Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleFull Length Article
Open Access

Benefits of the Paraspinal Muscle-Sparing Approach Versus the Conventional Midline Approach for Posterior Nonfusion Stabilization: Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Functional Outcomes

Neel Anand, Eli M. Baron and Robert S. Bray
International Journal of Spine Surgery January 2007, 1 (3) 93-99; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/SASJ-2007-0101-RR
Neel Anand
The Cedars-Sinai Institute for Spinal Disorders, Los Angeles, CA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eli M. Baron
The Cedars-Sinai Institute for Spinal Disorders, Los Angeles, CA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert S. Bray Jr.
The Cedars-Sinai Institute for Spinal Disorders, Los Angeles, CA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Photograph showing lumbar spine with pedicles marked on the skin per anteroposterior fluoroscopy. A linear mark is then made connecting the lateral edge of the pedicles.

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2

    (a) Photograph of Dynesys implanted via the midline approach in cases where a decompression was performed. (b) Photograph of Dynesys implanted via musclesparing approach.

  • Figure 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3

    Graph showing TIS significantly improved at 6 weeks for patients who underwent posterior nonfusion stabilization via paraspinal muscle-sparing approach versus the midline muscle-stripping approach.

  • Figure 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4

    Illustration showing the modified Wiltse muscle-sparing approach. Note the approach between the multifidus and longissimus muscles.

  • Figure 5
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5

    (a), (b), (c). T2 weighted MRI of patients showing changes in the paraspinal muscles of a patient undergoing posterior nonfusion stabilization via the anatomy-preserving muscle-sparing approach vs (d), typical changes seen in a midline muscle stripping approach. Note the extensive high signal seen in the paraspinal muscles of the patient undergoing the midline approach.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Demographics 88 pts, 178 levels

    Midline (n = 42)Paraspinal (n = 46)
    Age48 (32 to 79)43 (24 to 69)
    Male/Female19/2324/22
    W/C00
    Smokers00
    Previous surgery2126
    • Note. W/C = Workers’ Compensation

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Dynesys Indications 88 pts, 178 levels

    MidlineParaspinal
    Spondylolisthesis282
    Retrolisthesis120
    Lateral/central stenosis (Overlapping diagnosis)400
    Dynamic foraminal stenosis06
    DDD036
    Adjacent to fusion22
    • Note. DDD = degenerative disc disease

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Surgical Details (88 pts, 178 levels)

    Midline (n = 42)Paraspinal (n = 46)
    Operative time150 (120 – 240)120 (90 – 180)
    Hospital stay2.6 days (1 to 5 days)1.8 days (1 to 3 days)
    Blood loss350 (100 – 500)300 (50 – 400)
    Levels stabilized
    One1516
    Two2326
    Three44
    Follow-up18 months (12 months to 36 months)
    • View popup
    Table 4

    VAS, ODI and SF-36 Physical Component Scores in Patients Undergoing Posterior Nonfusion Stabilization

    VAS ScoresODISF-36 Physical Component Score
    MidlineParaspinalP valueMidlineParaspinalP valueMidlineParaspinalP value
    Pre-op659055683428.56
    6 weeks35.62300.6450500.5030.3830.380.50
    3 months30.63200.8229.1250.6236.7836.780.42
    6 months30.81250.9325.6250.6236360.39
    12 months24200.9820.2200.613835.40.21
    18 months22250.9522220.6038340.09
    2 years24221.0020.4220.5236340.05
    • Note. ODI—Oswestry Disability Index; VAS—Visual Analog Scale.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 1, Issue 3
1 Jan 2007
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Benefits of the Paraspinal Muscle-Sparing Approach Versus the Conventional Midline Approach for Posterior Nonfusion Stabilization: Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Functional Outcomes
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Benefits of the Paraspinal Muscle-Sparing Approach Versus the Conventional Midline Approach for Posterior Nonfusion Stabilization: Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Functional Outcomes
Neel Anand, Eli M. Baron, Robert S. Bray
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jan 2007, 1 (3) 93-99; DOI: 10.1016/SASJ-2007-0101-RR

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Benefits of the Paraspinal Muscle-Sparing Approach Versus the Conventional Midline Approach for Posterior Nonfusion Stabilization: Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Functional Outcomes
Neel Anand, Eli M. Baron, Robert S. Bray
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jan 2007, 1 (3) 93-99; DOI: 10.1016/SASJ-2007-0101-RR
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Multilevel extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) and osteotomies for 3-dimensional severe deformity: 25 consecutive cases
  • Pedicle violation and Navigational errors in pedicle screw insertion using the intraoperative O-arm: A preliminary report
  • Strategy for salvage pedicle screw placement: A technical note
Show more Full Length Article

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Posterior nonfusion spinal stabilization
  • muscle-sparing approach
  • paraspinal approach

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire