Minimum Invasive Stabilizing and Decompressive-Stabilizing Methods of Surgical Treatment for Degenerative-Dystrophic Lesions of Spine


Results of randomized prospective study with participation of 94 patients aged from 20 to 70 years with monosegmental lumbar spine lesions are presented. Minimum invasive surgical interventions were performed in 55 patients from the main group. Control group consisted of 39 patients in whom decompressive-stabilizing operations via conventional posteromedian approach with skeletization of posterior segments of vertebral column were performed. Average size of operative wound in open interventions more than 10 times exceeded that size in minimum invasive interventions and made up 484 ± 56 and 36 ± 12, respectively. Mean blood loss was 326.6 ± 278.0 ml in the main group and 855.1 ± 512.0 ml in the comparative one. In the main group no one patient required substitution hemotransfusion, while in 13 patients from the comparative group donor erythrocytic mass and/or fresh-frozen plasma were used to eliminate the deficit of blood components. Intensity of pain syndrome in the zone of surgical intervention by visual analog scale in the main group was lower than in comparative group. In the main and comparative groups the duration of hospitalization made up 6.1 ± 2.7 and 9.7 ± 3.7 bed days, respectively. In no one patient from the main group complications in the zone of operative wound were noted. Three patients from the comparative group required secondary debridement and in 1 patient early deep operative wound suppuration was observed. Application of low invasive surgical techniques for the treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar spine lesions enabled to perform radical surgical treatment with minimal iatrogenic injury. The method possessed indubitable advantages over the conventional open operations especially intraoperatively and in early postoperative period.


  1. Симонович А.Е., Козлов Д.М. Хирургическое лечение дегенеративных заболеваний поясничного отдела позвоночника у пациентов пожилого и старческого возраста //Хирургия позвоночника. - 2006. - N 3. - С. 52-58.
  2. Храпов Д.В. Сравнительная оценка методов хирургического лечения нестабильных повреждений грудного и поясничного отделов позвоночника: Дис. … канд. мед. наук. - Новосибирск, 2001. - С. 82-93.
  3. Bindal R.K., Glaze S., Ognoskie M. et al. Surgeon and patient radiation exposure in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion //J. Neurosurg. Spine. - 2008. - Vol. 9. - P. 570-573.
  4. Foley K.T., Holly L.T., Schwender J.D. Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion //Spine. - 2003. - Vol. 28. P. 26-35.
  5. Foley K.T., Gupta S.K., Justis J.R., Sherman M.C. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar //Neurosurg. Focus. - 2001. - Vol. 10, N 4. - P. E10.
  6. Foley K.T., Gupta S.K. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine: preliminary clinical results //J. Neurosurg. - 2002. - Vol. 97 (1 Suppl). - P. 7-12.
  7. Foley K.T., Smith M.M. Microendoscopic discectomy //Tech. Neurosurg. - 1997. - Vol. 3. - P. 3017.
  8. Gejo R., Matsui H., Kawaguchi Y. et al. Spinal changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery //Spine. - 1999. - Vol. 24. - P. 1023-1028.
  9. Kawaguchi Y., Matsui H., Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery: a histologic and enzymatic analysis //Spine. - 1996. - Vol. 21. - P. 941-944.
  10. Kazunori Y., Takashi S., Yosihisa K. et al. Indication of fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients and its significance //Spine. - 1996. - Vol. 21. - P. 242-248.
  11. Kim D.Y., Lee S.H., Chung S.K. et al. Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation // Spine. - 2005. - Vol. 30, N 1. - P. 123-129.
  12. Kim J.S., Choi W.G., Lee S.H. Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis: minimum 5-year follow-up // Spine J. - 2010 . - Vol. 10, N 5. - P. 404-409.
  13. Magerl F. External skeletal fixation of the lower thoracic and the lumbar spine //Current Concepts of External Fixation of Fractures /Eds. H.K. Uhthoff, E. Stahleds. - New York, 1982. - P. 353-366.
  14. Mathews H.H., Long B.H. Endoscopy assisted percutaneous anterior interbody fusion with subcutaneous suprafascial internal fixation: Evolution of technique and surgical considerations //Orthopaedics. - 1995. - Vol. 3. - P. 496-500.
  15. McLaughlin M.R., Haid R.W., Rodts G.E. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: indications, techniques, and results //Clin. Neurosurg. - 2000. - Vol. 47. - P. 514-527.
  16. Styf J.R., Wilen 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. - 1998. - Vol. 23. - P. 354-358.
  17. Thomsen K., Christensen F.B., Eiskjaer S.P. et al. 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. The effects of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective, randomized, clinical study //Spine. - 1997. - Vol. 22. - P. 2813-2822.
  18. Toyoda H., Nakamura H., Konishi S. et al. Clinical outcome of microsurgical bilateral decompression via unilateral approach //Spine. - 2011. - Vol. 36, N 5. - P. 410-415.
  19. Weber B.R., Grob D., Dvorak J. et al. Posterior surgical approach to the lumbar spine and its effect on the multifidus muscle //Spine. - 1997. - Vol. 22, N 15. - P. 1765-1772.
  20. Park Y., Ha J.W. Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach MD //Spine. - 2007. - Vol. 32. - P. 537 -543.



Abstract - 26


Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2011 Eco-Vector

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies