| Literature DB >> 35265351 |
А R Syundyukov1, N S Nikolayev2, V А Kuzmina3, S А Aleksandrov4, P N Kornyakov4, V Yu Emelyanov5.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of the minimally invasive technique used to reconstruct the vertebral arch with a pedicle screw hook system in grade I isthmic spondylolisthesis in comparison with the traditional technique of segment stabilization with interbody fusion. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: isthmic spondylolisthesis; spondylodesis; spondylolisthesis; vertebral arch reconstruction
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35265351 PMCID: PMC8858413 DOI: 10.17691/stm2021.13.5.08
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sovrem Tekhnologii Med ISSN: 2076-4243
Figure 1.Angles of spinopelvic interrelationship (pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, sacral slope, lumbar lordosis) on the radiograph
Figure 2.Clinical example of treating spondylolisthesis using minimally invasive technique:
(а) minimally invasive dorsal access at the level of the L5 vertebra;
(b) axial computed tomography: left — preoperative, shows the defect at the level of the L5 vertebra; right — postoperative, shows transpedicular screws in the arch of the L5 vertebra;
(c) radiograph in the direct anterior projection: left — preoperative, shows the defect at the level of the L5 vertebra; right — postoperative, shows defect fixation with transpedicular screws at the level of the L5 vertebra;
(d) radiograph in the lateral projection: left — preoperative, shows the defect at the level of the L5 vertebra; right — postoperative, defect was removed using pedicle-screw and hook constructs;
(e) lateral CT: left — preoperative, shows the defect at the level of the L5 vertebra; right — postoperative — shows two-sided screws on the pedicle and rod and hook constructs on the L5 vertebra for defect correction
Indices of treating spondylolisthesis with different techniques
| Parameters | Group 1 | Group 2 | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient number (male/female) | 6 (4/2) | 20 (13/7) | — |
| Assessment by VAS, M±SD: | |||
| before operation | 2.50±0.50 | 2.95±0.80 | 0.3175 |
| after operation | 1.0±0.60 | 0.65±0.60 | 0.2618 |
| Results by Macnab scale (%), P±σP: | |||
| excellent | 66.70±19.0 | 80.0±9.0 | |
| good | 33.30±19.0 | 20.0±9.0 | |
| Blood loss (ml), M±SD | 300.0±130.4 | 44.0±19.6 | <0.0001 |
| Duration of the operation (min), M±SD | 349.2±93.2 | 176.0±41.6 | <0.0001 |
| Hospital stay (days), M±SD | 10.0±2.1 | 6.9±1.6 | 0.0025 |
Indices of spinopelvic interrelationships in patients of both groups before and after the operation
| Parameter | Group 1 | Group 2 | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M±SD | 95% CI | M±SD | 95% CI | ||
| Pi | 62.3±12.6 | 73.0–57.8 | 58.1±7.1 | 63.0–50.5 | 0.4475 |
| Reference lordosis indices | 66.3±7.8 | 68.8–60.6 | 63.7±4.4 | 66.2–61.4 | 0.4475 |
| LL: | |||||
| before operation | 73.0±9.4 | 77.0–67.0 | 61.1±9.0 | 67.0–58.0 | 0.0098 |
| after operation | 63.2±10.6 | 67.3–55.8 | 55.3±8.8 | 61.0–51.0 | 0.1185 |
| SS: | |||||
| before operation | 50.2±7.3 | 53.0–45.0 | 46.3±7.0 | 50.0–42.0 | 0.361 |
| after operation | 45.8±9.2 | 50.0–42.5 | 41.8±7.5 | 46.8–35.0 | 0.3626 |
| PT: | |||||
| before operation | 12.3±8.5 | 28.0–7.0 | 11.9±5.6 | 14.5–5.0 | 0.8703 |
| after operation | 15.2±9.7 | 25.5–10.0 | 16.0±6.9 | 19.8–11.0 | 0.6667 |