title: The quantitative analysis of back muscle degeneration after posterior lumbar fusion: comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open surgery.
abstract: METHODS
  Prospective controlled study.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The results of conventional open surgery was compared with those from minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for lumbar fusion to determine which approach resulted in less postoperative paraspinal muscle degeneration.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  MI TLIF is new surgical technique that appears to minimize iatrogenic injury. However, there aren't any reports yet that have quantitatively analyzed and proved whether there's difference in back muscle injury and degeneration between the minimally invasive surgery and conventional open surgery in more than 1 year follow-up after surgery.
  
  
  METHODS
  This study examined a consecutive series of 48 patients who underwent lumbar fusion in our hospital during the period, March 2006 to March 2008, with a 1-year follow-up evaluation using MRI. There were 17 cases of conventional open surgery and 31 cases of MI-TLIF (31 cases of single segment fusion and 17 cases of multi-segment fusion). The digital images of the paravertebral back muscles were analyzed and compared using the T2-weighted axial images. The point of interest was the paraspinal muscle of the intervertebral disc level from L1 to L5. Picture archiving and communication system viewing software was used for quantitative analysis of the change in fat infiltration percentage and the change in cross-sectional area of the paraspinal muscle, before and after surgery.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A comparison of the traditional posterior fusion method with MI-TLIF revealed single segment fusion to result in an average increase in fat infiltration in the paraspinal muscle of 4.30% and 1.37% and a decrease in cross-sectional area of 0.10 and 0.07 before and after surgery, respectively. Multi-segment fusion showed an average 7.90% and 2.79% increase in fat infiltration and a 0.16 and 0.10 decrease in cross-sectional area, respectively. Both single and multi segment fusion showed less change in the fat infiltration percentage and cross-sectional area, particularly in multi segment fusion. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the radiologic results.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  A comparison of conventional open surgery with MI-TLIF upon degeneration of the paraspinal muscle with a 1 year follow-up evaluation revealed that both single and multi segment fusion showed less change in fat infiltration percentage and cross-sectional area in the MI-TLIF but there was no significant difference between the two groups. This suggests that as time passes after surgery, there is no significant difference in the level of degeneration of the paraspinal muscle between surgical techniques.
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Dankook University College of Medicine, Cheonan, Korea.
authors.forename: Sang-Hyuk
authors.initials: SH
authors.lastname: Min
authors.forename: Myung-Ho
authors.initials: MH
authors.lastname: Kim
authors.forename: Joong-Bae
authors.initials: JB
authors.lastname: Seo
authors.forename: Jee-Young
authors.initials: JY
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.forename: Dae-Hee
authors.initials: DH
authors.lastname: Lee
references.citation: Radiol Clin North Am. 1991 Jul;29(4):675-90
references.pmid: 2063000
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994 Nov 15;19(22):2590-7
references.pmid: 7855686
references.citation: Neurosurgery. 2004 Jun;54(6):1413-20; discussion 1420
references.pmid: 15157298
references.citation: J Appl Physiol (1985). 1998 Jul;85(1):115-22
references.pmid: 9655763
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
references.pmid: 18839484
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Feb 1;33(3):318-25
references.pmid: 18303466
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Dec 15;27(24):2758-62
references.pmid: 12486343
references.citation: Surg Neurol. 2008 Feb;69(2):109-13; discussion 113
references.pmid: 18261638
references.citation: BMC Med. 2007 Jan 25;5:2
references.pmid: 17254322
references.citation: J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006 Jul;19(5):318-22
references.pmid: 16826001
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2006 Jun;15(6):764-73
references.pmid: 15895259
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Nov;83(11):1650-5
references.pmid: 11701786
references.citation: J Neurosci Nurs. 2008 Feb;40(1):32-9
references.pmid: 18330408
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994 Nov 15;19(22):2598-602
references.pmid: 7855687
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 May 15;24(10):1023-8
references.pmid: 10332796
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Jun 1;27(11):1131-41
references.pmid: 12045508
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Mar 15;31(6):712-6
references.pmid: 16540878
references.citation: Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2000 Mar;40(3):151-4; discussion 154-5
references.pmid: 10842484
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Nov 15;21(22):2683-8
references.pmid: 8961456
references.citation: Muscle Nerve. 1996 Mar;19(3):302-10
references.pmid: 8606693
references.citation: Acta Radiol. 1999 May;40(3):314-21
references.pmid: 10335971
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Aug 1;28(15 Suppl):S26-35
references.pmid: 12897471
references.citation: J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005 Feb;18 Suppl:S1-6
references.pmid: 15699793
references.citation: J Korean Med Sci. 2007 Aug;22(4):646-51
references.pmid: 17728503
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Jul 1;32(15):1687-92
references.pmid: 17621220
references.citation: J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006 Apr;19(2):77-86
references.pmid: 16760779
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Feb 1;23(3):354-8
references.pmid: 9507625