Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

01-05-2017 | Original Article

Comparison of pedicle fixation by the Wiltse approach and the conventional posterior open approach for thoracolumbar fractures, using MRI, histological and electrophysiological analyses of the multifidus muscle

Authors: Liu Junhui, Pang Zhengbao, Xu Wenbin, Hao Lu, Li Shengyun, Fan Shunwu, Zhao Fengdong

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 5/2017

Abstract

Purpose

To use imaging, histology and electrophysiological assessment to compare the Wiltse approach to pedicle fixation with the conventional posterior open approach for thoracolumbar fractures.

Methods

We analyzed clinical and histopathological information of consecutive patients with thoracolumbar fractures who underwent short-segment pedicle fixation using either the Wiltse approach or the posterior open approach. Seventy-five patients were enrolled between June 2010 and August 2014 (Wiltse group 35 cases; posterior open group 40 cases). The two groups were compared for MRI appearance, histological and electrophysiological changes in multifidus muscle.

Results

On MRI, multifidus cross-sectional area (CSA) in the Wiltse group decreased by only 7.6% between pre-op and the last follow-up, compared to 35.4% in the posterior open group, and less fatty infiltration was found in the Wiltse group. Histologically, post-op (removal of internal fixation) tissue from the posterior open group showed disordered myofibrils, with diameter and CSA decreased by 11.6 and 24.3%, respectively; also, the myofibril gap became larger with fat deposition and scar formation. The Wiltse group had no such significant changes. Electrophysiologically, in the posterior open group, median frequency slope (MFs) significantly increased by 67.6% with average amplitude (AA) significantly decreased by 17.5% between pre-op and 12 months post-op. No significant changes were found in the Wiltse group. At 12 months post-op, AA was significantly lower and MFs was higher in the posterior open group than the Wiltse group.

Conclusion

The Wiltse approach showed a lower incidence of multifidus atrophy and denervation, and less fatty infiltration. It is an effective and minimally invasive approach for thoracolumbar fractures.

Sihvonen T, Herno A, Paljarvi L, Airaksinen O, Partanen J, Tapaninaho A (1993) Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome. Spine 18:575–581

Taylor H, McGregor AH, Medhi-Zadeh S, Richards S, Kahn N, Zadeh JA et al (2002) The impact of self-retaining retractors on the paraspinal muscles during posterior spinal surgery. Spine 27:2758–2762CrossRefPubMed

Hu ZJ, Fang XQ, Zhou ZJ, Wang JY, Zhao FD, Fan SW (2013) Effect and possible mechanism of muscle-splitting approach on multifidus muscle injury and atrophy after posterior lumbar spine surgery. J Bone Jt Surg Am 95(24):e192 (1–9)

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 30:123–129CrossRefPubMed

Mayer TG, Vanharanta H, Gatchel RJ, Mooney V, Barnes D, Judge L (1989) Comparison of CT scan muscle measurements and isokinetic trunk strength in postoperative patients. Spine 14(1):33–36CrossRefPubMed

Quint U, Wilke HJ, Shirazi-Adl A, Parnianpour M, Loer F, Claes LE (1998) Importance of the intersegmental trunk muscles for the stability of the lumbar spine: a biomechanical study in vitro. Spine 23(18):1937–1945CrossRefPubMed

Onesti ST (2004) Failed back syndrome. Neurologist 10(5):259–264CrossRefPubMed

Wiltse LL, Bateman JG, Hutchinson RH, Nelson WE (1968) The paraspinal sacrospinalis-splitting approach to the lumbar spine. J Bone Jt Surg Am 50(5):919–926CrossRef

Ota M, Neo M, Fujibayashi S, Takemoto M, Nakamura T (2010) Advantages of the paraspinal muscle splitting approach in comparison with conventional midline approach for s1 pedicle screw placement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(11): E452–E457

10.

Mehren C, Siepe CJ (2016) Neuroforaminal decompression and intra-/extraforaminal discectomy via a paraspinal muscle-splitting approach. Eur Spine J 25(Suppl 2):276–277CrossRefPubMed

11.

Choi KC, Kim JS, Lee DC, Park CK (2016) Outcome of decompression alone for foraminal/extraforaminal entrapment of L5 nerve root through Wiltse paraspinal approach. Clin Spine Surg [Epub ahead of print]

12.

Stevens KJ, Spenciner DB, Griffiths KL, Kim KD, ZwienenbergLee M, Alamin T et al (2006) Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:77–86CrossRefPubMed

13.

Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P, Sandhu FA, Spears J, Kelly K et al (2005) Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine 3:98–105CrossRefPubMed

14.

Khoo LT, Palmer S, Laich DT, Fessler RG (2002) Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 51:S166–S171PubMed

15.

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):537–543CrossRefPubMed

16.

Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, Foley KT (2005) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(Suppl):S1–S6CrossRefPubMed

17.

Kim KT, Lee SH, Suk KS, Bae SC (2006) The quantitative analysis of tissue injury markers after mini-open lumbar fusion. Spine 31:712–716CrossRefPubMed

18.

Reinhold M, Audigé L, Schnake KJ et al (2013) AO spine injury classification system: a revision proposal for the thoracic and lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 22(10):2184–2201CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Battaglia PJ, Maeda Y, Welk A, Hough B, Kettner N (2014) Reliability of the Goutallier classification in quantifying muscle fatty degeneration in the lumbar multifidus using magnetic resonance imaging. J Manip Physiol Ther 37(3):190–197CrossRef

20.

Goutallier D, Postel JM, Bernageau J, Lavau L, Voisin MC (1994) Fatty muscle degeneration in cuff ruptures. Pre- and postoperative evaluation by CT scan. Clin Orthop Relat Res (304):78–83

21.

Biering-Sorensen F (1984) Physical measurements as risk indicators for low-back trouble over a one-year period. Spine 9:106–119

22.

Sihvonen T, Herno A, Paljarvi L et al (1993) Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome. Spine 18:575–581CrossRefPubMed

23.

Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H (1994) Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: Histologic and histochemical analyses in humans. Spine 19:2598–2602CrossRefPubMed

24.

Lu WW, Hu Y, Luk KD et al (2002) Paraspinal muscle activities of patients with scoliosis after spine fusion: an electromyographic study. Spine 27:1180–1185CrossRefPubMed

25.

Macdonald DA, Moseley GL, Hodges PW (2009) Why do some patients keep hurting their back? Evidence of ongoing back muscle dysfunction during remission from recurrent back pain. Pain 142(3):183–188CrossRefPubMed

26.

Macdonald DA, Moseley GL, Hodges PW (2010) People with recurrent low back pain respond differently to trunk loading despite remission from symptoms. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:818–824

27.

Macdonald DA, Dawson AP, Hodges PW (2011) Behavior of the lumbar multifidus during lower extremity movements in people with recurrent low back pain during symptom remission. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 41(3):155–164CrossRefPubMed

28.

Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H (1997) Changes in serum creatine phosphokinase MM isoenzyme after lumbar spine surgery. Spine 22(9):1018–1023CrossRefPubMed

29.

Nanji AA (1983) Serum creatine kinase isoenzymes: a review. Muscle Nerve 6:83–90CrossRefPubMed

30.

Kim K, Isu T, Sugawara A, Matsumoto R, Isobe M (2008) Comparison of the effect of 3 different approaches to the lumbar spinal canal on postoperative paraspinal muscle damage. Surg Neurol 69(2):109–113CrossRefPubMed

31.

Suwa H, Hanakita J, Ohshita N, Gotoh K, Matsuoka N, Morizane A (2000) Postoperative changes in paraspinal muscle thickness after various lumbar back surgery procedures. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 40(3):151–154 (discussion 154–155)

32.

Cawley DT, Alexander M, Morris S (2014) Multifidus innervation and muscle assessment post-spinal surgery. Eur Spine J 23(2):320–327CrossRefPubMed

33.

Roy SH, Oddsson LI (1998) Classification of paraspinal muscle impairments by surface electromyography. Phys Ther 78:838–851CrossRefPubMed

34.

Kupa EJ, Roy SH, Kandarian SC et al (1995) Effects of muscle fiber type and size on EMG median frequency and conduction velocity. J Appl Physiol 79:23–32PubMed

35.

Gamet D, Duchene J, Garapon-Bar C et al (1993) Surface electromyogram power spectrum in human quadriceps muscle during incremental exercise. J Appl Physiol 74:2704–2710PubMed

36.

Fan Shunwu, Zhijun Hu, Fang Xiangqian, Zhao Fengdong, Huang Yue, He-jun Yu (2010) Comparison of paraspinal muscle injury in one-level lumbar posterior inter-body fusion: modified minimally invasive and traditional open approaches. Orthop Surg 2:194–200CrossRefPubMed

Title: Comparison of pedicle fixation by the Wiltse approach and the conventional posterior open approach for thoracolumbar fractures, using MRI, histological and electrophysiological analyses of the multifidus muscle
Authors: Liu Junhui
Pang Zhengbao
Xu Wenbin
Hao Lu
Li Shengyun
Fan Shunwu
Zhao Fengdong
Publication date: 01-05-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 5/2017
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5010-1

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Comparison of pedicle fixation by the Wiltse approach and the conventional posterior open approach for thoracolumbar fractures, using MRI, histological and electrophysiological analyses of the multifidus muscle

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2017

How safe is minimally invasive pedicle screw placement for treatment of thoracolumbar spine fractures?

Maverick total disc replacement in a real-world patient population: a prospective, multicentre, observational study

Modified one-stage posterior/anterior combined surgery with posterior pedicle instrumentation and anterior monosegmental reconstruction for unstable Denis type B thoracolumbar burst fracture

Development of the AOSpine Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (AOSpine PROST): a universal disease-specific outcome instrument for individuals with traumatic spinal column injury

Universal disease-specific outcome instruments for spine trauma: a global perspective on relevant parameters to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes of thoracic and lumbar spine trauma patients

Acute complete paraplegia of 8-year-old girl caused by spinal cord infarction following minor trauma complicated with longitudinal signal change of spinal cord