SURGICAL OUTCOMES OF POSTERIOR LUMBAR SPINAL FIXATION AND INTERBODY FUSION IN THE TREATMENT OF MULTILEVEL LUMBAR INSTABILITY AT BACH MAI HOSPITAL
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To assess the outcomes of posterior spinal fixation and interbody fusion surgery for the treatment of multilevel lumbar-sacral instability. Subjects and Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted on 60 patients diagnosed with lumbar-sacral spinal instability due to degeneration. These patients underwent posterior multilevel spinal fixation and interbody fusion (involving two or more levels) at the Department of Orthopedic Trauma and Spine Surgery, Bach Mai Hospital, between January 2021 and July 2023. The minimum postoperative follow-up period was six months. Results: The average age of patients was 59.43 years, with a female-to-male ratio of 4:1. The average duration from onset to surgery was 21.58 months. Preoperative mean scores for back pain (VAS), leg pain (VAS), and JOA were 5.57, 4.57, and 10.95 points, respectively. These scores significantly decreased at the follow-up to 1.41, 0.53, and 24.63 points, respectively. Patients under 60 years old, females, and those classified as ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) 1 or 2 were found to have better neurological recovery outcomes at follow-up. Conclusion: Posterior spinal fixation and interbody fusion surgery for the treatment of lumbar instability is a safe procedure with a low intraoperative complication rate. Postoperative pain levels decrease over time. Patients under 60, females, and those with ASA classifications 1 or 2 are associated with better recovery outcomes after more than six months of follow-up.
Article Details
Keywords
Posterior spinal fixation and interbody fusion; multilevel lumbar spinal instability; degenerative spinal instability
References
2. Smith JS, Klineberg E, Lafage V, et al. Prospective multicenter assessment of perioperative and minimum 2-year postoperative complication rates associated with adult spinal deformity surgery. Journal of neurosurgery Spine. Jul 2016;25(1):1-14. doi:10.3171/2015.11. spine151036
3. Roberts TT, Leonard GR, Cepela DJ. Classifications In Brief: American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale. Clin Orthop Relat Res. May 2017;475(5):1499-1504. doi:10.1007/s11999-016-5133-4
4. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. Nov 15 2000;25(22):2940-52; discussion 2952. doi:10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017
5. Green D.J. TBA, Alan H. Imaging Technique for the Diagnosis of Spongdylolisthesis. Springer, NewYork. 2015:59-94.
6. H. BK, L. DR, D. AP. The Thoracic and Lumbar Degenerative Spine. The textbook of spinal surgery. 2011;3,:pp. 821-1040.
7. E. A, N. Z, P. D. Development and validation of a quantitative method to assess pedicle screw loosening in posterior spine instrumentation on plain radiographs. Eur Spine J. 2014:pp. 689-694.
8. Trà N. Kết quả điều trị mất vững cột sống thắt lưng do thoái hóa bằng ốc chân cung và hàn liên thân đốt lối sau. Đại học Y Dược; 2014.
9. El-Soufy. Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Low-Grade Spondylolisthesis. J Spine Neurosurg. 2015;4,:pp. 22.
10. H. S, T. M, T. Y, Y. K, T. O. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cortical bone trajectory screw fixition versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion using traditional pedicle screw fixition for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative study. Journal of neurosurgery Spine. 2016:pp. 5941-595.