Substantiation and development of an optimal method of minimally invasive posterior interbody stabilization of vertebrae using distraction cages in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25305/unj.322446Keywords:
spondylolisthesis, treatment, operation, surgery, minimally invasive posterior interbody stabilization of the spineAbstract
Objective to improve the effectiveness of treatment of patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis, the authors substantiated and developed a novel method of minimally invasive posterior interbody vertebral stabilization (MIPIVS) using distraction cages.
Materials and methods: A clinical prospective comparative (controlled) single-center interventional cross-section study was conducted with a subsequent observation phase, as well as preliminary modeling and development of a noveltervention method. The biomechanical model was used to determine the possibility of restoring the functional state of the spine using distraction cages, and the stress-strain state of the structures was analyzed. The clinical part of the study involved 21 patients aged 35 to 68 (Me=56 [LQ=50; UQ=65]) years (15 women and 6 men), divided into three groups: the study group (n=4) treated with the author's method of MIPIVS (patent application No. a202302383 dated May 18, 2023), a comparison group (n=10) with the standard method of MIPIVS, a control group (n=7) treated with other methods of interbody spondylodesis. Patients were examined according to standard protocols. Logistic and statistical analyses were performed using standard nonparametric methods at a critical level of p<0.05. The principles of bioethics and biomedicine were observed.
Results: Before and after surgical treatment of patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis of the lumbar spine, the size of the spinal canal was studied and the dynamics of neurological disorders was assessed. The authors developed a novel method of minimally invasive posterior interbody stabilization of vertebrae using distraction cages and determined the possibility of restoring the value of segmental lordosis, parameters of spinal-pelvic balance and sagittal contour of the spine as indicators of the functional state of the spine using a biomechanical model. The analysis also included assessment of the stress-strain state within the "transpedicular structure – spinal motion segment – distraction cage" system.
Сonclusions: The proprietary method of MIPIVS using distraction cages, which has been substantiated and developed, will help to improve the effectiveness of treatment for patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Further research prospects include clinical testing of the author's MIPIVS method.
References
1. García-Ramos CL, Valenzuela-González J, Baeza-Álvarez VB, Rosales-Olivarez LM, Alpizar-Aguirre A, Reyes-Sánchez A. Degenerative spondylolisthesis I: general principles. Acta Ortop Mex. 2020 Sep-Oct;34(5):324-328. English. [PubMed]
2. Chung CC, Shimer AL. Lumbosacral Spondylolysis and Spondylolisthesis. Clin Sports Med. 2021 Jul;40(3):471-490. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Bydon M, Alvi MA, Goyal A. Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Definition, Natural History, Conservative Management, and Surgical Treatment. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2019 Jul;30(3):299-304. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. García-Ramos CL, Valenzuela-González J, Baeza-Álvarez VB, Rosales-Olivarez LM, Alpízar-Aguirre A, Reyes-Sánchez A. Lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis II: treatment and controversies. Acta Ortop Mex. 2020 Nov-Dec;34(6):433-440. English. [PubMed]
5. Li N, Scofield J, Mangham P, Cooper J, Sherman W, Kaye AD. Spondylolisthesis. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2022 Jul 27;14(3):36917. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
6. Arts MP, Wolfs JF, Kuijlen JM, de Ruiter GC. Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis: study protocol of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (MISOS trial). BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 12;7(11):e017882. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
7. Hammad A, Wirries A, Ardeshiri A, Nikiforov O, Geiger F. Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: literature review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Jul 22;14(1):229. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
