ObjectivePercutaneous pedicle screw fixation is commonly used for upper lumber burst fractures. The direct decompression remains challenging with this minimally invasive surgery. The objective was to evaluate a novel paraspinal erector approach for effective and direct decompression in patients with canal compromise and neurologic deficit.MethodPatients (n = 21) with neurological deficiency and Denis B type upper lumbar burst fracture were enrolled in the study, including 14 cases in the L1 and 7 cases in the L2. The patients underwent removal of bone fragments from the spinal canal through intervertebral foramen followed by short-segment fixation. Evaluations included surgery-related, such as duration of surgery and blood loss, and 12-month follow-up, such as the kyphotic angle, the height ratio of the anterior edge of the vertebra, the ratio of sagittal canal compromise, visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Frankel scores.ResultsAll patients achieved direct spinal canal decompression using the paraspinal erector approach followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. The mean operation time (SD) was 173 (23) min, and the mean (SD) blood loss was 301 (104) ml. Significant improvement was noted in the kyphotic angle, 26.2 ± 8.7 prior to operation versus 9.1 ± 4.7 at 12 months after operation (p <0.05); the height ratio of the anterior edge of the injured vertebra, 60 ± 16% versus 84 ± 9% (p <0.05); and the ratio of sagittal canal compromise, 46.5 ± 11.4% versus 4.3 ± 3.6% (p <0.05). Significant improvements in VAS (7.3 ± 1.2 vs. 1.9 ± 0.7, p <0.05), ODI (86.7 ± 5.8 vs. 16.7 ± 5.1, p <0.05), and Frankel scores were also noted.ConclusionsThe paraspinal erector approach was effective for direct spinal canal decompression with minimal injury in the paraspinal muscles or spine. Significant improvements in spinal function and prognostics were achieved after the percutaneous pedicle screw fixation.

Background: Many studies have reported the advantages of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), but the technique is associated with many complications involving nerve injury. This meta-analysis compared the outcome indicators associated with 2 fusion methods, namely, ALIF and posterolateral fusion (PLF).The clinical efficacy of ALIF was explored to provide evidence-based data for the determination of surgical methods for treating orthopedic spondylolisthesis.Methods: Relevant literatures were retrieved from the CBMdisc, CNKI, PubMed, EBSCO, MEDLINE, Science Direct, and Cochrane databases. Keywords in Chinese and English included spondylolisthesis, spine, surgical treatment, ALIF, and PLF. Data including the visual analogue scale (VAS) score, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), time of operation, and fusion rate were collated. According to Cochrane manual, Rev Man 5.3 software was used for analysis.Results: A total of 6 articles were included in this meta-analysis. There were significant differences in

No abstract