Surgical methods of treatment of back pain syndrome recurrence in the degenerative pathology of the lumbar spine

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The number of surgical interventions on the lumbar spine is constantly growing due to the emergence of new surgical techniques aimed at treatment of degenerative spine pathology and a large number of patients, suffering from the back pain. Quite often, surgical intervention turns to be not effective enough and the pain syndrome persists, leading to the necessity for the repeated revision surgeries with the use of stabilizing systems. The review represents research data on the causes of recurrent-remitting course of degenerative process, problems of epidural adhesion as one of the back pain syndrome predictors, the survey of various stabilization systems and operative approaches for their implantation. The disadvantages and advantages of ventral approach with the use of interbody fusion are summarized in comparison with dorsal approach used for the installation of the transpedicular system and interbody fusion with a bone graft.

The positive features of interbody fusion from anterior retroperitoneal approach include the ability to quickly and completely remove the entire disc, decompress the dural sac without entering the vertebral canal, optimally select an implant corresponding to the size of the vertebral end plates, creation of the optimal lordosis angle, and provision of the shortest approach to the operated disk and to the place of neural structures compression.

The advantages of the dorsal approach with transpedicular system implantation and interbody fusion with a bone graft are better visualization of neural structures in comparison with discectomy from the ventral approach, the possibility of wide decompression and expansion of the extent of operation, the possibility of ablation of the facet joints by diathermocoagulation after the surgical wound was made, the reliability of posterior fixation, and familial approaches for a neurosurgeon with a lesser duration of training.

About the authors

Pavel G. Shnyakin

Prof. V.F. Voino-Yasenetsky Krasnoyarsk State Medical University

Email: doktor_anton@rambler.ru
Russian Federation, Krasnoyarsk

Anton V. Botov

Regional Clinical Hospital

Author for correspondence.
Email: doktor_anton@rambler.ru
Russian Federation, Krasnoyarsk

