Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31440621›Full record

ReviewSpine surgery and related research2017

Understanding Retroperitoneal Anatomy for Lateral Approach Spine Surgery.

Tokumi Kanemura, Kotaro Satake, Hiroaki Nakashima, Naoki Segi, Jun Ouchida, Hidetoshi Yamaguchi, Shiro Imagama

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Spine surgery and related research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. CT-based analysis of oblique lateral interbody fusion from L1 to L5: location of incision, feasibility of safe corridor approach, and influencing factors.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Tokumi KanemuraDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Spine Center, Konan Kosei Hospital, Aichi, Japan.
Kotaro SatakeDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Spine Center, Konan Kosei Hospital, Aichi, Japan.
Hiroaki NakashimaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Spine Center, Konan Kosei Hospital, Aichi, Japan.
Naoki SegiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Spine Center, Konan Kosei Hospital, Aichi, Japan.
Jun OuchidaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Spine Center, Konan Kosei Hospital, Aichi, Japan.
Hidetoshi YamaguchiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan.
Shiro ImagamaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lateral approach spine surgery provides effective interbody stabilization, and correction and indirect neural decompression with minimal-incision and less invasive surgery compared with conventional open anterior lumbar fusion. It may also avoid the trauma to paraspinal muscles or facet joints found with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion. However, because lateral approach surgery is fundamentally retroperitoneal approach surgery, it carries potential risk to intra- and retroperitoneal structures, as seen in a conventional open anterior approach. There is an innovative lateral approach technique that reveals different anatomical views; however, it requires reconsideration of the traditional surgical anatomy in more detail than a traditional open anterior approach. The retroperitoneum is the compartmentalized space bounded anteriorly by the posterior parietal peritoneum and posteriorly by the transversalis fascia. The retroperitoneum is divided into three compartments by fascial planes: anterior and posterior pararenal spaces and the perirenal space. Lateral approach surgery requires mobilization of the peritoneum and its content and accurate exposure to the posterior pararenal space. The posterior pararenal space is confined anteriorly by the posterior renal fascia, anteromedially by the lateroconal fascia, and posteriorly by the transversalis fascia. The posterior renal fascia, the lateroconal fascia or the peritoneum should be detached from the transversalis fascia and the psoas fascia to allow exposure to the posterior pararenal space. The posterior pararenal space, however, does not allow a clear view and identification of these fasciae as this relationship is variable and the medial extent of the posterior pararenal space varies among patients. Correct anatomical recognition of the retroperitoneum is essential to success in lateral approach surgery. Spine surgeons must be aware that the retroperitoneal membrane and fascia is multilayered and more complex than is commonly understood. Preoperative abdominal images would facilitate more efficient surgical considerations of retroperitoneal membrane and fascia in lateral approach surgery.

Indexed as

Extreme lateral interbody fusionLateral approach spinal surgeryLateroconal fasciaOblique lateral interbody fusionPosterior pararenal spaceRenal fasciaRetroperitoneumTransversalis fascia

Identifiers

PMID31440621
PMCPMC6698495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.