Cargando…

Does Conventional Open TLIF cause more Muscle Injury when Compared to Minimally Invasive TLIF?—A Prospective Single Center Analysis

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, observational. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to assess the amount of reduction in lean muscle mass (LMM) of multifidus muscle (MFM) between conventional open Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (CO-TLIF) as compared to Minimally invasive spine Transforaminal lumb...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dave, Bharat R., Marathe, Nandan, Mayi, Shivanand, Degulmadi, Devanand, Rai, Ravi Ranjan, Patil, Sameer, Jadav, Kirit, Bali, Shiv K., Kumar, Arvind, Meena, Umesh, Parmar, Vatsal, Amin, Prarthan, Dave, Mirant, Krishnan, Preety Ajay, Krishnan, Ajay
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10676181/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35442112
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21925682221095467
_version_ 1785141229599588352
author Dave, Bharat R.
Marathe, Nandan
Mayi, Shivanand
Degulmadi, Devanand
Rai, Ravi Ranjan
Patil, Sameer
Jadav, Kirit
Bali, Shiv K.
Kumar, Arvind
Meena, Umesh
Parmar, Vatsal
Amin, Prarthan
Dave, Mirant
Krishnan, Preety Ajay
Krishnan, Ajay
author_facet Dave, Bharat R.
Marathe, Nandan
Mayi, Shivanand
Degulmadi, Devanand
Rai, Ravi Ranjan
Patil, Sameer
Jadav, Kirit
Bali, Shiv K.
Kumar, Arvind
Meena, Umesh
Parmar, Vatsal
Amin, Prarthan
Dave, Mirant
Krishnan, Preety Ajay
Krishnan, Ajay
author_sort Dave, Bharat R.
collection PubMed
description STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, observational. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to assess the amount of reduction in lean muscle mass (LMM) of multifidus muscle (MFM) between conventional open Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (CO-TLIF) as compared to Minimally invasive spine Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). METHODS: This study was conducted between 2017 and 2020. It included 100 patients divided into two groups, 50 patients treated with CO-TLIF, 50 treated with MIS-TLIF. Only patients undergoing single level, primary lumbar fusion at L4-5 or L5-S1 level for degenerative pathologies were included. All patients were assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans 1-year post surgery. Measurements were performed using ImageJ image processing program. RESULTS: Mean percentage reduction in LMM in CO-TLIF group was 45.52 ± 12.36% and MIS-TLIF group was 25.83 ± 9.64% [statistically significant (t = 8.78, P < .001)]. Mean percentage reduction in LMM on side of cage insertion was 39.63 ± 15.96% and opposite side was 31.40 ± 15.01% [statistically significant (t = 9.06, P < .001)]. Mean reduction of LMM among males was 29.38 ± 15.23% and females was 40.42 ± 12.67% [statistically significant (t = −3.95, P < .001)]. We observed significant but weak degree of correlation between age and percentage reduction of LMM (r = .22, P = .028). CONCLUSION: Mean reduction in LMM was greater in CO-TLIF group as compared to MIS-TLIF. There was greater reduction in LMM in females and on side of cage insertion. We also found greater reduction in LMM with increasing age in both groups.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10676181
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106761812022-04-20 Does Conventional Open TLIF cause more Muscle Injury when Compared to Minimally Invasive TLIF?—A Prospective Single Center Analysis Dave, Bharat R. Marathe, Nandan Mayi, Shivanand Degulmadi, Devanand Rai, Ravi Ranjan Patil, Sameer Jadav, Kirit Bali, Shiv K. Kumar, Arvind Meena, Umesh Parmar, Vatsal Amin, Prarthan Dave, Mirant Krishnan, Preety Ajay Krishnan, Ajay Global Spine J Original Articles STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, observational. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to assess the amount of reduction in lean muscle mass (LMM) of multifidus muscle (MFM) between conventional open Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (CO-TLIF) as compared to Minimally invasive spine Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). METHODS: This study was conducted between 2017 and 2020. It included 100 patients divided into two groups, 50 patients treated with CO-TLIF, 50 treated with MIS-TLIF. Only patients undergoing single level, primary lumbar fusion at L4-5 or L5-S1 level for degenerative pathologies were included. All patients were assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans 1-year post surgery. Measurements were performed using ImageJ image processing program. RESULTS: Mean percentage reduction in LMM in CO-TLIF group was 45.52 ± 12.36% and MIS-TLIF group was 25.83 ± 9.64% [statistically significant (t = 8.78, P < .001)]. Mean percentage reduction in LMM on side of cage insertion was 39.63 ± 15.96% and opposite side was 31.40 ± 15.01% [statistically significant (t = 9.06, P < .001)]. Mean reduction of LMM among males was 29.38 ± 15.23% and females was 40.42 ± 12.67% [statistically significant (t = −3.95, P < .001)]. We observed significant but weak degree of correlation between age and percentage reduction of LMM (r = .22, P = .028). CONCLUSION: Mean reduction in LMM was greater in CO-TLIF group as compared to MIS-TLIF. There was greater reduction in LMM in females and on side of cage insertion. We also found greater reduction in LMM with increasing age in both groups. SAGE Publications 2022-04-20 2024-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10676181/ /pubmed/35442112 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21925682221095467 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Articles
Dave, Bharat R.
