Lumbar interbody fusion with bilateral cages using a biportal endoscopic technique with a third portal

The Method of Portal Making in Lumbar Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Surgery with Different Operative Approaches According to the Constant Anatomical Landmarks of the Lumbar Spine: A Review of the Literature

STUDY DESIGN

Review.

OBJECTIVE

Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy (UBE) is a minimally invasive surgery that is gaining recognition and being employed in clinical practice. Nevertheless, the precise method for determining UBE portals' location varies depending on the originator's preferences or the anatomical structure's proximity to the portal positions. Consequently, the relationship among UBE portals' locations is messy. This study aims to elaborate on the specific portal localization and explore the positional association and commonality among different UBE approaches' portals.

METHODS

The following keywords are used to search in the PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Scopus, CNKI, and Wanfang database: "Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery", "Two portal endoscopic spinal surgery", "Percutaneous biportal endoscopic decompression", "Unilateral biportal endoscopy", "Irrigation endoscopic discectomy", "UBE" and "BESS".

RESULTS

After screening, 29 pieces of literature are included. The study summarizes different UBE approach portal localizations, categorized by fusion or non-fusion surgery and pathological classification. The study presents an inaugural method for categorizing the lumber into four surgical intervals based on bone landmarks and assigns different UBE approaches to the appropriate intervals based on their characteristics, making the selection of UBE surgical approaches' portal locations more flexible. Additionally, the study provides an overview of the indications, complications, and distinct benefits associated with each interval, further refining the novel UBE portal interval localization method.

CONCLUSION

The study clarifies the interrelationship and commonality between the portals of different UBE approaches and proposes a new UBE portal interval localization method to enhance surgeons' understanding and proficiency in UBE procedures.

Biportal endoscopic-assisted cortical bone trajectory screw placement and lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND

Endoscopically assisted screw fixation with lumbar interbody fusion is rarely performed. We succeeded in implanting the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws under the guidance of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE).

METHOD

We attempted endoscopically assisted screw fixation in a patient with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Through a third portal, ipsilateral CBT screws were implanted without complications.

CONCLUSIONS

We successfully performed unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) with CBT and reversed CBT screws. Compared with percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) placement, this procedure is a minimally invasive, endoscopic alternative that allows precise screw placement.

A single-arm retrospective study of the clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis

Objective

The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Methods

Patients who underwent UBE-TLIF due to single-segment LSS between August 2019 and July 2021 were retrospectively included in the study. Clinical outcomes evaluated include operative time, estimated blood loss (including postoperative drainage), time to ambulation, postoperative hospital stay, complications, visual analog scale (VAS) scores of low back pain and leg pain, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and modified Macnab criteria. Interbody bony fusion at the index level was assessed using Bridwell grading criteria.

Results

A total of 73 patients (29 males and 44 females) were enrolled in this study. All surgeries were successfully performed without intraoperative conversion to open surgery. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed optimal direct neural decompression after UBE-TLIF. The mean operative time was 150.89 ± 15.58 min. The mean estimated blood loss was 126.03 ± 17.85 ml (postoperative drainage was 34.84 ± 8.31 ml). Time to ambulation was 2.0 ± 0.75 days after the procedure. Postoperatively, the mean hospital stay was 5.96 ± 1.38 days. VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, JOA, and ODI were significantly improved postoperatively compared with those before the operation, and differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Excellent and good outcomes were reported by 87.67% of patients according to the modified Macnab criteria at the final follow-up. A total of nine perioperative complications occurred, with an incidence of 12.33%. X-ray or computerized tomography (CT) 6 months after the procedure showed that 37 cases (50.68%) presented with segmental fusion, 30 cases (41.10%) showed incomplete fusion, and 6 cases (8.22%) showed no signs of fusion. However, bony fusion was achieved in all cases at the final follow-up.

Conclusions

UBE-TLIF for LSS has the advantages of less surgical invasiveness and fast postoperative recovery.