Orthopedics, 2016;39(2):e209–e214
Cite this articlePublished Online:January 29, 2016https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20160129-07Cited by:34
Abstract
Paraspinal muscles are commonly affected during spine surgery. The purpose of this study was to assess the potential factors that contribute to paraspinal muscle atrophy (PMA) after lumbar spine surgery. A comprehensive review of the available English literature, including relevant abstracts and references of articles selected for review, was conducted to identify studies that reported PMA after spinal surgery. The amount of postoperative PMA was evaluated in (1) lumbar fusion vs nonfusion procedures; (2) posterior lumbar fusion vs anterior lumbar fusion; and (3) minimally invasive (MIS) posterior lumbar decompression and/or fusion vs non-MIS equivalent procedures. In total, 12 studies that included 529 patients (262 men and 267 women) were reviewed. Of these, 365 patients had lumbar fusions and 164 had lumbar decompressions. There was a significantly higher mean postoperative volumetric PMA with fusion vs nonfusion procedures (P=.0001), with posterior fusion vs anterior fusion (P=.0001), and with conventional fusions vs MIS fusions (P=.001). There was no significant difference in mean volumetric lumbar PMA with MIS decompression vs non-MIS decompression (P=.56). There was significantly higher postoperative PMA with lumbar spine fusions, posterior procedures, and non-MIS fusions. [Orthopedics. 2016; 39(2):e209–e214.]
- 1.Sihvonen T, Herno A, Paljarvi L, Airaksinen O, Partanen J, Tapaninaho A. Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993; 18(5):575–581.
10.1097/00007632-199304000-00009 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 2.Kim DY, Lee SH, Chung SK, Lee HY. Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(1):123–129.
10.1097/01.brs.0000148999.21492.53 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 3.Fleckenstein JL, Watumull D, Conner KE, Denervated human skeletal muscle: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology. 1993; 187(1):213–218.
10.1148/radiology.187.1.8451416 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 4.Motosuneya T, Asazuma T, Tsuji T, Watanabe H, Nakayama Y, Nemoto K. Postoperative change of the cross-sectional area of back musculature after 5 surgical procedures as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006; 19(5):318–322.
10.1097/01.bsd.0000211205.15997.06 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 5.Suwa H, Hanakita J, Ohshita N, Gotoh K, Matsuoka N, Morizane A. Postoperative changes in paraspinal muscle thickness after various lumbar back surgery procedures. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2000; 40(3):151–154.
10.2176/nmc.40.151 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 6.Bogduk N, Wilson AS, Tynan W. The human lumbar dorsal rami. J Anat. 1982; 134(pt 2):383–397. > MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 7.Sangala JR, Nichols T, Freeman TB. Technique to minimize paraspinal muscle atrophy after posterior cervical fusion. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2011; 113(1):48–51.
10.1016/j.clineuro.2010.09.001 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 8.Boelderl A, Daniaux H, Kathrein A, Maurer H. Danger of damaging the medial branches of the posterior rami of spinal nerves during a dorsomedian approach to the spine. Clin Anat. 2002; 15(2):77–81.
10.1002/ca.1099 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 9.Datta G, Gnanalingham KK, Peterson D, Back pain and disability after lumbar laminectomy: is there a relationship to muscle retraction?Neurosurgery. 2004; 54(6):1413–1420.
10.1227/01.NEU.0000124751.57121.A6 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 10.de Coul AA, Lie TA. A comparative electromyographic study before and after operations for protruded lumbar disc. Electromyography. 1970; 10(2):193–199. > MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 11.Hodges P, Holm AK, Hansson T, Holm S. Rapid atrophy of the lumbar multifidus follows experimental disc or nerve root injury. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31(25):2926–2933.
10.1097/01.brs.0000248453.51165.0b > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 12.Hyun SJ, Kim YB, Kim YS, Postoperative changes in paraspinal muscle volume: comparison between paramedian interfascial and midline approaches for lumbar fusion. J Korean Med Sci. 2007; 22(4):646–651.
10.3346/jkms.2007.22.4.646 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 13.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009; 339:2700.
10.1136/bmj.b2700 > CrossrefGoogle Scholar - 14.Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003; 73(9):712–716.
10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 15.Khan M, Adamich J, Simunovic N, Philippon MJ, Bhandari M, Ayeni OR. Surgical management of internal snapping hip syndrome: a systematic review evaluating open and arthroscopic approaches. Arthroscopy. 2013; 29(5):942–948.
10.1016/j.arthro.2013.01.016 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 16.Banerjee S, Issa K, Kapadia BH, Pivec R, Khanuja HS, Mont MA. Highly-porous metal option for primary cementless acetabular fixation: what is the evidence?Hip Int. 2013; 23(6):509–521.
10.5301/hipint.5000064 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 17.Rometsch E, Bos PK, Koes BW. Survival of short hip stems with a “modern,” trochanter-sparing design: a systematic literature review. Hip Int. 2012; 22(4):344–354.
10.5301/HIP.2012.9472 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 18.Huisstede B, Miedema HS, van Opstal T, de Ronde MT, Verhaar JA, Koes BW. Interventions for treating the radial tunnel syndrome: a systematic review of observational studies. J Hand Surg Am. 2008; 33(1):72–78.
10.1016/j.jhsa.2007.10.001 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 19.Fan S, Hu Z, Zhao F, Zhao X, Huang Y, Fang X. Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach. Eur Spine J. 2010; 19(2):316–324.
10.1007/s00586-009-1191-6 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 20.Mori E, Okada S, Ueta T, Spinous process-splitting open pedicle screw fusion provides favorable results in patients with low back discomfort and pain compared to conventional open pedicle screw fixation over 1 year after surgery. Eur Spine J. 2012; 21(4):745–753.
10.1007/s00586-011-2146-2 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 21.Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, Ishihara H, Tsuji H. Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999; 24(10):1023–1028.
10.1097/00007632-199905150-00017 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 22.Fujimura Y, Nishi Y. Atrophy of the nuchal muscle and change in cervical curvature after expansive open-door laminoplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1996; 115(3–4):203–205.
10.1007/BF00434554 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 23.Watanabe K, Matsumoto M, Ikegami T, Reduced postoperative wound pain after lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis: a randomized controlled study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011; 14:51–58.
10.3171/2010.9.SPINE09933 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 24.Tsutsumimoto T, Shimogata M, Ohta H, Misawa H. Mini-open versus conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparison of paraspinal muscle damage and slip reduction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34:1923–1928.
10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a9d28e > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 25.Remes V, Lamberg T, Tervahartiala P, Long-term outcome after posterolateral, anterior, and circumferential fusion for high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis in children and adolescents: magnetic resonance imaging findings after average of 17-year followup. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31:2491–2499.
10.1097/01.brs.0000239218.38489.db > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 26.Hartwig T, Streitparth F, Gross C, Digital 3-dimensional analysis of the paravertebral lumbar muscles after circumferential single-level fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011; 24:451–454.
10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182055d74 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 27.Stevens KJ, Spenciner DB, Griffiths KL, Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006; 19:77–86.
10.1097/01.bsd.0000193820.42522.d9 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 28.Kim K, Isu T, Sugawara A, Matsumoto R, Isobe M. Comparison of the effect of 3 different approaches to the lumbar spinal canal on postoperative paraspinal muscle damage. Surg Neurol. 2008; 69:109–113.
10.1016/j.surneu.2007.04.021 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