Andrey A. Amelchenko

Prof. V.F. Voino-Yasenetsky Krasnoyarsk State Medical University

Email: doktor_anton@rambler.ru
Russian Federation, Krasnoyarsk

References

  1. Bykova E.V. [Intraoperative prevention of pain in the back after microdiscectomy: PhD thesis]. Мoscow; 2009. 166 p. (In Russ.)
  2. Golob A.L., Wipf J.E. Low back pain. Med Clin North Am 2014; 98: 405–428. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2014.01.003. PMID: 24758954.
  3. Alexandrova Ya.Yu. [Osteochondrosis of the spine (prognosis and prevention): PhD thesis abstract]. Samara; 2000. 15 p. (In Russ.)
  4. Eliyas J.K., Karahalios D. Surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease Dis Mon 2011; 57: 592–606. doi: 10.1016/j.disamonth.2011.09.001. PMID: 22036115.
  5. Guyer R.D., Thongtrangan I., Ohnmeiss D.D. Outcomes of CHARITE lumbar artificial disk versus fusion: 5-year data. Semin Spine Surg 2012; 24: 32–36. doi: 10.1053/j.semss.2011.11.007.
  6. Canbulat N., Sasani M., Ataker Y. et al. A rehabilitation protocol for patients with lumbar degenerative disk disease treated with lumbar total disk replacement. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011; 92: 670–676. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.10.037. PMID: 21367399.
  7. Louw A., Farrell K., Landers M. et al. The effect of manual therapy and neuroplasticity education on chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. J Man Manip Ther 2017; 25: 227–234. doi: 10.1080/10669817.2016.1231860. PMID: 29449764.
  8. José-Antonio S.S., Baabor-Aqueveque M., Silva-Morales F. Philosophy and concepts of modern spine surgery Acta Neurochir Suppl 2011; 108: 23–31. doi: 10.1007/978-3-211-99370-5_5. PMID: 21107934.
  9. Bruffey J.D., Regan J., McMillan M. et al. Update in minimally invasive spine (MIS) surgery: clinical examples of anatomy, indications, and surgical techniques. Tucson, AZ: Center for advanced spinal surgery of Southern Arizona; 2011; 25–37.
  10. Gornet M.F., Chan F.W., Coleman J.C. et al. Biomechanical assessment of a PEEK rod system for semi-rigid fixation of lumbar fusion constructs. J Biomech Eng 2011; 133: 081009. doi: 10.1115/1.4004862. PMID: 21950902.
  11. De Iure F., Bosco G., Cappuccio M. et al. Posterior lumbar fusion by peek rods in degenerative spine: preliminary report on 30 cases. Eur Spine J 2012; 21: S50–S54. doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2219-x. PMID: 22402841.
  12. Kotani Y., Abumi K., Ito M. et al. Mid-term clinical results of minimally invasive decompression and posterolateral fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws versus conventional approach for degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 2012; 21: 1171–1177. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-2114-x. PMID: 22173610.
  13. Mobbs R.J., Sivabalan P., Li J. Technique, challenges and indications for percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. J Clin Neurosci 2011; 18:741–749. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2010.09.019. PMID: 21514165.
  14. von Jako R., Finn M.A., Yonemura K.S. et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous transpedicular screw fixation: increased accuracy and reduced radiation exposure by means of a novel electromagnetic navigation system. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2011; 153: 589–596. doi: 10.1007/s00701-010-0882-4. PMID: 28435606.
  15. Stüer C., Ringel F., Stoffel M. et al. Robotic technology in spine surgery: current applications and future developments Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2011; 109: 241–245. doi: 10.1007/978-3-211-99651-5_38. PMID: 20960350.
  16. Erdyneev K.Ts., Sorokovikov V.A., Larionov S.N. [Postoperative cicatrical-adhesive epiduritis (review of literature)]. Bulletin VSSC of SB RAMS 2011; (1-2): 243–246. (In Russ.)
  17. Kokina M.S., Filatova E.G. [Analysis of the causes of unsuccessful surgical treatment of patients with pain in the back]. Nevrologiya, neyropsikhiatriya, psikhosomatika 2011; (3): 30–34. (In Russ.)
  18. Bosscher H.A., Heavner J.E. Incidence and severity of epidural fibrosis after back surgery: an endoscopic study. Pain Pract 2010; 10: 18–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2009.00311.x. PMID: 19735365.
  19. Bundschuh C.V., Modic M.T., Ross J.S. et al. Epidural fibrosis and recurrent disk herniation in the lumbar spine: MR imaging assessment. Am J Neuroradiol 1988; 9: 169–178. doi: 10.2214/ajr.150.4.923. PMID: 3258108.
  20. Yoshimoto M., Iesato N., Terashima Y. et al. Long-term outcome of microendoscopic diskectomy for lumbar disk herniation. A clinical study of consecutive 112 cases with more than 5-year follow-up. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2017; 78: 446–452. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1598657. PMID: 28249307.
  21. Prodan A.I., Perepechai O.I., Kolesnichenko V.A. et al. [Complications of surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis]. Khirurgiya pozvonochnika 2009; (1): 31–37. (In Russ.)
