Outcome of minimally invasive surgery treatment with percutaneous screws and intervertebral fusion cage transforaminal system in patients with single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis
Main Article Content
Abstract
Our study focuses on single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis patients who had minimally invasive surgery treatment with percutaneous screws and intervertebral fusion cage transforaminal system for 5 years (1/2019 - 12/2023) at Hanoi Medical University Hospital. The study was conducted on 110 patients that matched the criteria, in which 88.1% had grade 1 spondylolisthesis and 11.9% had grade 2 spondylolisthesis. The average age was 48.53 ± 8.13 years old, female/male ratio 1.62; the common cause was par defect at 29.1% and degenerative at 70.9%. The most common level was L4L5 at 57.27%. 100% had back pain with VAS average 6.7 ± 3.2, radiculopathy leg pain got 95.5% with VAS average 6.5 ± 3.8. ODI pre-operation was 43.5 ± 14%, the average time of surgery was 115 ± 23 minutes, the average blood loss was 150 ± 43ml; Complication: 1 case with small epidural tear recovered by only placement of muscle and hemostatic material, 2 cases K-wire passing through the anterior border of the vertebral during tap driver to pedicle; Hospital stay average time was 4.2 ± 2.6 days; the postoperative average time for return to walking was 2.1 ± 0.8 days. Results after 9 months postoperative follow-up: Very good 35.5%, Good 40.9%, Medium 22.7%, Bad 0.9%. Results after 24 months postoperative: Very good 57.7%: Good 21.7%, Medium 20.6%. Compared to traditional procedures with open spinal fixation and interbody fusion, minimally invasive surgery helps reduce blood loss, shorten hospital stay, and early recovery for patients.
Article Details
Keywords
Spondylolisthesis, percutaneous screw spine surgery, intervertebral transforaminal fusion, minimally invasive surgery
References
2. Kern Singh el all. History and Evolution of the Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Neurospine. 2022; 19(3): 479-491.
3. Fairbank, J.C. and P.B. Pynsent. (2000). The Oswestry disability index. Spine. 25(22): p. 2940-2953
4. Bridwell, K.H., et al. (1993). The role of fusion and instrumentation in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques. 6(6): p. 461-472.
5. Wiltse LL, et al. Classification of spondyloisis and spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976; 117: 23–9.
6. Wang el all. Ligamentum-preserved/Temporary Preserved Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Technical Note and 2-year Follow-up. SPINE. 2021, Volume 47, Number 8, pp E328–E336.
7. Chan el all. 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 54(1): E2, 2023.
8. Nguyen el all. 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. Wong el all. Intraoperative and perioperative complications in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of 513 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 22: 487–495, 2015