Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We set out to determine whether a minimally invasive approach for one-level instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion reduced undesirable changes in the multifidus muscle, compared to a conventional open approach. We also investigated associations between muscle injury during surgery (creatinine kinase levels), clinical outcome and changes in the multifidus at follow-up. We studied 59 patients treated by one team of surgeons at a single institution (minimally invasive approach in 28 and conventional open approach in 31, voluntarily chosen by patients). More than 1 year postoperatively, all the patients were followed up with the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI), and 16 patients from each group were evaluated using MRI. This enabled the cross-sectional area (CSA) of lean multifidus muscle, and the T2 signal intensity ratio of multifidus to psoas muscle, to be compared at the operative and adjacent levels. The minimally invasive group had less postoperative back pain (P < 0.001) and lower postoperative ODI scores (P = 0.001). Multifidus atrophy was less in the minimally invasive group (P < 0.001), with mean reductions in CSA of 12.2% at the operative and 8.5% at the adjacent levels, compared to 36.8% and 29.3% in the conventional open group. The increase in the multifidus:psoas T2 signal intensity ratio was similarly less marked in the minimally invasive group where values increased by 10.6% at the operative and 8.3% at the adjacent levels, compared to 34.4 and 22.7% in the conventional open group (P < 0.001). These changes in multifidus CSA and T2 signal intensity ratio were significantly correlated with postoperative creatinine kinase levels, VAS scores and ODI scores (P < 0.01). The minimally invasive approach caused less change in multifidus, less postoperative back pain and functional disability than conventional open approach. Muscle damage during surgery was significantly correlated with long-term multifidus muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration. Furthermore these degenerative changes of multifidus were also significantly correlated with long-term clinical outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Danneels LA, Vanderstraeten GG, Cambier DC, Witvrouw EE, De Cuyper HJ (2000) CT imaging of trunk muscles in chronic low back pain patients and healthy control subjects. Eur Spine J 9:266–272

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25(22):2940–2952 discussion 2952

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fitzpatrick JM, Wickham JE (1990) Minimal invasive surgery. Br J Surg 77:721–722

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD (2003) Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine 28(Suppl 15):S26–S35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, Ishihara H, Tsuji H (1997) Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine 24:1023–1028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hides JA, Richardson CA, Jull GA (1996) Multifidus muscle recovery is not automatic after resolution of acute, first-episode low back pain. Spine 21(23):2763–2769

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hides JA, Stokes MJ, Saide M, Jull GA, Cooper DH (1994) Evidence of lumbar multifidus muscle wasting ipsilateral to symptoms in patients with acute/subacute low back pain. Spine 19(2):165–172

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 3:98–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H (1996) Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine 21(8):941–944

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Khoo LT, Palmer S, Laich DT, Fessler RG (2002) Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 51:S166-1

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 30:123–129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Leu HF, Hauser RK (1996) Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar spine fusion. Neurosurg Clin North Am 7(1):107–117

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mayer HM (2000) The ALIF concept. Eur Spine J 9(Suppl):35–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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):33–36

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Panjabi MM (1992) The stabilizing system of the spine. Part I. Function, dysfunction, adaptation, and enhancement. J Spinal Disord 5(4):383–389

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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):537–543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Quint U, Wilke HJ, Shirazi-Adl A, Parnianpour M, Löer 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):1937–1945

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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–S6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86(2):420–428

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stevens KJ, Spenciner DB, Griffiths KL, Kim KD, Zwienenberg-Lee 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 19:77–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 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 27:2758–2762

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Waddell G (1987) A new clinical model for the treatment of low-back pain. Spine 12:632–644

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wilke HJ, Wolf S, Claes LE, Arand M, Wiesend A (1995) Stability increase of the lumbar spine with different muscle groups. A biomechanical in vitro study. Spine 20:192–198

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Sponsored by Zhejiang Provincial Program for the cultivation of High-level Innovative Health talents. The Institutional ethical board of this university has reviewed this study and approved this report contributed to the Eur Spine J.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Institute of Micro-invasive Surgery of Zhejiang University, Zhejiang University, 3, Qingchun Road East, Hangzhou, 310016, People’s Republic of China

    ShunWu Fan, ZhiJun Hu, FengDong Zhao, Xing Zhao, Yue Huang & Xiangqian Fang

Authors
  1. ShunWu Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. ZhiJun Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. FengDong Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xing Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yue Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xiangqian Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiangqian Fang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

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 19, 316–324 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1191-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1191-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation