Bresnahan Lacey E, Smith Justin S, Ogden Alfred T, Quinn Steven, Cybulski George R, Simonian Narina, Natarajan Raghu N, Fessler Richard D, Fessler Richard G
*Department of Neurological Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL †Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA ‡Department of Neurological Surgery, The Neurological Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY §Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.
Clin Spine Surg. 2017 Apr;30(3):E162-E168. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000038.
A retrospective, blinded analysis of imaging studies.
To evaluate changes in paraspinal muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) after surgical treatment for lumbar stenosis and to compare these changes between minimally invasive and standard open approaches. The open approach to lumbar stenosis is effective, but it involves retraction and resection of muscle from the spinous process, which can result in ischemia and denervation of paraspinal musculature and may lead to muscle atrophy and pain.
It is hypothesized that the microendoscopic decompression of stenosis (MEDS) technique will better preserve the paraspinal muscles compared with the open procedure.
A total of 18 patients underwent a 1-level posterior decompression for lumbar stenosis, (9 open, 9 MEDS). Lumbar magnetic resonance imaging was obtained before surgery and after surgery (open approach average 16.3 mo; MEDS average 16.6 mo). CSA of paraspinal muscles were averaged over the distance of the surgical site.
The mean age of patients treated with the open and MEDS approaches were 55.2 and 66.4 years, respectively (P=0.07). Paraspinal muscle CSA decreased by an average of 5.4% (SD=10.6%; range, -24.5% to +7.7%) in patients treated with the open approach and increased by an average of 9.9% (SD=14.4%; range, -9.8% to +33.1%) in patients treated with MEDS (P=0.02). For the open approach, changes in CSA did not differ significantly between the left and right sides for erector spinae (P=0.35) or multifidus muscles (P=0.90). After the MEDS approach there were no significant differences between the dilated and contralateral sides with regard to change in CSA for erector spinae (P=0.85) or multifidus muscles (P=0.95).
Compared with the open approach for lumbar stenosis, MEDS had significantly less negative impact on the paraspinal muscle CSA. Previous reports have documented negative effects of paraspinal muscle injury, including weakness, disability, and pain. Collectively, these data suggest that the MEDS approach for lumbar decompression is less destructive to the paraspinous muscles than the open approach and may facilitate better clinical outcomes.
对影像学研究进行回顾性、盲法分析。
为评估腰椎管狭窄症手术治疗后椎旁肌横截面积(CSA)的变化,并比较微创和标准开放手术方式之间的这些变化。腰椎管狭窄症的开放手术方式是有效的,但它需要从棘突牵拉和切除肌肉,这可能导致椎旁肌肉组织缺血和失神经支配,并可能导致肌肉萎缩和疼痛。
假设与开放手术相比,狭窄症的微内镜减压术(MEDS)技术能更好地保留椎旁肌。
共有18例患者接受了单节段腰椎管狭窄症后路减压手术(9例开放手术,9例MEDS手术)。术前和术后均进行了腰椎磁共振成像(开放手术平均16.3个月;MEDS手术平均16.6个月)。在手术部位的距离上对椎旁肌的CSA进行平均。
接受开放手术和MEDS手术的患者平均年龄分别为55.2岁和66.4岁(P = 0.07)。接受开放手术的患者椎旁肌CSA平均下降5.4%(标准差 = 10.6%;范围,-24.5%至 +7.7%),接受MEDS手术的患者椎旁肌CSA平均增加9.9%(标准差 = 14.4%;范围,-9.8%至 +33.1%)(P = 0.02)。对于开放手术,竖脊肌(P = 0.35)或多裂肌(P = 0.90)左右两侧CSA的变化无显著差异。MEDS手术后,竖脊肌(P = 0.85)或多裂肌(P = 0.95)扩张侧与对侧CSA变化无显著差异。
与腰椎管狭窄症的开放手术相比,MEDS对椎旁肌CSA的负面影响明显较小。先前的报告记录了椎旁肌损伤的负面影响,包括无力、残疾和疼痛。总体而言,这些数据表明,腰椎减压的MEDS手术方式对椎旁肌的破坏小于开放手术方式,可能有助于获得更好的临床结果。