36. Outcome of minimally invasive surgery treatment with percutaneous screws and intervertebral fusion cage transforaminal system in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis at Hanoi Medical University Hospital
Main Article Content
Abstract
Our study focuses on lumbar spondylolisthesis patients who had minimally invasive surgery treatment with percutaneous screws and intervertebral fusion cage transforaminal system for 4 years (1/2019 - 12/2022) at Hanoi Medical University Hospital. The study was conducted on 155 patients with 76.8% diagnosed for spondylolisthesis and 23.2% herniated spondylolisthesis. The average age was 53.13 ± 10.53 years old, female/male ratio 2.875; common cause was par defect (24.5%) and degenerative (75.5%). The most common level was L4-L5, 52.3% (104/199) and L5-S1, 35.2% (70/199). There were 10.3% of Grade II spondylolisthesis with par defects. 100% back pain with VAS average 7.2 ± 0.8, 83.9% radiculopathy leg pain with VAS average 6.2 ± 2.8. ODI pre-operation 40.5 ± 14%; the average time of surgery was 135 ± 43 minutes, the average blood loss 210 ± 83ml; Complication: 1 case with small epidural tear recovered by placement of muscle and hemostatic material, 2 cases with K-wire passing through the anterior border of the vertebral during tap driver to pedicle; Hospital stay average time was 5.6 ± 3.8 days; the postoperative average time for return walking was 2.2 ± 1.2 days. Results after 9 months’ postoperative follow-up were Very good at 32.9%, Good at 45.8%, Medium at 20% and Bad at 1.3%. 61.9% of all patients had 24 months’ postoperative re-examination; results were Very good at 52.1%, Good at 27.1%, Medium at 20.8%. Compared to traditional procedures with open spinal fixation and interbody fusion, minimally invasive surgery helps reduce blood loss, shorten hospital stay, and early recovery.
Article Details
Keywords
Spondylolisthesis, percutaneous screw spine surgery, intervertebral transforaminal fusion, minimally invasive surgery
References
2. Michael C Prabhu, Kevin C Jacob, Madhav R Patel, et al. History and Evolution of the Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Neurospine 2022;19(3):479-491.
3. Fairbank JC, PB Pynsent. The Oswestry disability index. Spine. 2000;25(22):2940-2953.
4. Bridwell KH, T A Sedgewick, M F O’Brien, et al. The role of fusion and instrumentation in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques. 1993;6(6):461-472.
5. Wiltse LL, P H Newman, I Macnab. Classification of spondyloisis and spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976; 117:23-9.
6. Wang Lianlei, Li Hao, Zhao Yiwei, et al. Ligamentum-preserved/Temporary Preserved Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Technical Note and 2-year Follow-up. SPINE. 2021;47(8):E328-E336.
7. Andrew K Chan, Mohamad Bydon, Erica F Bisson, el al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis: 5-year follow-up from the prospective multicenter Quality Outcomes Database registry. Neurosurg Focus. 2023;54(1):E2.
8. Long Hoang Nguyen, Hung Manh Do, Phong Hong Pham, el al. A cross-sectional study of MIS TLIF in treatment of spondylolisthesis: initial good results from 92 Vietnamese patients. Annals of Medicine & Surgery. 2023;85:2518-2521.
9. Albert P Wong, Zachary A Smith, Alexander T Nixon, el al. Intraoperative and perioperative complications in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of 513 patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22:487-495.