Skip to main content
Log in

Can intermuscular cleavage planes provide proper transverse screw angle? Comparison of two paraspinal approaches

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The goal of this study was to determine which paraspinal approach provided a better transverse screw angle (TSA) for each vertebral level in lower lumbar surgery.

Methods

Axial computed tomography (CT) images of 100 patients, from L3 to S1, were used to measure the angulation parameters, including transverse pedicle angle (TPA) and transverse cleavage plane angle (TCPA) of entry from the two approaches. The difference value between TCPA and TPA, defined as difference angle (DA), was calculated. Statistical differences of DA obtained by the two approaches and the angulation parameters between sexes, and the correlation between each angulation parameter and age or body mass index (BMI) were analyzed.

Results

TPA ranged from about 16° at L3 to 30° at S1. TCPA through the Wiltse’s and Weaver’s approach ranged from about −10° and 25° at L3 to 12° and 32° at S1, respectively. The absolute values of DA through the Weaver’s approach were significantly lower than those through the Wiltse’s approach at each level. The angulation parameters showed no significant difference with sex and no significant correlation with age or BMI.

Conclusions

In the lower lumbar vertebrae (L3–L5) and S1, pedicle screw placement through the Weaver’s approach may more easily yield the preferred TSA consistent with TPA than that through the Wiltse’s approach. The reference values obtained in this paper may be applied regardless of sex, age or BMI and the descriptive statistical results may be used as references for applying the two paraspinal approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H (1996) Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery: a histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine 21(8):941–944

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Datta G, Gnanalingham KK, Peterson D, Mendoza N, O’Neill K, Van Dellen J, McGregor A, Hughes SPF (2004) Back pain and disability after lumbar laminectomy: is there a relationship to muscle retraction? Neurosurgery 54(6):1413–1420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kaptanoglu E, Okutan O, Tekdemir I, Beskonakli E, Deda H (2003) Closed posterior superior iliac spine impeding pediculocorporeal S-1 screw insertion. J Neurosurg Spine 99(2):229–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Robertson PA, Plank LD (1999) Pedicle screw placement at the sacrum: anatomical characterization and limitations at S1. J Spinal Disord Tech 12(3):227–233

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wiltse LL, Bateman JG, Hutchinson RH, Nelson WE (1968) The paraspinal sacrospinalis-splitting approach to the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 50(5):919–926

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wiltse L, Spencer C (1988) New uses and refinements of the paraspinal approach to the lumbar spine. Spine 13(6):696–706

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Weaver EN Jr (2007) Lateral intramuscular planar approach to the lumbar spine and sacrum. J Neurosurg Spine 7(2):270–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Acharya S, Dorje T, Srivastava A (2010) Lower dorsal and lumbar pedicle morphometry in Indian population: a study of four hundred fifty vertebrae. Spine 35(10):E378–E384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Arman C, Naderi S, Kiray A, Aksu FT, YIlmaz HS, Tetik S, Korman E (2009) The human sacrum and safe approaches for screw placement. J Clin Neurosci 16(8):1046–1049

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kosmopoulos V, Schizas C (2007) Pedicle screw placement accuracy: a meta-analysis. Spine 32(3):E111–E120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown CA, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Geideman WM, Hasan SA, Blanke K (1998) Complications of pediatric thoracolumbar and lumbar pedicle screws. Spine 23(14):1566–1571

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ota M, Neo M, Fujibayashi S, Takemoto M, Nakamura T (2010) Advantages of the paraspinal muscle splitting approach in comparison with conventional midline approach for s1 pedicle screw placement. Spine 35(11):E452–E457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schulze CJ, Munzinger E, Weber U (1998) Clinical relevance of accuracy of pedicle screw placement: a computed tomographic-supported analysis. Spine 23(20):2215–2220

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ruland CM, McAfee P, Warden KE, Cunningham BW (1991) Triangulation of pedicular instrumentation. A biomechanical analysis. Spine 16(6 Suppl):S270–S276

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Fujibayashi S, Neo M, Takemoto M, Ota M, Nakamura T (2010) Paraspinal-approach transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar foraminal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine 13(4):500–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hoh DJ, Wang MY, Ritland SL (2010) Anatomic Features of the Paramedian Muscle-Splitting Approaches to the Lumbar Spine. Neurosurgery 66(3):13–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mirkovic S, Abitbol JJ, Steinman J, Edwards CC, Schaffler M, Massie J, Garfin SR (1991) Anatomic consideration for sacral screw placement. Spine 16(6S):S289–S294

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Barber JW, Boden SD, Ganey T, Hutton WC (1998) Biomechanical study of lumbar pedicle screws: does convergence affect axial pullout strength? J Spinal Disord Tech 11(3):215–220

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith SA, Abitbol JJ, Carlson GD, Anderson DR, Taggart KW, Garfin SR (1993) The effects of depth of penetration, screw orientation, and bone density on sacral screw fixation. Spine 18(8):1006–1010

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim NH, Lee HM, Chung IH, Kim HJ, Kim SJ (1994) Morphometric study of the pedicles of thoracic and lumbar vertebrae in Koreans. Spine 19(12):1390–1394

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Zindrick MR, Wiltse LL, Doornik A, Widell EH, Knight GW, Patwardhan AG, Thomas JC, Rothman SL, Fields B (1987) Analysis of the morphometric characteristics of the thoracic and lumbar pedicles. Spine 12(2):160–166

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bin Ni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cheng, X., Ni, B., Liu, Q. et al. Can intermuscular cleavage planes provide proper transverse screw angle? Comparison of two paraspinal approaches. Eur Spine J 22, 123–127 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2464-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2464-z

Keywords

Navigation