  22. Fan Y.F., Chong V.F., Tan S.K. Failed back surgery syndrome: differentiating epidural fibrosis and recurrent disc prolapse with Gd-DTPA enhanced MRI. Singapore Med J 1995; 36: 153–156. PMID: 7676258.
  23. Yoshihara H., Chatterjee D., Paulino C.B., Errico T.J. Revision surgery for "real" recurrent lumbar disk herniation: a systematic review. Clin Spine Surg 2016; 29: 111–118. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000365. PMID: 27002374.
  24. Bradford D.S., Cooper K.M., Oegema T.R.Jr. Chymopapain, chemonucleolysis, and nucleus pulposus regeneration. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1983; 65: 1220–1231. PMID: 6361035.
  25. Laus M., Bertoni F., Bacchini P. et al. Recurrent lumbar disc herniation : what recurs? (A morphological study of recurrent disc herniation). Chir Organi Mov 1993; 78: 147–154. PMID: 8243133.
  26. Risbud M.V., Guttapalli A., Tsai T.T. et al. Evidence for skeletal progenitor cells in the degenerate human intervertebral disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32: 2537–2544. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318158dea6. PMID: 17978651.
  27. Kuh S.U., Kwon Y.M., Chin D.K. et al. Different expression of extracellular matrix genes: primary vs. recurrent disc herniation. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2010; 47: 26–29. doi: 10.3340/jkns.2010.47.1.26. PMID: 20157374.
  28. Griffon D., Hamaide A. (eds.) Complications in small animal surgery. Wiley Blackwell; 2016: 968 p.
  29. Gomleksiz C., Sasani M., Oktenoglu T., Fahir Ozer A. A short history of posterior dynamic stabilization. Adv Orthoped 2012; 2012: 629–698. doi: 10.1155/2012/629698. PMID: 23326674.
  30. Afaunov A.A., Basankin I.V., Kuzmenko A.V. [Analysis of the causes of revision operations in the surgical treatment of patients with lumbar stenoses of degenerative etiology]. Khirurgiya pozvonochnika 2014; (1): 86–93. (In Russ.)
  31. Lafage V., Gangnet N., Sénégas J. et al. New interspinous implant evaluation using an in vitro biomechanical study combined with a finite-element analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32: 1706–1713. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3180b9f429. PMID: 17632390.
  32. Park P., Garton H.J., Gala V.C. et al. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004; 29: 1938–1944. PMID: 15534420.
  33. Resina J., Alves A.F. A technique of correction and internal fixation for scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1977; 59: 159–165. PMID: 873976.
  34. Luque E.R. The anatomic basis and development of segmental spinal instrumentation Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1982; 7: 256–259. PMID: 7112238.
  35. Harrington P.R., Tullos H.S. Reduction of severe spondylolisthesis in chil¬dren. South Med J 1969; 62: 1–7. PMID: 5766428.
  36. Briggs H., Milligan P.R. Chip fusion of the low back following exploration of the spinal canal. J Bone Joint Surg 1944; 26: 125–130.
  37. Jaslow I.A. Intercorporal bone graft in spinal fusion after disc removal. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1946; 82: 215–218. PMID: 21011710.
  38. Cloward R.B. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral disc by vertebral body fusion indications, operative technique, aftercare. J Neurosurg 1953; 10: 154–168. doi: 10.3171/jns.1953.10.2.0154. PMID: 13035484.
  39. Stauffer R.N., Coventry M.B. Anterior interbody lumbar spine fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1972; 54: 756–768. PMID: 4560076.
  40. Bagby G.W. Arthrodesis by the distraction-compression method using a stainless steel implant. Orthopedics 1988; 11: 931–934. PMID: 3387340.
  41. Korzh A.A., Gruntovsky G.Kh., Klepach N.S., Filippenko V.A. [External transpedicular correction and stabilization in spine injuries]. Ortopediya i travmatologiya 1992; (3): 11–15. (In Russ.)
  42. Cloward R.B. The treatment of ruptured intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 1953; 10: 154–168. doi: 10.3171/jns.1953.10.2.0154. PMID: 13035484.
  43. Cloward R.B. Spondylolisthesis: Treatment by laminectomy and posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Orthop 1981; 27: 74–82. PMID: 7471591.
  44. Chiang M.F., Zhong Z.C., Chen C.S. et al. Biomechanical comparison of instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion with one or two cages by finite element analysis. Spine 2006; 31: E682–E689. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000232714.72699.8e. PMID: 16946641.
  45. Tsivyan Ya.L. [Anterior non-peritoneal access to the anterior lumbar vertebrae in the clinic]. In: Lecheniye zabolevaniy i povrezhdeniy pozvonochnika [Treatment of diseases and injuries of the spine]. Novosibirsk: Kn. isd-vo; 1963: 60–61. (In Russ.)
  46. Tsivyan Ya.L. [Anterior lumbar and lumbosacral spondylodesis]. Vestnik khirurgii; 1967; (7): 78–86. (In Russ.)
  47. Linson M.A., Williams H. Anterior and combined anteroposterior fusion for lumbar disc pain: a preliminary study. Spine 1991; 16: 143–145. PMID: 1707187.
  48. Huang T.J., Hsu R.W., Liu H.P. et al. Technique of video-assisted troracoscopis surgery for the spine new approach. World J Surg 1997; 21: 358–361. PMID: 9143564.
