Intramuscular pressure of the multifidus muscle and low-back pain after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of mini-open and conventional approaches

Clinical article

Yoshihiro Mukai M.D., Ph.D.1, Shota Takenaka M.D.1, Noboru Hosono M.D., Ph.D.1, Toshitada Miwa M.D.2, and Takeshi Fuji M.D., Ph.D.1
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Osaka Kosei-nenkin Hospital, Fukushima, Osaka; and
  • | 2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kansai Rosai Hospital, Inabaso, Amagasaki, Japan
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online

Object

This randomized study was designed to elucidate the time course of the perioperative development of intramuscular multifidus muscle pressure after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and to investigate whether the route of pedicle screw insertion affects this pressure and resultant low-back pain. Although several studies have focused on intramuscular pressure associated with posterior lumbar surgery, those studies examined intramuscular pressure generated by the muscle retractors during surgery. No study has investigated the intramuscular pressure after PLIF.

Methods

Forty patients with L4–5 degenerative spondylolisthesis were randomly assigned to undergo either the mini-open PLIF procedure with pedicle screw insertion between the multifidus and longissimus muscles (n = 20) or the conventional PLIF procedure via a midline approach only (n = 20). Intramuscular pressure was measured 5 times (at 30 minutes and at 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours after surgery) with an intraoperatively installed sensor. Concurrently, the FACES Pain Rating Scale score for low-back pain and the total dose of postoperative analgesics were recorded.

Results

With the patients in the supine position, for both groups the mean pressure values were consistently 40–50 mm Hg, which exceeded the critical capillary pressure of the muscle. With the patients in the lateral decubitus position, the pressure decreased over time (from 14 to 9 mm Hg in the mini-open group and from 20 to 10 mm Hg in the conventional group). Among patients in the mini-open group, the pressure was lower, but the difference was not statistically significant. Postoperative pain and postoperative analgesic dosages were also lower .

Conclusions

To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate postoperative intramuscular pressure after PLIF. Although the results did not demonstrate a significant difference in the intramuscular pressure between the 2 types of PLIF, mini-open PLIF was associated with less pain after surgery. Clinical trial registration no.: UMIN000010069 (www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm).

Abbreviations used in this paper:

Co-PLIF = conventional PLIF; Mi-PLIF = mini-open PLIF; PLIF = posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Bindal RK, , Glaze S, , Ognoskie M, , Tunner V, , Malone R, & Ghosh S: Surgeon and patient radiation exposure in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 9:570573, 2008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Boden SD, , Andersson GB, , Fraser RD, , Garfin SR, , Goel VK, & Hanley EN Jr, et al.: Selection of the optimal procedure to achieve lumbar spinal fusion. Introduction 1995 Focus Issue Meeting on Fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:24 Suppl 166S, 1995

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Brantigan JW, & Steffee AD: A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:21062107, 1993

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Brantigan JW, , Steffee AD, , Lewis ML, , Quinn LM, & Persenaire JM: Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:14371446, 2000

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Cloward RB: The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 10:154168, 1953

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Datta G, , Gnanalingham KK, , Peterson D, , Mendoza N, , O'Neill K, & Van Dellen J, et al.: Back pain and disability after lumbar laminectomy: is there a relationship to muscle retraction?. Neurosurgery 54:14131420, 2004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Karikari IO, & Isaacs RE: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:26 Suppl S294S301, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Kawaguchi Y, , Matsui H, & Tsuji H: Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 1: histologic and histochemical analyses in rats. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:25902597, 1994

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Kawaguchi Y, , Matsui H, & Tsuji H: Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: histologic and histochemical analyses in humans. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:25982602, 1994

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Kawaguchi Y, , Yabuki S, , Styf J, , Olmarker K, , Rydevik B, & Matsui H, et al.: Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Topographic evaluation of intramuscular pressure and blood flow in the porcine back muscle during surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:26832688, 1996

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Kobayashi Y, , Sekiguchi M, , Konno S, & Kikuchi S: Increased intramuscular pressure in lumbar paraspinal muscles and low back pain: model development and expression of substance P in the dorsal root ganglion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:14231428, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Konno S, , Kikuchi S, & Nagaosa Y: The relationship between intramuscular pressure of the paraspinal muscles and low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:21862189, 1994

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Kramer M, , Völker HU, , Weikert E, , Katzmaier P, , Sterk J, & Willy C, et al.: Simultaneous measurement of intramuscular pressure and surface electromyography of the multifidus muscle. Eur Spine J 13:530536, 2004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Melberg PE, & Styf J: Posteromedial pain in the lower leg. Am J Sports Med 17:747750, 1989

  • 15

    Ogata K, & Whiteside LA: Effects of external compression on blood flow to muscle and skin. Clin Orthop Relat Res 168 105107, 1982

  • 16

    Pedowitz RA, , Hargens AR, , Mubarak SJ, & Gershuni DH: Modified criteria for the objective diagnosis of chronic compartment syndrome of the leg. Am J Sports Med 18:3540, 1990

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Ray CD: Threaded titanium cages for lumbar interbody fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:667680, 1997

  • 18

    Steffee AD, & Sitkowski DJ: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion and plates. Clin Orthop Relat Res 227:99102, 1988

  • 19

    Stevens KJ, , Spenciner DB, , Griffiths KL, , Kim KD, , Zwienenberg-Lee M, & Alamin T, et al.: Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:7786, 2006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Styf J: Pressure in the erector spinae muscle during exercise. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 12:675679, 1987

  • 21

    Styf JR, & Körner LM: Microcapillary infusion technique for measurement of intramuscular pressure during exercise. Clin Orthop Relat Res 207 253262, 1986

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Styf JR, & Willén J: The effects of external compression by three different retractors on pressure in the erector spine muscles during and after posterior lumbar spine surgery in humans. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:354358, 1998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Taylor H, , McGregor AH, , Medhi-Zadeh S, , Richards S, , Kahn N, & Zadeh JA, et al.: The impact of self-retaining retractors on the paraspinal muscles during posterior spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:27582762, 2002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Wiltse LL, , Bateman JG, , Hutchinson RH, & Nelson WE: The paraspinal sacrospinalis-splitting approach to the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 50:919926, 1968

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Wiltse LL, & Spencer CW: New uses and refinements of the paraspinal approach to the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13:696706, 1988

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Wong DL, & Baker CM: Pain in children: comparison of assessment scales. Pediatr Nurs 14:917, 1988

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 782 155 6
Full Text Views 129 22 0
PDF Downloads 157 18 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0