Article Sidebar

PDF (Tiếng Việt)
Published: 2025-04-28
Abstract Views: 0
Views PDF (Tiếng Việt): 0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52852/tcncyh.v189i4.3462
Issue
Vol. 189 No. 4 (2025)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Hùng, K. Đình, & Kiên, T. T. (2025). 43. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbosacral spondylolisthesis with intraoperative monitoring. Journal of Medical Research, 189(4), 404-414. https://doi.org/10.52852/tcncyh.v189i4.3462

43. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbosacral spondylolisthesis with intraoperative monitoring

Kieu Dinh Hung, Tran Trung Kien

Main Article Content

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) was considered a promising treatment in lumbosacral spondylolisthesis, with small incisions, faster recovery, and intraoperative monitoring providing safer and less complication for patients. From 2022 to December 2024, 50 single-level lumbosacral spondylolisthesis were performed MIS TLIF with intraoperative neuromonitoring. All information was recorded: perioperative and follow-up, demographic data, operation time, blood loss, VAS, ODI, modified MacNab criteria, radiographic evaluation, and complications. 50 patients were followed up for 12 months. Mean age: 52.1 and mean follow-up 12 months. VAS back pain: 7.3 preoperatively and 1.3 at the final. VAS of leg pain was 6.7 preoperatively and 1.4 at the final. ODI was 56.4% preoperatively and 17.1% at the final. MIS-TLIF was associated with a good reduction of spondylolisthesis, an increase in disc height (+3,7mm), foraminal height (+3mm), and segmental lordosis (+3°). Pelvic parameters were not significantly changed. Mean blood loss was 85ml. The mean time of surgery was 84.9 mins. The mean time for first walking was 1.2 days and the mean discharge time was 5.2 days. There were no complications perioperatively. Clinical improvement was significant after 6 months follow-up, from 6 to 12 months follow-up symptoms were imperceptibly changed. According to the modified MacNab criteria: 75% excellent, 20% good, and 5% fair. The MIS TLIF with intraoperative monitoring provides safe results, less operative time, and faster recovery with a high satisfaction rate.

Article Details

Keywords

MIS TLIF, indirect decompression, spondylolisthesis, intraoperative neuromonitoring

References

1. Hawasli AH, Khalifeh JM, Chatrath A, Yarbrough CK, Ray WZ. 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.
2. Jain N, Alluri R, Phan K, et al. Saphenous nerve somatosensory-evoked potentials monitoring during lateral interbody fusion. Global Spine Journal. 2021; 11(5): 722-726.
3. Riley MR, Doan AT, Vogel RW, Aguirre AO, Pieri KS, Scheid EH. Use of motor evoked potentials during lateral lumbar interbody fusion reduces postoperative deficits. The Spine Journal. 2018; 18(10): 1763-1778.
4. ShArAn A, Groff MW, DAiley AT, 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.
5. Nguyen LH, Do HM, Pham PH, et al. A cross-sectional study of MIS TLIF in treatment of spondylolisthesis: initial good results from 92 Vietnamese patients. Annals of Medicine and Surgery. 2023; 85(6): 2518-2521.
6. Sato K, Kikuchi S. An anatomic study of foraminal nerve root lesions in the lumbar spine. Spine. 1993; 18(15): 2246-2251.
7. Kikuchi S, Hasue M, Nishiyama K, Ito T. Anatomic and clinical studies of radicular symptoms. Spine. 1984; 9(1): 23-30.
8. Cho KH, Jin ZW, Abe H, Shibata S, Murakami G, Rodríguez-Vázquez JF. Neural-dural transition at the thoracic and lumbar spinal nerve roots: a histological study of human late-stage fetuses. BioMed Research International. 2016; 2016.
9. Grant JP, Oxland TR, Dvorak MF. Mapping the structural properties of the lumbosacral vertebral endplates. Spine. 2001; 26(8): 889-896.
10. Wewel JT, Hartman C, Uribe JS. Timing of lateral lumbar interbody subsidence: review of exclusive intraoperative subsidence. World Neurosurgery. 2020; 137: e208-e212.
11. 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.
12. Massie LW, Zakaria HM, Schultz LR, Basheer A, Buraimoh MA, Chang V. 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.
13. Piasecki K, Kulik G, Pierzchala K, Pralong E, Rao PJ, Schizas C. 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.
14. Bendersky M, Solá C, Muntadas J, et al. Monitoring lumbar plexus integrity in extreme lateral transpsoas approaches to the lumbar spine: a new protocol with anatomical bases. European Spine Journal. 2015; 24: 1051-1057.