  49. Guyer R.D., McAfee P.C., Banco R.J. et al. Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITÉ artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: Five-year follow-up. Spine J 2009; 9: 374–386. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.08.007. PMID: 18805066.
  50. Fernström U. Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 1966; 357: 154–159. PMID: 5227072.
  51. Szpalski M., Gunzburg R., Mayer M. Spine arthroplasty: a historical review. Eur Spine J 2002; 11: S65–S84. doi: 10.1007/s00586-002-0474-y. PMID: 12384726.
  52. Gunzburg R., Mayer H.M., Szpalski M., Aebi M. Arthroplasty of the spine: the long quest for mobility. In: Gunzburg R., Mayer H.M., Szpalski M., Aebi M. (eds.) Arthroplasty of the spine. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2004: 1–2.
  53. Boos N., Aebi M. Spinal disorders: fundamentals of diagnosis and treatment: Springer; 2008; 1165. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-69091-7.
  54. Yue J.J., An H.S., McAfee P.C. et al. Motion preservation surgery of the spine: advanced techniques and controversies. Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30: E134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1707.
  55. Tsivyan Ya.L., Motov V.P. [Operative treatment of lumbar intervertebral osteochondrosis]. In: Voprosy patologii pozvonochnika, travmatologii i ortopedii [Questions of pathology of the spine, traumatology and orthopedics]. Novosibirsk; 1965: 30–34. (In Russ.)
  56. Savchenko P.A., Gyunther V.E., Fomichev N.G. Protez mezhpozvonkovogo diska [Prosthesis of the intervertebral disc]: Patent for invention RUS 2140229, 25.02.1998. (In Russ.)
  57. Mayer H.M., Wiechert K., Korge A. et al. Minimally invasive total disc replacement: surgical technique and preliminary clinical results. Eur Spine J 2002; 11: S124–S130. doi: 10.1007/s00586-002-0446-2. PMID: 12384733.
  58. Shmyrev V.I., Shevelev I.N., Vasiliev P.P. [Clinico-neuroimaging comparisons and complex treatment of compression radiculopathy in lumbar osteochondrosis]. Nevrologicheskiy zhurnal 1999; (1): 21–26. (In Russ.)
  59. Coric D., Mummaneni P.V. Nucleus replacement technologies. J Neurosurg Spine 2008; 8: 115–120. doi: 10.3171/SPI/2008/8/2/115. PMID: 18248282.
  60. Wilke H.J. Principles and mechanical requirements of nucleus implants. Global Spine J 2014; 4(1) doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1376762.
  61. Lee M.J., Dumonski M., Phillips F.M. Disc replacement adjacent to cervical fusion: a biomechanical comparison of hybrid construct versus two-level fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011; 36: 1932–1939. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181fc1aff. PMID: 21289581.
  62. Glenn J.S., Yaker J., Guyer R.D., Ohnmeiss D.D. Anterior discectomy and total disc replacement for three patients with multiple recurrent lumbar disc herniations. Spine J 2011; 11: e1-е6. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2011.07.030. PMID: 21907631.
  63. Glukhikh D.L. [Results of arthroplasty in degenerative lesions of the lumbar spine]. Voprosy neyrokhirurgii im. N.N. Burdenko 2015; 79(1): 68–74. doi: 10.17116/neiro201579168-74. (In Russ.)
  64. Kirkham B.W., Schwender J.D. Lumbar intervertebral cages: limitations and complications. Operative Тechniques in Оrthopaedics. 2000; 10: 320–4. doi: 10.1016/S1048-6666(00)80032-4.
  65. Cunningham B.W., Lowery G.L., Serhan H.A. Total disc replacement arthroplasty using the AcroFlex lumbar disc: a non-human primate model. Eur Spine J 2002; 11: S115-S123. doi: 10.1007/s00586-002-0481-z. PMID: 12384732.
  66. Bertagnoli R., Yue J.J., Kershaw T. et al. Lumbar total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis in smokers versus nonsmokers: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006; 31: 992–997. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000214970.07626.68. PMID: 16641775.
  67. Bertagnoli R., Yue J.J., Nanieva R. et al. Lumbar total disc arthroplasty in patients older than 60 years of age: A prospective study of the ProDisc prosthesis with 2-year minimum follow-up period. J Neurosurg Spine 2006; 4: 85–90. doi: 10.3171/spi.2006.4.2.85. PMID: 16506473.
  68. Dotsenko V.V. [Repeated operations with degenerative diseases of the spine]. Khirurgiya pozvonochnika 2004; (4): 63–67. (In Russ.)
  69. Zagorodni N.V., Dotsenko V.V., Sampiev M.T. [Minimally invasive fore access in the surgery of degenerative stenosis of the lumbar spine]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov 2003; (2): 113–117. (In Russ.)
  70. Linson M.A., Williams H. Anterior and combined anteroposterior fusion for lumbar disc pain: a preliminary study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1991; 16: 143–145. PMID: 1707187.
  71. Zdeblick T.A. A prospective, randomized study of lumbar fusion: preliminary results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993; 18: 983–991. PMID: 8367786.
  72. Mayer H.M. A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997; 22: 691–699; discussion 700. PMID: 9089943.
