26. Effectiveness in indirect decompression using mis tlif in single level lumbo-sacral spondylolisthesis
Main Article Content
Abstract
Minimally invasive surgery - transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) was considered as a promising treatment in lumbo-sacral spondylolisthesis, especially using intraoperative neuromonitoring will provide safer and faster recovery with less complications. The objective of this study was to confirmed the safety of the innovative MIS TLIF in releasing nerves without exposure. From 2022 to March 2024, 20 single-level lumbo-sacral spondylolisthesis was performed for indirect decompression using MIS TLIF with intraoperation neuromonitoring. During perioperative and follow-up, demographic data, operation time, blood loss, VAS, ODI, modified MacNab criteria, radiographic evaluation and complications were collected and analyzed. 20 patients were followed up for more than 12 months. Mean age: 52.1 and mean follow-up 15.2 months. VAS back pain: 7.4 preoperatively and 0.8 at the final. VAS of leg pain was 7.1 preoperatively and 0.9 at the final. ODI was 52.4% preoperatively and 15.6% at the final. MIS-TLIF was associated with reduction of spondylolisthesis, increase in disc height (+6 mm), foraminal height (+3,1 mm), and segmental lordosis (+4.8°). Patients with hypolordosis (<40°) significant increases +6.1° and overall lordosis +7.6°. Pelvic parameters were not significantly changed. According to the modified MacNab criteria: 75% excellent, 20% good and 51% fair. There was no complication perioperatively. Indirect decompression using MIS TLIF seems to be a safe, effective, and feasible technique in managing single level lumbo-sacral spondylolisthesis.
Article Details
Keywords
MIS TLIF, indirect decompression, spondylolisthesis, intraoperation neuromonitoring, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)
References
2. Massie LW, Zakaria HM, Schultz L.R, Basheer A, and et al. Assessment of radiographic and clinical outcomes of an articulating expandable interbody cage in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. Neurosurgical focus. 2018, 44 (1), E8.
3. Uribe JS, Myhre SL, Youssef JA. Preservation or restoration of segmental and regional spinal lordosis using minimally invasive interbody fusion techniques in degenerative lumbar conditions: a literature review. Spine. 2016, 41, S50-S58.
4. Yoshihara H. Indirect decompression in spinal surgery. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. 2017, 44, 63-68.
5. Hawasli AH, Khalifeh JM, Chatrath A, Yarbrough CK, and et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable versus static interbody devices: radiographic assessment of sagittal segmental and pelvic parameters. Neurosurgical focus. 2017, 43 (2), E10.
6. Yee TJ, Joseph JR, Terman SW, Park P. Expandable vs static cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: radiographic comparison of segmental and lumbar sagittal angles. Neurosurgery. 2017, 81 (1), 69-74.
7. Carlson BB, Saville P, Dowdell J, et al. Restoration of lumbar lordosis after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. The Spine Journal. 2019, 19 (5), 951-958.
8. Parajón A, Alimi M, Navarro-Ramirez R, and et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of the fusion rates. What is the optimal graft material? Neurosurgery. 2017, 81 (6), 958-971.
9. Sharan A, Groff MW, DAiley AT, and et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 15: electrophysiological monitoring and lumbar fusion. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 2014, 21 (1), 102-105.
10. Piasecki K, Kulik G, Pierzchala K, and et al. Do intra-operative neurophysiological changes predict functional outcome following decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis? A prospective study. Journal of Spine Surgery. 2018, 4 (1), 86.