSION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE INFECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SPINE FRACTURE; SURGICAL INFECTION; URINARY TRACT INFECTION; URINE RETENTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; PROCEDURES; SPINE FUSION; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; PEDICLE SCREWS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPINAL FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84956885729     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001475     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Okuda S, Miyauchi A, Oda T, et al. Surgical complications of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with total facetectomy in 251 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2006;4:304-9.
2. Kim DY, Lee SH, Chung SK, et al. Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation. Spine 2005;30:123-9.
3. Fan SW, Hu ZJ, Fang XQ, et al. Comparison of paraspinal muscle injury in one-level lumbar posterior inter-body fusion: modified minimally invasive and traditional open approaches. Orthop Surg 2010;2:194-200.
4. Fan S, Hu Z, Zhao F, et al. Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach. Eur Spine J 2010;19:316-24.
5. Bresnahan LE, Smith JS, Ogden AT, et al. Assessment of paraspinal muscle cross-sectional area following lumbar decompression: minimally invasive versus open approaches. J Spinal Disord Tech 2013; Epub ahead of print
6. Wang TY, Pao JL, Yang RS, et al. The adaptive changes in muscle coordination following lumbar spinal fusion. Hum Mov Sci 2015;40:284-97.
7. Regev GJ, Lee YP, Taylor WR, et al. Nerve injury to the posterior rami medial branch during the insertion of pedicle screws: comparison of mini-open versus percutaneous pedicle screw insertion techniques. Spine 2009;34:1239-42.
8. Ward SR, Tomiya A, Regev GJ, et al. Passive mechanical properties of the lumbar multifidus muscle support its role as a stabilizer. J Biomech 2009;42:1384-9.
9. Kim CW, Siemionow K, Anderson DG, et al. The current state of minimally invasive spine surgery. Instr Course Lect 2011;60: 353-70.
10. Kim CW. Scientific basis of minimally invasive spine surgery: prevention of multifidus muscle injury during posterior lumbar surgery. Spine 2010;35 (26 suppl):S281-6.
11. Kojima K, Asamoto S, Kobayashi Y, et al. Cortical bone trajectory and traditional trajectory-a radiological evaluation of screw-bone contact. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2015;157:1173-8.
12. Phan K, Hogan J, Maharaj M, et al. Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screw placement: a review of published reports. Orthop Surg 2015;7:213-21.
13. Glennie RA, Dea N, Kwon BK, et al. Early clinical results with cortically based pedicle screw trajectory for fusion of the degenerative lumbar spine. J Clin Neurosci 2015;22:972-5.
14. Mobbs RJ. The "medio-latero-superior trajectory technique": an alternative cortical trajectory for pedicle fixation. Orthop Surg 2013;5:56-9.
15. Berjano P, Damilano M, Ismael M, et al. Minimally invasive PLIF with divergent, cortical trajectory pedicle screws. Eur Spine J 2015;24 (suppl 5):654-5.
16. Gautschi OP, Garbossa D, Tessitore E, et al. Maximal access surgery for posterior lumbar inter body fusion (PLIF) with divergent, cortical bone trajectory (CBT) pedicle-screws: a good option for minimize spine access and maximize the field for nerve decompression. J Neurosurg Sci 2015.
17. Grant JP,OxlandTR,DvorakMF.Mapping the structuralproperties of the lumbosacral vertebral endplates. Spine 2001;26:889-96.
18. Closkey RF, Parsons JR, Lee CK, et al.Mechanics of interbody spinal fusion. Analysis of critical bone graft area. Spine 1993;18:1011-5.
19. Vaidya R, Sethi A, Bartol S, et al. Complications in the use of rhBMP-2 in PEEK cages for interbody spinal fusions. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008;21:557-62.
20. Liu H, Wu W, Li Y, et al. Protective effects of preserving the posterior complex on the development of adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;19:201-6.
21. Rihn JA, Patel R, Makda J, et al. Complications associated with single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 2009;9:623-9.
22. Rampersaud YR, Gray R, Lewis SJ, et al. Cost-utility analysis of posterior minimally invasive fusion compared with conventional open fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis. SAS J 2011;5: 29-35.
23. Goldstein CL, Phillips FM, Rampersand YR. Comparative effectiveness and economic evaluations of open versus minimally invasive posterior or transforaminal lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Spine 2016; Epub ahead of print
24. Cheng WK, Inceoglu S. Cortical and standard trajectory pedicle screw fixation techniques in stabilizing multisegment lumbar spine with low grade spondylolisthesis. Int J Spine Surg 2015; 9:46.
25. Wray S, Mimran R, Vadapalli S, et al. Pedicle screw placement in the lumbar spine: effect of trajectory and screw design on acute biomechanical purchase. J Neurosurg Spine 2015;22:503-10.
26. Calvert GC, Lawrence BD, Abtahi AM, et al. Cortical screws used to rescue failed lumbar pedicle screw construct: a biomechanical analysis. J Neurosurg Spine 2015;22:166-72.
27. Xu G, Fu X, Du C, et al. Biomechanical comparison of monosegment transpedicular fixation with short-segment fixation for treatment of thoracolumbar fractures: a finite element analysis. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2014;228:1005-13.
28. Baluch DA, Patel AA, Lullo B, et al. Effect of physiological loads on cortical and traditional pedicle screw fixation. Spine 2014;39: E1297-1302.
29. Perez-Orribo L, Kalb S, Reyes PM, et al. Biomechanics of lumbar cortical screw-rod fixation versus pedicle screw-rod fixation with and without interbody support. Spine 2013;38:635-41.
30. Lee GW, Son JH, Ahn MW, et al. The comparison of pedicle screw and cortical screw in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective randomized noninferiority trial. Spine J 2015;15:1519-26.