  73. Lomatidze E.Sh., Dotsenko V.V., Voznesenskaya N.N. [The history of development of minimally invasive surgery of the anterior spine at the lumbar level]. Astrakhanskiy meditsinskiy zhurnal 2013; 8(1): 142–149. (In Russ.)
  74. Kim S.M., Lim T.J., Paterno J. et al. Biomechanical comparison: stability of lateral-approach anterior lumbar interbody fusion and lateral fixation compared with anterior-approach anterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior fixation in the lower lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine 2005; 2: 62–68. doi: 10.3171/spi.2005.2.1.0062. PMID: 15658128.
  75. Huang T.J., Hsu R.W., Liu H.P. et al. Technique of video-assisted troracoscopis surgery for the spine new approach. World J Surg 1997; 21: 358–362. PMID: 9143564.
  76. Regan J.J., Aronoff R.J., Ohnmeiss D.D., Sengupta D.K. Laparoscopic approach to L4-L5 for interbody fusion using ВАК cages: experience in the first 58 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999; 24: 2171–2174. PMID: 10543017.
  77. Boswell M.V., Shah R.V., Everett C.R. et al. Interventional techniques in the management of chronic spinal pain: evidencebased practice guidelines. Pain Phys 2005; 8: 1–47. PMID: 16850041.
  78. Hacker R.J. Comparison of interbody fusion approaches for disabling low back. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997; 22: 660–665; discussion 665–666. PMID: 9089939.
  79. McGlynn E.A. Six challenges in measuring the quality of health care. Health Aff (Millwood) 1997; 16: 7–21. PMID: 9141316.
  80. Kholodov S.A. [Microsurgical treatment of multilevel discogenic lesions of the lumbar spine]. Voprosy neyrokhirurgii 2001; (3): 6–10. (In Russ.)
  81. Narotam P.K., Pauley S.M., McGinn G.J. Titanium mesh cages for cervical spine stabilization after corpectomy: a clinical and radiological study. J Neurosurg 2003; 99: 172–180. PMID: 12956460.
  82. Isaeva N.V., Dralyuk M.G. [A modern view of the clinical importance of epidural fibrosis after lumbar discectomy]. Khirurgiya pozvonochnika 2010; (1): 38–45. doi: 10.14531/ss2010.1.38-45. (In Russ.)
  83. Mayer H.M. The ALIF concept. Eur Spine J 2000; 9: S35–S43. PMID: 10766056.
  84. Khizhnyak M.V., Novakovich K.S. [Surgical treatment of recurrences of herniated intervertebral discs of the lumbar spine with the use of interstitial stabilization systems]. Meditsinskiy zhurnal 2013; (2): 151–152. (In Russ.)
  85. Pevzner K.B., Egorov O.E., Evzikov G.Yu., Rozen A.I. [Percutaneous high-frequency destruction of arcuate joints in the treatment of postdiskectomy syndrome at the lumbar level]. Khirurgiya pozvonochnika 2007; (3): 45–48. (In Russ.)
  86. Simonovich A.E. [Surgical treatment of degenerative lesions of the lumbar spine using DYNESYS instrumentation for transpedicular dynamic fixation]. Vestnik travmatologii i ortopedii im. N.N. Priorova 2005; (2): 11–15. (In Russ.)
  87. Tsantrizos A., Andreou A., Aebi M., Steffen T. Biomechanical stability of five stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion constructs. Eur Spine J 2000; 9: 14–22. PMID: 10766072.
  88. Weinstein J.N., Lurie J.D., Tosteson T.D. et al. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation: four-year results for the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008; 33: 2789–2800. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818ed8f4. PMID: 19018250.
  89. Krut’ko A.V. [Comparative analysis of the results of posterior interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) in combination with transpedicular fixation]. Vestnik travmatologii i ortopedii im. N.N. Priorova 2012; (2): 12–21. (In Russ.)
  90. Chiang M.F., Zhong Z.C., Chen C.S. et al. Biomechanical comparison of instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion with one or two cages by finite element analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006; 31: E682-Е689. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000232714.72699.8e. PMID: 16946641.
  91. Zavyalov D.M., Peretechikov A.V. [Prevention and treatment of postoperative cicatricial-adhesive epidurit]. Voprosy neyrokhirurgii im. N.N. Burdenko 2016; 80: 115–117. doi: 10.17116/neiro2016806115-117. (In Russ.)
  92. Berdyugin K.A., Karenin M.S. [Complications of transpedicular fixation of the spine and their prevention]. Fundamental'nye issledovaniya. 2010; (9): 61–71. (In Russ.)
  93. Pas’kov R.V., Plushenko D.S., Sergeev K.S. et al. [Treatment of an infectious complication after transpedicular fixation: a case from practice and an analysis of the current state of the problem]. Vestnik travmatologii i ortopedii im. N.N. Priorova. 2013; (4): 60–63. (In Russ.)
  94. Klishin D.N., Dreval’ O.N., Kuznetsov A.V. [Topographical and anatomical features of the substantiation of surgical treatment of herniated intervertebral discs of the upper lumbar level]. Rossiyskiy neyrokhirurgicheskiy zhurnal im. professora A.L. Polenova. 2012; 4(1): 16–21. (In Russ.)

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2018 Shnyakin P.G., Botov A.V., Amelchenko A.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77-83204 от 12.05.2022.


This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies