Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 8/2009

01-08-2009 | Original Article

Perioperative and short-term advantages of mini-open approach for lumbar spinal fusion

Authors: J. Rodríguez-Vela, A. Lobo-Escolar, E. Joven-Aliaga, A. Herrera, J. Vicente, E. Suñén, A. Loste, A. Tabuenca

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 8/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

It has been widely reported a vascular and neurologic damage of the lumbar muscles produced in the classic posterior approach for lumbar spinal fusions. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate a better clinical and functional outcome in the postoperative and short term in patients undergoing minimal invasive surgery (“mini-open”) for this lumbar spinal arthrodesis. We designed a prospective study with a 30 individuals cohort randomized in two groups, depending on the approach performed to get a instrumented lumbar circumferential arthrodesis: “classic posterior” (CL group) or “mini-open” approach (MO group). Several clinical and functional parameters were assessed, including blood loss, postoperative pain, analgesic requirements and daily life activities during hospital stay and at the 3-month follow-up. Patients of the “mini-open approach” group had a significant lower blood loss and hospital stay during admission. They also had significant lower analgesic requirements and faster recovery of daily life activities (specially moderate efforts) when compared to the patients of the “classic posterior approach” group. No significant differences were found between two groups in surgery timing, X-rays exposure or sciatic postoperative pain. This study, inline with previous investigations, reinforces the concept of minimizing the muscular lumbar damage with a mini-open approach for a faster and better recovery of patients’ disability in the short term. Further investigations are necessary to confirm these findings in the long term, and to verify the achievement of a stable lumbar spinal fusion.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Anand N, Hamilton JF, Perri B, Miraliakbar H, Goldstein T (2006) Cantilever TLIF with structural allograft and RhBMP2 for correction and maintenance of segmental sagittal lordosis: long-term clinical, radiographic, and functional outcome. Spine 31(20):E748–E753PubMedCrossRef Anand N, Hamilton JF, Perri B, Miraliakbar H, Goldstein T (2006) Cantilever TLIF with structural allograft and RhBMP2 for correction and maintenance of segmental sagittal lordosis: long-term clinical, radiographic, and functional outcome. Spine 31(20):E748–E753PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Robson D, Deyo RA, Singer DE (2000) Surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: four-year outcomes from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine 25(5):556–562PubMedCrossRef Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Robson D, Deyo RA, Singer DE (2000) Surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: four-year outcomes from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine 25(5):556–562PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE (2005) Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine 30(8):934–936 Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE (2005) Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine 30(8):934–936
4.
go back to reference Beringer WF, Mobasser JP (2006) Unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus 20(3):E4PubMed Beringer WF, Mobasser JP (2006) Unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus 20(3):E4PubMed
5.
go back to reference Bono CM, Lee CK (2004) Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine 29(4):455–463PubMedCrossRef Bono CM, Lee CK (2004) Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine 29(4):455–463PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Cloward RB (1953) The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral disc by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 10:154–168PubMedCrossRef Cloward RB (1953) The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral disc by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 10:154–168PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Deutsch H, Musacchio MJ Jr (2006) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Neurosurg Focus 20(3):E10PubMedCrossRef Deutsch H, Musacchio MJ Jr (2006) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Neurosurg Focus 20(3):E10PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Eck JC, Hodges S, Humphreys SC (2007) Minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15(6):321–329PubMed Eck JC, Hodges S, Humphreys SC (2007) Minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15(6):321–329PubMed
11.