Marathe, Nandan
Mayi, Shivanand
Degulmadi, Devanand
Rai, Ravi Ranjan
Patil, Sameer
Jadav, Kirit
Bali, Shiv K.
Kumar, Arvind
Meena, Umesh
Parmar, Vatsal
Amin, Prarthan
Dave, Mirant
Krishnan, Preety Ajay
Krishnan, Ajay
Does Conventional Open TLIF cause more Muscle Injury when Compared to Minimally Invasive TLIF?—A Prospective Single Center Analysis
title Does Conventional Open TLIF cause more Muscle Injury when Compared to Minimally Invasive TLIF?—A Prospective Single Center Analysis
title_full Does Conventional Open TLIF cause more Muscle Injury when Compared to Minimally Invasive TLIF?—A Prospective Single Center Analysis
title_fullStr Does Conventional Open TLIF cause more Muscle Injury when Compared to Minimally Invasive TLIF?—A Prospective Single Center Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Does Conventional Open TLIF cause more Muscle Injury when Compared to Minimally Invasive TLIF?—A Prospective Single Center Analysis
title_short Does Conventional Open TLIF cause more Muscle Injury when Compared to Minimally Invasive TLIF?—A Prospective Single Center Analysis
title_sort does conventional open tlif cause more muscle injury when compared to minimally invasive tlif?—a prospective single center analysis
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10676181/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35442112
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21925682221095467
work_keys_str_mv AT davebharatr doesconventionalopentlifcausemoremuscleinjurywhencomparedtominimallyinvasivetlifaprospectivesinglecenteranalysis
AT marathenandan doesconventionalopentlifcausemoremuscleinjurywhencomparedtominimallyinvasivetlifaprospectivesinglecenteranalysis
AT mayishivanand doesconventionalopentlifcausemoremuscleinjurywhencomparedtominimallyinvasivetlifaprospectivesinglecenteranalysis
AT degulmadidevanand doesconventionalopentlifcausemoremuscleinjurywhencomparedtominimallyinvasivetlifaprospectivesinglecenteranalysis
AT rairaviranjan doesconventionalopentlifcausemoremuscleinjurywhencomparedtominimallyinvasivetlifaprospectivesinglecenteranalysis
AT patilsameer doesconventionalopentlifcausemoremuscleinjurywhencomparedtominimallyinvasivetlifaprospectivesinglecenteranalysis
AT jadavkirit doesconventionalopentlifcausemoremuscleinjurywhencomparedtominimallyinvasivetlifaprospectivesinglecenteranalysis
AT balishivk doesconventionalopentlifcausemoremuscleinjurywhencomparedtominimallyinvasivetlifaprospectivesinglecenteranalysis
AT kumararvind doesconventionalopentlifcausemoremuscleinjurywhencomparedtominimallyinvasivetlifaprospectivesinglecenteranalysis
AT meenaumesh doesconventionalopentlifcausemoremuscleinjurywhencomparedtominimallyinvasivetlifaprospectivesinglecenteranalysis
AT parmarvatsal doesconventionalopentlifcausemoremuscleinjurywhencomparedtominimallyinvasivetlifaprospectivesinglecenteranalysis
AT aminprarthan doesconventionalopentlifcausemoremuscleinjurywhencomparedtominimallyinvasivetlifaprospectivesinglecenteranalysis
AT davemirant doesconventionalopentlifcausemoremuscleinjurywhencomparedtominimallyinvasivetlifaprospectivesinglecenteranalysis
AT krishnanpreetyajay doesconventionalopentlifcausemoremuscleinjurywhencomparedtominimallyinvasivetlifaprospectivesinglecenteranalysis
AT krishnanajay doesconventionalopentlifcausemoremuscleinjurywhencomparedtominimallyinvasivetlifaprospectivesinglecenteranalysis