Assessment of Paraspinal Muscle Atrophy Percentage after Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Unilateral Instrumentation Using a Novel Contralateral Intact Muscle-Controlled Model

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Study Design: Retrospective comparative clinical study.
Purpose: This study aimed to assess paraspinal muscle atrophy in patients who underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) and unilateral pedicle screw fixation using a novel contralateral intact muscle-controlled model.
Overview of Literature: The increased incidence of paravertebral lumbar muscle injuries after open techniques has raised the importance of implementing minimally invasive spine surgical techniques using tubular retractors and minimally invasive screw placement.
The functional cross-sectional area (FCSA) represents the lean muscle mass; furthermore, FCSA is a useful marker of the contractile ability of a muscle following a spine surgery. However, the benefits of unilateral fixation and MI-TLIF on paraspinal muscles have not been defined.
Methods: We performed a retrospective imagenological review on eleven patients who underwent unilateral MI-TLIF and unilateral transpedicular screw lumbar placement. FCSAs of the multifidus and erector spinae were measured 1 year after surgery at adjacent levels and were compared to the contralateral intact muscles. Measurement differences between the surgical and nonsurgical sites were compared. The interobserver reliability was calculated using an intraclass correlation coefficient.
Results: The mean FCSA at the surgical site was 20.97±5.07 cm2 at the superior level and 8.89±2.87 cm2 at the inferior level. The mean FCSA at the contralateral nonsurgical site was 20.15±5.95 cm2 at the superior level and 9.20±2.66 cm2 at the inferior level was.
The superior and inferior FCSA measurements showed no significant difference between the surgical and nonsurgical sites (p =0.5, p =0.922, respectively).
Conclusions: Using a mini-open tubular approach through the sulcus between the longissimus and iliocostalis, MI-TLIF and unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation produced minimal paraspinal muscle damage at the superior and inferior adjacent levels.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Liu H, "Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis" 96 : e6882-, 2017

2 Wang L, "Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF): a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials" 14 : 87-, 2014

3 Min SH, "The quantitative analysis of back muscle degeneration after posterior lumbar fusion: comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open surgery" 3 : 89-95, 2009

4 Storheim K, "The effect of comprehensive group training on crosssectional area, density, and strength of paraspinal muscles in patients sick-listed for subacute low back pain" 16 : 271-279, 2003

5 Gejo R, "Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery" 24 : 1023-1028, 1999

6 Keller A, "Reliability of computed tomography measurements of paraspinal muscle cross-sectional area and density in patients with chronic low back pain" 28 : 1455-1460, 2003

7 Lee JC, "Quantitative analysis of back muscle degeneration in the patients with the degenerative lumbar flat back using a digital image analysis: comparison with the normal controls" 33 : 318-325, 2008

8 Strube P, "Postoperative posterior lumbar muscle changes and their relationship to segmental motion preservation or restriction: a randomized prospective study" 24 : 25-31, 2016

9 Suwa H, "Postoperative changes in paraspinal muscle thickness after various lumbar back surgery procedures" 40 : 151-154, 2000

10 Motosuneya T, "Postoperative change of the cross-sectional area of back musculature after 5 surgical procedures as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging" 19 : 318-322, 2006

11 현승재, "Postoperative Changes in Paraspinal Muscle Volume: Comparisonbetween Paramedian Interfascial and Midline Approaches for LumbarFusion" 대한의학회 22 (22): 646-651, 2007

12 Yoo JS, "Paraspinal muscle changes of unilateral multilevel minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion" 9 : 130-, 2014

13 Regev GJ, "Nerve injury to the posterior rami medial branch during the insertion of pedicle screws: comparison of mini-open versus percutaneous pedicle screw insertion techniques" 34 : 1239-1242, 2009

14 Fan S, "Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of onelevel posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach" 19 : 316-324, 2010

15 Tsutsumimoto T, "Mini-open versus conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparison of paraspinal muscle damage and slip reduction" 34 : 1923-1928, 2009

16 Parkkola R, "Magnetic resonance imaging of the discs and trunk muscles in patients with chronic low back pain and healthy control subjects" 18 : 830-836, 1993

17 Salminen JJ, "Magnetic resonance imaging findings of lumbar spine in the young: correlation with leisure time physical activity, spinal mobility, and trunk muscle strength in 15-year-old pupils with or without low-back pain" 6 : 386-391, 1993

18 Hides JA, "Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of trunk muscles during prolonged bed rest" 32 : 1687-1692, 2007

19 Mengiardi B, "Fat content of lumbar paraspinal muscles in patients with chronic low back pain and in asymptomatic volunteers: quantification with MR spectroscopy" 240 : 786-792, 2006

20 Gille O, "Erector spinae muscle changes on magnetic resonance imaging following lumbar surgery through a posterior approach" 32 : 1236-1241, 2007

21 Ghiasi MS, "Crosssectional area of human trunk paraspinal muscles before and after posterior lumbar surgery using magnetic resonance imaging" 25 : 774-782, 2016

22 Kim DY, "Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation" 30 : 123-129, 2005

23 Mayer TG, "Comparison of CT scan muscle measurements and isokinetic trunk strength in postoperative patients" 14 : 33-36, 1989

24 Barker KL, "Changes in the cross-sectional area of multifidus and psoas in patients with unilateral back pain: the relationship to pain and disability" 29 : E515-E519, 2004

25 Danneels LA, "CT imaging of trunk muscles in chronic low back pain patients and healthy control subjects" 9 : 266-272, 2000

26 Hultman G, "Body composition, endurance, strength, cross-sectional area, and density of MM erector spinae in men with and without low back pain" 6 : 114-123, 1993

27 Panjabi MM, "Biomechanical evaluation of spinal fixation devices: II. Stability provided by eight internal fixation devices" 13 : 1135-1140, 1988

28 Kawaguchi Y, "Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery: part 2: histologic and histochemical analyses in humans" 19 : 2598-2602, 1994

29 Kawaguchi Y, "Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery: a histologic and enzymatic analysis" 21 : 941-944, 1996

30 Hyun JK, "Asymmetric atrophy of multifidus muscle in patients with unilateral lumbosacral radiculopathy" 32 : E598-E602, 2007

31 Bresnahan LE, "Assessment of paraspinal muscle cross-sectional area after lumbar decompression: minimally invasive versus open approaches" 30 : E162-E168, 2017

32 Ranson CA, "An investigation into the use of MR imaging to determine the functional cross sectional area of lumbar paraspinal muscles" 15 : 764-773, 2006

33 Hu ZJ, "An assessment of the intra- and inter-reliability of the lumbar paraspinal muscle parameters using CT scan and magnetic resonance imaging" 36 : E868-E874, 2011

34 Kaser L, "Active therapy for chronic low back pain: part 2. effects on paraspinal muscle crosssectional area, fiber type size, and distribution" 26 : 909-919, 2001