Back Muscles Injury during Posterior Lumbar Spine Surgeries: Minimally Invasive versus Open Approaches—A Review of the Literature

T. Aly
{"title":"Back Muscles Injury during Posterior Lumbar Spine Surgeries: Minimally Invasive versus Open Approaches—A Review of the Literature","authors":"T. Aly","doi":"10.57055/2314-8969.1259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background data: The use of less-invasive procedures during surgery for thoracolumbar and lumbar problems has grown in importance. Mini-open or minimally invasive procedures lessen intraoperative bleeding and postoperative back pain compared with open techniques. Uncertainty persists on whether minimally invasive surgeries cause less paraspinal muscle injury than open surgery. According to some reports, compared with open surgery, minimally invasive surgeries might result in less muscle atrophy and fat in fi ltration. Purpose: This study aimed to fi nd whether minimally invasive posterior lumbar spine surgery can lessen paraspinal muscle damage, restrict alterations in muscular structure and function, and improve functional outcomes. Study design: A literature review was performed. Patients and methods: A cross-referencing and extramanual search of the literature in PubMed and MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library databases, and Google Scholar search was conducted. Studies comparing traditional open surgery with minimally invasive or percutaneous procedures were included. In total, 40 studies comparing both techniques were found and analyzed. The muscle state assessment was extended up to 2 years in human studies. Results: A total of 11 studies were conducted on experimental animals, and the remaining studies were either case e control studies, case series, or comparative studies comparing the size of the multi fi dus muscle between patients with various lumbar spine disorders treated either conventionally or using minimally invasive techniques. Conclusion: Even though the degree of evidence is relatively weak, the present study revealed that the minimally invasive posterior spinal techniques have some advantages over the open techniques, such as less damage to the multi fi dus muscle, which is supported by the literature review. The association between changes in muscular structure and pain, strength, and quality of life needs to be better understood via research. These investigations ought to focus on the surgical approach (2022ESJ257).","PeriodicalId":11610,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Spine Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57055/2314-8969.1259","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background data: The use of less-invasive procedures during surgery for thoracolumbar and lumbar problems has grown in importance. Mini-open or minimally invasive procedures lessen intraoperative bleeding and postoperative back pain compared with open techniques. Uncertainty persists on whether minimally invasive surgeries cause less paraspinal muscle injury than open surgery. According to some reports, compared with open surgery, minimally invasive surgeries might result in less muscle atrophy and fat in fi ltration. Purpose: This study aimed to fi nd whether minimally invasive posterior lumbar spine surgery can lessen paraspinal muscle damage, restrict alterations in muscular structure and function, and improve functional outcomes. Study design: A literature review was performed. Patients and methods: A cross-referencing and extramanual search of the literature in PubMed and MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library databases, and Google Scholar search was conducted. Studies comparing traditional open surgery with minimally invasive or percutaneous procedures were included. In total, 40 studies comparing both techniques were found and analyzed. The muscle state assessment was extended up to 2 years in human studies. Results: A total of 11 studies were conducted on experimental animals, and the remaining studies were either case e control studies, case series, or comparative studies comparing the size of the multi fi dus muscle between patients with various lumbar spine disorders treated either conventionally or using minimally invasive techniques. Conclusion: Even though the degree of evidence is relatively weak, the present study revealed that the minimally invasive posterior spinal techniques have some advantages over the open techniques, such as less damage to the multi fi dus muscle, which is supported by the literature review. The association between changes in muscular structure and pain, strength, and quality of life needs to be better understood via research. These investigations ought to focus on the surgical approach (2022ESJ257).
腰椎后路手术中背部肌肉损伤:微创与开放入路——文献综述
背景资料:在胸腰椎问题的手术中使用微创手术变得越来越重要。与开放技术相比,微创或微创手术可以减少术中出血和术后背痛。微创手术是否比开放手术造成更少的椎旁肌损伤,仍存在不确定性。根据一些报道,与开放式手术相比,微创手术可能会减少肌肉萎缩和脂肪过滤。目的:本研究旨在确定微创后腰椎手术是否可以减轻椎旁肌肉损伤,限制肌肉结构和功能的改变,并改善功能结果。研究设计:进行文献综述。患者和方法:对PubMed和MEDLINE、Cochrane图书馆数据库和Google Scholar搜索中的文献进行交叉参考和手外搜索。将传统的开放手术与微创或经皮手术进行比较的研究也包括在内。总共发现并分析了40项比较这两种技术的研究。在人体研究中,肌肉状态评估延长至2年。结果:共对实验动物进行了11项研究,其余研究为病例e对照研究、病例系列研究或比较常规或微创技术治疗的各种腰椎疾病患者多指肌大小的比较研究。结论:尽管证据的程度相对较弱,但本研究表明,微创后脊柱技术比开放技术具有一些优势,例如对多指肌的损伤较小,这得到了文献综述的支持。肌肉结构的变化与疼痛、力量和生活质量之间的联系需要通过研究来更好地理解。这些研究应该集中在外科手术入路上(2022ESJ257)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信