8. Lu VM, Kerezoudis P, Gilder HE, McCutcheon BA, Phan K, Bydon M. Minimally Invasive Surgery Versus Open Surgery Spinal Fusion for Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017 Feb;42(3):E177-E185. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Ntoukas V, Müller A. Minimally invasive approach versus traditional open approach for one level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2010 Feb;53(1):21-4. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Yang Y, Liu ZY, Zhang LM, Pang M, Chhantyal K, Wu WB, Chen ZH, Luo CX, Rong LM, Liu B. Microendoscopy-Assisted Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: 5-Year Outcomes. World Neurosurg. 2018 Aug;116:e602-e610. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Schnake KJ, Fleiter N, Hoffmann C, Pingel A, Scholz M, Langheinrich A, Kandziora F. PLIF surgery with titanium-coated PEEK or uncoated PEEK cages: a prospective randomised clinical and radiological study. Eur Spine J. 2021 Jan;30(1):114-121. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Nekhlopochyn O, Verbov V, Tsymbaliuk I, Cheshuk I, Vorodi M. The choice of classification to determine the optimal tactics for treatment of the thoracolumbar junction traumatic injuries. Pol Merkur Lekarski. 2024;52(1):104-111. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Ashworth E, Baxter D, Gibb I, Wilson M, Bull AMJ. Injuries in Underbody Blast Fatalities: Identification of Five Distinct Mechanisms of Head Injury. J Neurotrauma. 2023 Jan;40(1-2):141-147. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Pereira P, Park Y, Arzoglou V, Charles YP, Krutko A, Senker W, Park SW, Franke J, Fuentes S, Bordon G, Song Y, He S, Vialle E, Mlyavykh S, Varanda P, Hosszu T, Bhagat S, Hong JY, Vanhauwaert D, de la Dehesa P. Anterolateral versus posterior minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion surgery for spondylolisthesis: comparison of outcomes from a global, multicenter study at 12-months follow-up. Spine J. 2023 Oct;23(10):1494-1505. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg. 2015 Dec;1(1):2-18. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
16. Stognii A, Pyatikop V, Yaresko O, Popsuyshapka K, Pidgayska O, Karpinsky M. [Study of stress distribution in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion model (PEEK implant and distraction cage)]. TRAUMA. 2022;23(6):47-55. Ukrainian. [CrossRef]
17. Arim O, Alshalcy A, Shakir M, Agha O, Alhamdany H. TRANSPEDICULAR SCREW FIXATION IN DEGENERATIVE LUMBOSACRAL SPINE DISEASE SURGICAL OUTCOME. Georgian Med News. 2024 Mar;(348):117-121. [PubMed]
18. Doğu H, Abdallah A, Muçuoğlu AO, Demirel N, Elmadağ NM. Comparing Three-dimensional and Two-dimensional Preoperative Planning for Lumbar Transpedicular Screw Placement: A Retrospective Study. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2025 Jan;86(1):1-11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Wu L, Jiang X, Guan T, He Z, Li J. Biomechanical properties analysis of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with transpedicular oblique screw fixation. Heliyon. 2024 Oct 4;10(19):e38929. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
20. Lewandrowski KU, Soriano-Sánchez JA, Zhang X, Ramírez León JF, Soriano Solis S, Rugeles Ortíz JG, Martínez CR, Alonso Cuéllar GO, Liu K, Fu Q, de Lima E Silva MS, de Carvalho PST, Hellinger S, Dowling Á, Prada N, Choi G, Datar G, Yeung A. Surgeon motivation, and obstacles to the implementation of minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques. J Spine Surg. 2020 Jan;6(Suppl 1):S249-S259. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
21. Modi HN, Shrestha U. Comparison of Clinical Outcome and Radiologic Parameters in Open TLIF Versus MIS-TLIF in Single- or Double-Level Lumbar Surgeries. Int J Spine Surg. 2021 Oct;15(5):962-970. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Artem V. Stogniy, Volodymyr O. Pyatikop, Yuriy O. Babalyan

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Ukrainian Neurosurgical Journal abides by the CREATIVE COMMONS copyright rights and permissions for open access journals.
Authors, who are published in this Journal, agree to the following conditions:
1. The authors reserve the right to authorship of the work and pass the first publication right of this work to the Journal under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows others to freely distribute the published research with the obligatory reference to the authors of the original work and the first publication of the work in this Journal.
2. The authors have the right to conclude separate supplement agreements that relate to non-exclusive work distribution in the form of which it has been published by the Journal (for example, to upload the work to the online storage of the Journal or publish it as part of a monograph), provided that the reference to the first publication of the work in this Journal is included.