go back to reference Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A (2002) Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. 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(11):1131–1141PubMedCrossRef Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A (2002) Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. 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(11):1131–1141PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, Ishihara H, Tsuji H (1999) Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine 24(10):1023–1028PubMedCrossRef Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, Ishihara H, Tsuji H (1999) Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine 24(10):1023–1028PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference German JW, Foley KT (2005) Minimal access surgical techniques in the management of the painful lumbar motion segment. Spine 30(16 Suppl):S52–S59PubMedCrossRef German JW, Foley KT (2005) Minimal access surgical techniques in the management of the painful lumbar motion segment. Spine 30(16 Suppl):S52–S59PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullmann V, Vieth V, Schneider M, Liljenqvist U (2005) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J 14(6):551–558. doi:10.1007/s00586-004-0830-1 PubMedCrossRef Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullmann V, Vieth V, Schneider M, Liljenqvist U (2005) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J 14(6):551–558. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-004-0830-1 PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Harms J, Rolinger H (1982) A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author’s transl). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120(3):343–347. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1051624 PubMedCrossRef Harms J, Rolinger H (1982) A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author’s transl). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120(3):343–347. doi:10.​1055/​s-2008-1051624 PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, Foley KT (2006) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus 20(3):E6PubMedCrossRef Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, Foley KT (2006) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus 20(3):E6PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P, Sandhu FA, Spears J, Kelly K, Rice L, Fessler RG (2005) Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine 3(2):98–105PubMedCrossRef Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P, Sandhu FA, Spears J, Kelly K, Rice L, Fessler RG (2005) Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine 3(2):98–105PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Jang JS, Lee SH (2005) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with ipsilateral pedicle screw and contralateral facet screw fixation. J Neurosurg Spine 3(3):218–223PubMedCrossRef Jang JS, Lee SH (2005) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with ipsilateral pedicle screw and contralateral facet screw fixation. J Neurosurg Spine 3(3):218–223PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Kawaguchi Y, Yabuki S, Styf J, Olmarker K, Rydevik B, Matsui H, Tsuji H (1996) Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Topographic evaluation of intramuscular pressure and blood flow in the porcine back muscle during surgery. Spine 21(22):2683–2688PubMedCrossRef Kawaguchi Y, Yabuki S, Styf J, Olmarker K, Rydevik B, Matsui H, Tsuji H (1996) Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Topographic evaluation of intramuscular pressure and blood flow in the porcine back muscle during surgery. Spine 21(22):2683–2688PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H (1997) Changes in serum creatine phosphokinase MM isoenzyme after lumbar spine surgery. Spine 22(9):1018–1023PubMedCrossRef Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H (1997) Changes in serum creatine phosphokinase MM isoenzyme after lumbar spine surgery. Spine 22(9):1018–1023PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Khoo LT, Palmer S, Laich DT, Fessler RG (2002) Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 51(5 Suppl):S166–S181PubMed Khoo LT, Palmer S, Laich DT, Fessler RG (2002) Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 51(5 Suppl):S166–S181PubMed
24.
go back to reference Kim DY, Lee SH, Chung SK, Lee HY (2005) Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation. Spine 30(1):123–129PubMedCrossRef Kim DY, Lee SH, Chung SK, Lee HY (2005) Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation. Spine 30(1):123–129PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Kim KT, Lee SH, Suk KS, Bae SC (2006) The quantitative analysis of tissue injury markers after mini-open lumbar fusion. Spine 31(6):712–716PubMedCrossRef Kim KT, Lee SH, Suk KS, Bae SC (2006) The quantitative analysis of tissue injury markers after mini-open lumbar fusion. Spine 31(6):712–716PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Lowe TG, Tahernia AD, O’Brien MF, Smith DA (2002) Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): indications, technique, and 2-year results. J Spinal Disord Tech 15(1):31–38PubMed Lowe TG, Tahernia AD, O’Brien MF, Smith DA (2002) Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): indications, technique, and 2-year results. J Spinal Disord Tech 15(1):31–38PubMed
27.
