Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies

Kathryn J. Stevens, David B. Spenciner, Karen L. Griffiths, Kee D Kim, Marike Zwienenberg-Lee, Todd Alamin, Roland Bammer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

107 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion results in less paraspinal muscle damage than conventional open posterior fusion. METHODS: The maximum intramuscular pressure (IMP) generated by a minimally invasive and standard open retractor was compared in cadavers using an ultra-miniature pressure transducer. In a second clinical study, eight patients with either minimally invasive or open posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning approximately 6 months post surgery. MRI was used to estimate edema and atrophy within multifidus, with T2 mapping and diffusion-weighted imaging allowing quantification of differences between the two surgical techniques. RESULTS: IMP measured with the minimally invasive retractor was 1.4 versus 4.7 kPa with the open retractor (P<0.001). The minimally invasive retractor produced a transient maximal IMP only on initial expansion. Maximum IMP was constant throughout open retractor deployment. Striking visual differences in muscle edema were seen between open and minimally invasive groups on MRI. The mean T2 relaxation time at the level of fusion was 47 milliseconds in the minimally invasive and 90 milliseconds in the open group (P=0.013). The mean apparent diffusion coefficient was 1357×10 mm/s and 1626×10 mm/s (P=0.0184), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The peak IMP generated by the minimally invasive retractor was significantly less than with the open retractor. Postoperatively, less muscle edema was demonstrated after the minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion, with lower mean T2 and apparent diffusion coefficient measurements supporting the hypothesis that less damage occurs using a minimally invasive approach.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)77-86
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques
Volume19
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2006

Fingerprint

Spinal Fusion
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Pressure
Paraspinal Muscles
Edema
Pressure Transducers
Muscles
Cadaver
Atrophy

Keywords

  • Diffusion-weighted imaging
  • Intramuscular pressure
  • Lumbar fusion
  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • Retractor
  • T2 relaxation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies. / Stevens, Kathryn J.; Spenciner, David B.; Griffiths, Karen L.; Kim, Kee D; Zwienenberg-Lee, Marike; Alamin, Todd; Bammer, Roland.

In: Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques, Vol. 19, No. 2, 04.2006, p. 77-86.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9176d90aea8a4fe3b6abc4c924cc4e83,
title = "Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To determine whether minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion results in less paraspinal muscle damage than conventional open posterior fusion. METHODS: The maximum intramuscular pressure (IMP) generated by a minimally invasive and standard open retractor was compared in cadavers using an ultra-miniature pressure transducer. In a second clinical study, eight patients with either minimally invasive or open posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning approximately 6 months post surgery. MRI was used to estimate edema and atrophy within multifidus, with T2 mapping and diffusion-weighted imaging allowing quantification of differences between the two surgical techniques. RESULTS: IMP measured with the minimally invasive retractor was 1.4 versus 4.7 kPa with the open retractor (P<0.001). The minimally invasive retractor produced a transient maximal IMP only on initial expansion. Maximum IMP was constant throughout open retractor deployment. Striking visual differences in muscle edema were seen between open and minimally invasive groups on MRI. The mean T2 relaxation time at the level of fusion was 47 milliseconds in the minimally invasive and 90 milliseconds in the open group (P=0.013). The mean apparent diffusion coefficient was 1357×10 mm/s and 1626×10 mm/s (P=0.0184), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The peak IMP generated by the minimally invasive retractor was significantly less than with the open retractor. Postoperatively, less muscle edema was demonstrated after the minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion, with lower mean T2 and apparent diffusion coefficient measurements supporting the hypothesis that less damage occurs using a minimally invasive approach.",
keywords = "Diffusion-weighted imaging, Intramuscular pressure, Lumbar fusion, Magnetic resonance imaging, Retractor, T2 relaxation",
author = "Stevens, {Kathryn J.} and Spenciner, {David B.} and Griffiths, {Karen L.} and Kim, {Kee D} and Marike Zwienenberg-Lee and Todd Alamin and Roland Bammer",
year = "2006",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1097/01.bsd.0000193820.42522.d9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "77--86",
journal = "Journal of Spinal Disorders",
issn = "1536-0652",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies

AU - Stevens, Kathryn J.

AU - Spenciner, David B.

AU - Griffiths, Karen L.

AU - Kim, Kee D

AU - Zwienenberg-Lee, Marike

AU - Alamin, Todd

AU - Bammer, Roland

PY - 2006/4

Y1 - 2006/4

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To determine whether minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion results in less paraspinal muscle damage than conventional open posterior fusion. METHODS: The maximum intramuscular pressure (IMP) generated by a minimally invasive and standard open retractor was compared in cadavers using an ultra-miniature pressure transducer. In a second clinical study, eight patients with either minimally invasive or open posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning approximately 6 months post surgery. MRI was used to estimate edema and atrophy within multifidus, with T2 mapping and diffusion-weighted imaging allowing quantification of differences between the two surgical techniques. RESULTS: IMP measured with the minimally invasive retractor was 1.4 versus 4.7 kPa with the open retractor (P<0.001). The minimally invasive retractor produced a transient maximal IMP only on initial expansion. Maximum IMP was constant throughout open retractor deployment. Striking visual differences in muscle edema were seen between open and minimally invasive groups on MRI. The mean T2 relaxation time at the level of fusion was 47 milliseconds in the minimally invasive and 90 milliseconds in the open group (P=0.013). The mean apparent diffusion coefficient was 1357×10 mm/s and 1626×10 mm/s (P=0.0184), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The peak IMP generated by the minimally invasive retractor was significantly less than with the open retractor. Postoperatively, less muscle edema was demonstrated after the minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion, with lower mean T2 and apparent diffusion coefficient measurements supporting the hypothesis that less damage occurs using a minimally invasive approach.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To determine whether minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion results in less paraspinal muscle damage than conventional open posterior fusion. METHODS: The maximum intramuscular pressure (IMP) generated by a minimally invasive and standard open retractor was compared in cadavers using an ultra-miniature pressure transducer. In a second clinical study, eight patients with either minimally invasive or open posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning approximately 6 months post surgery. MRI was used to estimate edema and atrophy within multifidus, with T2 mapping and diffusion-weighted imaging allowing quantification of differences between the two surgical techniques. RESULTS: IMP measured with the minimally invasive retractor was 1.4 versus 4.7 kPa with the open retractor (P<0.001). The minimally invasive retractor produced a transient maximal IMP only on initial expansion. Maximum IMP was constant throughout open retractor deployment. Striking visual differences in muscle edema were seen between open and minimally invasive groups on MRI. The mean T2 relaxation time at the level of fusion was 47 milliseconds in the minimally invasive and 90 milliseconds in the open group (P=0.013). The mean apparent diffusion coefficient was 1357×10 mm/s and 1626×10 mm/s (P=0.0184), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The peak IMP generated by the minimally invasive retractor was significantly less than with the open retractor. Postoperatively, less muscle edema was demonstrated after the minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion, with lower mean T2 and apparent diffusion coefficient measurements supporting the hypothesis that less damage occurs using a minimally invasive approach.

KW - Diffusion-weighted imaging

KW - Intramuscular pressure

KW - Lumbar fusion

KW - Magnetic resonance imaging

KW - Retractor

KW - T2 relaxation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33746400234&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33746400234&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.bsd.0000193820.42522.d9

DO - 10.1097/01.bsd.0000193820.42522.d9

M3 - Article

C2 - 16760779

AN - SCOPUS:33746400234

VL - 19

SP - 77

EP - 86

JO - Journal of Spinal Disorders

JF - Journal of Spinal Disorders

SN - 1536-0652

IS - 2

ER -