Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

The Korean Neurosurgical Society (대한신경외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Minimally Invasive Multi-Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Percutaneously Inserted Spinal Fixation System : Technical Tips, Surgical Outcomes

  • Kim, Hyeun-Sung (Department of Neurosurgery, Daejeon Hurisarang Hospital) ;
  • Park, Keun-Ho (Department of Orthopedic, Jeonju Korea Hospital) ;
  • Ju, Chag-Il (Department of Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Seok-Won (Department of Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, Chosun University) ;
  • Lee, Seung-Myung (Department of Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, Chosun University) ;
  • Shin, Ho (Department of Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, Chosun University)
  • Received : 2010.12.07
  • Accepted : 2011.11.14
  • Published : 2011.11.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective : There are technical limitations of multi-level posterior pedicle screw fixation performed by the percutaneous technique. The purpose of this study was to describe the surgical technique and outcome of minimally invasive multi-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and to determine its efficacy. Methods : Forty-two patients who underwent mini-open PLIF using the percutaneous screw fixation system were studied. The mean age of the patients was 59.1 (range, 23 to 78 years). Two levels were involved in 32 cases and three levels in 10 cases. The clinical outcome was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Low Back Outcome Score (LBOS). Achievement of radiological fusion, intra-operative blood loss, the midline surgical scar and procedure related complications were also analyzed. Results : The mean follow-up period was 25.3 months. The mean LBOS prior to surgery was 34.5, which was improved to 49.1 at the final follow up. The mean pain score (VAS) prior to surgery was 7.5 and it was decreased to 2.9 at the last follow up. The mean estimated blood loss was 238 mL (140-350) for the two level procedures and 387 mL (278-458) for three levels. The midline surgical scar was 6.27 cm for two levels and 8.25 cm for three level procedures. Complications included two cases of asymptomatic medial penetration of the pedicle border. However, there were no signs of neurological deterioration or fusion failure. Conclusion : Multi-level, minimally invasive PLIF can be performed effectively using the percutaneous transpedicular screw fixation system. It can be an alternative to the traditional open procedures.

Keywords

References

  1. Anand N, Baron EM, Thaiyananthan G, Khalsa K, Goldstein TB : Minimally invasive multilevel percutaneous correction and fusion for adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis : a technique and feasibility study. J Spinal Disord Tech 21 : 459-467, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e318167b06b
  2. Bogduk N, Wilson AS, Tynan W : The human lumbar dorsal rami. J Anat 134 : 383-397, 1982
  3. Greenough CG, Fraser RD : Assessment of outcome in patients with low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 17 : 36-41, 1992 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199201000-00006
  4. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H : Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21 : 941-944, 1996 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199604150-00007
  5. Khoo LT, Palmer S, Laich DT, Fessler RG : Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 51 : S166-S181, 2002
  6. Kim KH, Park JY, Chin DK : Fusion criteria for posterior lumbar interbody fusion with intervertebral cages : The significance of traction spur. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 46 : 328-332, 2009 https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2009.46.4.328
  7. Lowery GL, Kulkarni SS : Posterior percutaneous spine instrumentation. Eur Spine J 9 Suppl 1 : S126-S130, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00008318
  8. Mummaneni PV, Haid RW, Rodts GE : Lumbar interbody fusion : state-of-the-art technical advances. Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004. J Neurosurg Spine 1 : 24-30, 2004 https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2004.1.1.0024
  9. Ota M, Neo M, Fujibayashi S, Takemoto M, Nakamura T : Advantages of the paraspinal muscle splitting approach in comparison with conventional midline approach for s1 pedicle screw placement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35 : E452-E457, 2010 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ce0696
  10. Wang JC, Mummaneni PV, Haid RW : Current treatment strategies for the painful lumbar motion segment : posterolateral fusion versus interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30 : S33-S43, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000174559.13749.83
  11. Wang MY, Anderson DG, Poelstra KA, Ludwig SC : Minimally invasive posterior fixation. Neurosurgery 63 : 197-203, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000320434.83458.10
  12. Wetzel FT, LaRocca H : The failed posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16 : 839-845, 1991 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199107000-00027
  13. Yashiro K, Homma T, Hokari Y, Katsumi Y, Okumura H, Hirano A : The Steffee variable screw placement system using different methods of bone grafting. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16 : 1329-1334, 1991 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199111000-00014

Cited by

  1. Comparative Analysis of Adjacent Levels of Degeneration and Clinical Outcomes Between Conventional Pedicle Screws and Percutaneous Pedicle Screws in Treatment of Degenerative Disease at L3-5; A Prelim vol.9, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.14245/kjs.2012.9.2.66
  2. Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using an Unilateral Cage: A Prospective Study of Clinical Outcome and Stability vol.11, pp.2, 2011, https://doi.org/10.14245/kjs.2014.11.2.52
  3. An Outcome Measure of Functionality and Pain in Patients with Low Back Disorder: A Validation Study of the Iranian version of Low Back Outcome Score vol.10, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2016.10.4.719
  4. Diminishing Clinical Returns of Multilevel Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion vol.44, pp.20, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000003110