go back to reference Madan S, Boeree NR (2002) Outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion for spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine 27(14):1536–1542PubMedCrossRef Madan S, Boeree NR (2002) Outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion for spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine 27(14):1536–1542PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Mayer HM (1997) A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 22(6):691–699PubMedCrossRef Mayer HM (1997) A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 22(6):691–699PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Park Y, Ha JW (2007) Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine 32(5):537–543PubMedCrossRef Park Y, Ha JW (2007) Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine 32(5):537–543PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Pradhan BB, Nassar JA, Delamarter RB, Wang JC (2002) Single-level lumbar spine fusion: a comparison of anterior and posterior approaches. J Spinal Disord Tech 15(5):355–361PubMed Pradhan BB, Nassar JA, Delamarter RB, Wang JC (2002) Single-level lumbar spine fusion: a comparison of anterior and posterior approaches. J Spinal Disord Tech 15(5):355–361PubMed
36.
go back to reference Regan JJ, Yuan H, McAfee PC (1999) Laparoscopic fusion of the lumbar spine: minimally invasive spine surgery. A prospective multicenter study evaluating open and laparoscopic lumbar fusion. Spine 24(4):402–411PubMedCrossRef Regan JJ, Yuan H, McAfee PC (1999) Laparoscopic fusion of the lumbar spine: minimally invasive spine surgery. A prospective multicenter study evaluating open and laparoscopic lumbar fusion. Spine 24(4):402–411PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Sasaoka R, Nakamura H, Konishi S, Nagayama R, Suzuki E, Terai H, Takaoka K (2006) Objective assessment of reduced invasiveness in MED. Compared with conventional one-level laminotomy. Eur Spine J 15(5):577–582. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0912-8 PubMedCrossRef Sasaoka R, Nakamura H, Konishi S, Nagayama R, Suzuki E, Terai H, Takaoka K (2006) Objective assessment of reduced invasiveness in MED. Compared with conventional one-level laminotomy. Eur Spine J 15(5):577–582. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-005-0912-8 PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI (2007) Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery 60(4 Suppl 2):203–212PubMed Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI (2007) Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery 60(4 Suppl 2):203–212PubMed
39.
go back to reference Schofferman J, Slosar P, Reynolds J, Goldthwaite N, Koestler M (2001) A prospective randomized comparison of 270 degrees fusions to 360 degrees fusions (circumferential fusions). Spine 26(10):E207–E212PubMedCrossRef Schofferman J, Slosar P, Reynolds J, Goldthwaite N, Koestler M (2001) A prospective randomized comparison of 270 degrees fusions to 360 degrees fusions (circumferential fusions). Spine 26(10):E207–E212PubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Stevens KJ, Spenciner DB, Griffiths KL, Kim KD, Zwienenberg-Lee M, Alamin T, Bammer R (2006) Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies. J Spinal Disord Tech 19(2):77–78. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000193820.42522.d9 PubMedCrossRef Stevens KJ, Spenciner DB, Griffiths KL, Kim KD, Zwienenberg-Lee M, Alamin T, Bammer R (2006) Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies. J Spinal Disord Tech 19(2):77–78. doi:10.​1097/​01.​bsd.​0000193820.​42522.​d9 PubMedCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Styf JR, Willén J (2005) 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(3):354–358CrossRef Styf JR, Willén J (2005) 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(3):354–358CrossRef
43.
44.
go back to reference Tuttle J, Shakir A, Choudhri HF (2006) Paramedian approach for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Technical note and preliminary report on 47 cases. Neurosurg Focus 20(3):E5PubMedCrossRef Tuttle J, Shakir A, Choudhri HF (2006) Paramedian approach for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Technical note and preliminary report on 47 cases. Neurosurg Focus 20(3):E5PubMedCrossRef
45.
go back to reference Videbaek TS, Christensen FB, Soegaard R, Hansen ES, Høy K, Helmig P, Niedermann B, Eiskjoer SP, Bünger CE (2006) Circumferential fusion improves outcome in comparison with instrumented posterolateral fusion: long-term results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine 31(25):2875–2880PubMedCrossRef Videbaek TS, Christensen FB, Soegaard R, Hansen ES, Høy K, Helmig P, Niedermann B, Eiskjoer SP, Bünger CE (2006) Circumferential fusion improves outcome in comparison with instrumented posterolateral fusion: long-term results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine 31(25):2875–2880PubMedCrossRef
46.
Metadata
Title
Perioperative and short-term advantages of mini-open approach for lumbar spinal fusion
Authors
J. Rodríguez-Vela
A. Lobo-Escolar
E. Joven-Aliaga
A. Herrera
J. Vicente
E. Suñén
A. Loste
A. Tabuenca
Publication date
01-08-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 8/2009
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1010-0

Other articles of this Issue 8/2009

European Spine Journal 8/2009 Go to the issue