Two-Level Circumferential Lumbar Fusion Comparing Midline and Paraspinal Posterior Approach: 5-Year Interim Outcomes of a Randomized, Blinded, Prospective Study.

Abstract

Study design: A prospective randomized and blinded comparative study of 2 patient groups with >5-year follow-up.

Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes and postoperative posterior muscle changes in patients with advanced degenerative disk disease undergoing 2-level circumferential spinal fusion using a posterior midline versus a paraspinal approach.

Summary of background data: Lumbar spinal fusion is often performed using a circumferential (anterior and posterior) technique. Paraspinal muscle alterations occur during the retraction of the muscles required for posterior instrumentation and fusion bed preparation, which may adversely affect outcomes.

Methods: Patients with advanced 2-level lumbar degenerative disk disease were randomized into 2 groups of 25 each for the approach to the posterior spine for their anterior-posterior fusion. A midline posterior skin incision was universal, but all patients were blinded to the fascial incision and exposure to the posterior spine. All had intertransverse and facet joint fusions with pedicle screw instrumentation. Outcomes (visual analog back and leg pain scale, pain drawing, Oswestry disability index, and self-assessment of procedure success) were assessed at various periods postoperatively. Preoperative and >1-year postoperative magnetic resonance images (MRI), including paraspinal muscles, were read by a radiologist who was blinded to the surgical approach and outcomes.

Results: No difference in operative time, blood loss, implant costs, or any other intraoperative parameter existed between the 2 patient groups. Although clinical improvement for all outcome scales was significant for both groups postoperatively, there was no difference between groups. Postoperative MRI T2 relaxation values were significantly increased at the operative levels and distally, but the changes were similar for both groups.

Conclusions: Midline and paraspinal approaches result in similar outcomes in 2-level spinal fusions. We were unable to demonstrate that a paraspinal muscle-splitting approach to 2-level fusion was superior to the muscle-stripping midline approach. However, the study has low statistical power.