Paraspinal Muscle Sparing Versus Percutaneous Screw Fixation: A Comparative Enzyme Study of Tissue Injury during the Treatment of L4-L5 Spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Screw fixation via the paraspinal muscle sparing approach and by percutaneous screw fixation are known to diminish the risk of complications, such as, iatrogenic muscle injury as compared with the conventional midline approach. The purpose of this study was to evaluate tissue injury markers after these less traumatic screw fixation techniques for the treatment of L4-L5 spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Twenty-two patients scheduled for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) at the L4-L5 segment for spondylolisthesis were prospectively studied. Patients were divided into two groups by screw fixation technique (Group I: paraspinal muscle sparing approach and Group II: percutaneous screw fixation). Levels of serum enzymes representing muscle injury (CK-MM and Troponin C type 2 fast), pro-inflammatory cytokine (IL-8), and anti-inflammatory cytokine (IL-1ra) were analyzed using ELISA techniques on the day of the surgery and 1, 3, and 7 days after the surgery. RESULTS: Serum CK-MM, Troponic C type 2 fast (TNNC2), and IL-1ra levels were significantly elevated in Group I on postoperative day 1 and 3, and returned to preoperative levels on postoperative day 7. No significant intergroup difference was found between IL-8 levels despite higher concentrations in Group I on postoperative day 1 and 3. CONCLUSION: This study shows that percutaneous screw fixation procedure is the preferable minimally invasive technique in terms of minimizing muscle injury associated with L4-L5 spondylolisthesis.

Paraspinal Muscle Sparing Versus Percutaneous Screw Fixation: A Comparative Enzyme Study of Tissue Injury during the Treatment of L4-L5 Spondylolisthesis

OBJECTIVE: Screw fixation via the paraspinal muscle sparing approach and by percutaneous screw fixation are known to diminish the risk of complications, such as, iatrogenic muscle injury as compared with the conventional midline approach. The purpose of this study was to evaluate tissue injury markers after these less traumatic screw fixation techniques for the treatment of L4-L5 spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Twenty-two patients scheduled for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) at the L4-L5 segment for spondylolisthesis were prospectively studied. Patients were divided into two groups by screw fixation technique (Group I: paraspinal muscle sparing approach and Group II: percutaneous screw fixation). Levels of serum enzymes representing muscle injury (CK-MM and Troponin C type 2 fast), pro-inflammatory cytokine (IL-8), and anti-inflammatory cytokine (IL-1ra) were analyzed using ELISA techniques on the day of the surgery and 1, 3, and 7 days after the surgery. RESULTS: Serum CK-MM, Troponic C type 2 fast (TNNC2), and IL-1ra levels were significantly elevated in Group I on postoperative day 1 and 3, and returned to preoperative levels on postoperative day 7. No significant intergroup difference was found between IL-8 levels despite higher concentrations in Group I on postoperative day 1 and 3. CONCLUSION: This study shows that percutaneous screw fixation procedure is the preferable minimally invasive technique in terms of minimizing muscle injury associated with L4-L5 spondylolisthesis.

Paraspinal Muscle Sparing versus Percutaneous Screw Fixation : A Prospective and Comparative Study for the Treatment of L5-S1 Spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Both the paraspinal muscle sparing approach and percutaneous screw fixation are less traumatic procedures in comparison with the conventional midline approach. These techniques have been used with the goal of reducing muscle injury. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and to compare the safety and efficacy of the paraspinal muscle sparing technique and percutaneous screw fixation for the treatment of L5-S1 spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Twenty patients who had undergone posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) at the L5-S1 segment for spondylolisthesis were prospectively studied. They were divided into two groups by screw fixation technique (Group I : paraspinal muscle sparing approach and Group II: percutaneous screw fixation). Clinical outcomes were assessed by Low Back Outcome Score (LBOS) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain at different times after surgery. In addition, modified MacNab's grading criteria were used to assess subjective patients' outcomes 6 months after surgery. Postoperative midline surgical scarring, intraoperative blood loss, mean operation time, and procedure-related complications were analyzed. RESULTS: Excellent or good results were observed in all patients in both groups 6 months after surgery. Patients in both groups showed marked improvement in terms of LBOSs all over time intervals. Postoperative midline surgical scarring and intraoperative blood loss were lower in Group II compared to Group I although these differences were not statistically significant. Low back pain (LBP) and leg pain in both groups also showed significant improvement when compared to preoperative scores. However, at 7 days and 1 month after surgery, patients in Group II had significantly better LBP scores compared to Group I. CONCLUSION: In terms of LBP during the early postoperative period, patients who underwent percutaneous screw fixation showed better results compared to ones who underwent screw fixation via the paraspinal muscle sparing approach. Our results indicate that the percutaneous screw fixation procedure is the preferable minimally invasive technique for reducing LBP associated with L5-S1 spondylolisthesis.

Paraspinal Muscle Sparing versus Percutaneous Screw Fixation : A Prospective and Comparative Study for the Treatment of L5-S1 Spondylolisthesis

OBJECTIVE: Both the paraspinal muscle sparing approach and percutaneous screw fixation are less traumatic procedures in comparison with the conventional midline approach. These techniques have been used with the goal of reducing muscle injury. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and to compare the safety and efficacy of the paraspinal muscle sparing technique and percutaneous screw fixation for the treatment of L5-S1 spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Twenty patients who had undergone posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) at the L5-S1 segment for spondylolisthesis were prospectively studied. They were divided into two groups by screw fixation technique (Group I : paraspinal muscle sparing approach and Group II: percutaneous screw fixation). Clinical outcomes were assessed by Low Back Outcome Score (LBOS) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain at different times after surgery. In addition, modified MacNab's grading criteria were used to assess subjective patients' outcomes 6 months after surgery. Postoperative midline surgical scarring, intraoperative blood loss, mean operation time, and procedure-related complications were analyzed. RESULTS: Excellent or good results were observed in all patients in both groups 6 months after surgery. Patients in both groups showed marked improvement in terms of LBOSs all over time intervals. Postoperative midline surgical scarring and intraoperative blood loss were lower in Group II compared to Group I although these differences were not statistically significant. Low back pain (LBP) and leg pain in both groups also showed significant improvement when compared to preoperative scores. However, at 7 days and 1 month after surgery, patients in Group II had significantly better LBP scores compared to Group I. CONCLUSION: In terms of LBP during the early postoperative period, patients who underwent percutaneous screw fixation showed better results compared to ones who underwent screw fixation via the paraspinal muscle sparing approach. Our results indicate that the percutaneous screw fixation procedure is the preferable minimally invasive technique for reducing LBP associated with L5-S1 spondylolisthesis.