Analysis of clinical efficacy of endo-LIF in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases

How to Set Working Cannula in Endoscopic-Assisted Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Morphometric Analysis Based on Computed Tomography

OBJECTIVES

There is a high risk of nerve root injury during endoscopic-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF). This study used computed tomography (CT) imaging to assess the relationship between the exiting nerve root and its surroundings, and the corresponding intervertebral disc. We also measured the approximate position and angle for the placement of the working cannula to reduce the risk of nerve root injury during Endo-TLIF procedures in the Chinese population.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted at our institution between December 2021 and December 2022. A total of 115 patients suffering from low back pain were recruited for the study. For each participant, three-dimensional (3D) vertebral models of the lumbar segments from L3 to S1 were constructed based on their CT images. The nerve root-disc distance, cannula insertion bypass distance and angle, foraminal height and width, exiting nerve root height, and nerve root-pedicle distance were measured. A paired t-test was used to compare measurements between the left and right sides, while inter- and intraobserver reproducibility was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

From L3/4 to L5/S1 segments, the ideal cannula insertion distance range was 37.51 ± 4.91-120.38 ± 37.71 mm at L3/4; 42.38 ± 5.29-116.25 ± 27.22 mm at L4/5; and 37.78 ± 4.86-69.26 ± 12.64 mm at L5/S1. The appropriate cannula insertion angle range was 30.86° ± 5.05°-62.59° ± 6.66° at L3/4; 34.30° ± 4.73°-60.88° ± 7.34° at L4/5; and 35.89° ± 4.18°-47.65° ± 7.38° at L5/S1. The height of the intervertebral foramen (IVF) gradually decreased, and the width steadily increased. The exiting nerve root height and the nerve root-pedicle distance slightly decreased caudally.

CONCLUSION

From L3/4 to L5/S1, the range of working cannula insertion distance and angle gradually decreased, and the exiting nerve root height occupying the IVF gradually increased. Our measurement can reduce the risk of nerve root injury caused by inserting the working cannula during Endo-TLIF.

Optimizing Disc and Cartilage Endplate Preparation in Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An In-Depth Exploration of Surgical Instruments with a Technique Note and Narrative Review

Full-endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (FELIF) is a critical yet challenging procedure. However, extensive analyses of discectomy and cartilage endplate preparation techniques are limited. This can be attributed to the lack of universal protocols owing to diverse surgical practices and equipment preferences. Therefore, this narrative review presents a comprehensive overview of discectomy and cartilage endplate preparation techniques in FELIF. A literature search of the PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases in December 2023 retrieved 490 studies, of which 53 met the predefined inclusion criteria, and 1373 patients were included in the analyses. Spinal endoscopic disc and cartilage endplate removal can be categorized into 2 main types: removal under direct endoscopic visualization and removal under radiographic guidance with the protection of a working sheath following the endoscope's removal. Removal under direct visualization ensures the safety and precision of the procedure. Radiographic guidance can enhance the efficiency of the removal process. Specially designed instruments can be utilized through the narrow working channels of spinal endoscopes for the scraping surgery. Moreover, many traditional spinal endoscopic instruments, through specific techniques and manipulations, can also aid in cartilage removal. The approaches and techniques vary significantly among physicians, but overall, these instruments and techniques aim to achieve a safe and efficient disc-scraping outcome. Thus, this review may offer a comprehensive guidance to surgeons in selecting the most efficient practices for FELIF. Uniform procedural protocols are needed to ensure broader adoption and standardized practice.

Comparison of Outcomes Between Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients With Single-Level Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).

METHODS

This retrospective study included 110 patients with single-level lumbar degenerative disease who underwent Endo-TLIF or MIS-TLIF between January 2019 and December 2021. Patients were divided into Endo-TLIF (n = 55) and MIS-TLIF groups (n = 55). Perioperative, clinical, and radiological outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

The Endo-TLIF group had significantly lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. However, the operation time was significantly longer and there was more x-ray exposure than in the MIS-TLIF group. There were no significant differences in complications between the groups. The Endo-TLIF group showed significantly lower creatine kinase levels than the MIS-TLIF group at 3 days postoperatively (P < 0.05), but not at 7 days postoperatively (P > 0.05). Oswestry Disability Index and visual analog scale scores were significantly reduced in both groups at different time points postoperation compared to preoperation. The visual analog scale score in the Endo-TLIF group was lower than that in the MIS-TLIF group at 3 days postoperatively. Moreover, no significant differences were found in fusion rates, lumbar lordosis, and lumbar segmental lordosis between the 2 groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Endo-TLIF might be considered as an effective and reliable treatment option for single-level lumbar degeneration. It results in less trauma and faster postoperative recovery, but a longer operative time and more x-ray exposure than MIS-TLIF. Endo-TLIF has effects on clinical and radiological outcomes that are comparable to those of MIS-TLIF.

Stability simulation analysis of targeted puncture in L4/5 intervertebral space for PELD surgery

Introduction: The application prospects of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) as a minimally invasive spinal surgery method in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation are extensive. This study aims to find the optimal entry angle for the trephine at the L4/5 intervertebral space, which causes less lumbar damage and has greater postoperative stability. To achieve this, we conduct a three-dimensional simulated analysis of the degree of damage caused by targeted puncture-based trephine osteotomy on the lumbar spine. Methods: We gathered clinical CT data from patients to construct a lumbar model. This model was used to simulate and analyze the variations in trephine osteotomy volume resulting from targeted punctures at the L4/5 interspace. Furthermore, according to these variations in osteotomy volume, we created Finite Element Analysis (FEA) models specifically for the trephine osteotomy procedure. We then applied mechanical loads to conduct range of motion and von Mises stress analyses on the lumbar motion unit. Results: In percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy, the smallest osteotomy volume occurred with a 20° entry angle, close to the base of the spinous process. The volume increased at 30° and reached its largest at 40°. In percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy, the largest osteotomy volume was observed with a 50° entry angle, passing through the facet joints, with smaller volumes at 60° and the smallest at 70°. In FEA, M6 exhibited the most notable biomechanical decline, particularly during posterior extension and right rotation. M2 and M3 showed significant differences primarily in rotation, whereas the differences between M3 and M4 were most evident in posterior extension and right rotation. M5 displayed their highest stress levels primarily in posterior extension, with significant variations observed in right rotation alongside M4. Conclusion: The appropriate selection of entry sites can reduce lumbar damage and increase stability. We suggest employing targeted punctures at a 30° angle for PEID and at a 60° angle for PTED at the L4/5 intervertebral space. Additionally, reducing the degree of facet joint damage is crucial to enhance postoperative stability in lumbar vertebral motion units.

Is Full-Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Superior to Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis? A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

 In this study, we evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

 Fifty-three patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical techniques: Full endoscopic (Endo)-TLIF (n = 25) and TLIF (n = 28). Clinical efficacy was evaluated pre- and postoperatively. The operation time, operative blood loss, postoperative amount of serum creatine phosphokinase (CPK), postoperative drainage volume, postoperative hospital stay time, total cost, and operative complications were also recorded.

RESULTS

 Compared with the TLIF group, the Endo-TLIF group had similar intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative increased CPK, less postoperative drainage volume, and shorter postoperative hospital stay, but longer operative time and higher total cost. The postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores of back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores significantly improved compared with the preoperative scores in both two groups; more significant improvement of postoperative VAS scores of back pain and ODI scores were shown in the Endo-TLIF group at the 1-month follow-up (p < 0.05). No difference was found in the intervertebral fusion rate between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

 The Endo-TLIF has similar clinical effect compared with the TLIF for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. It also has many surgical advantages such as less muscle trauma, less postoperative back pain, and fast functional recovery of the patient. However, steep learning curve, longer operative time, and higher total cost may be the disadvantages that limit this technique. Also, the Endo-TLIF treatment of patients with bilateral lateral recess stenosis is considered a relative contraindication.

Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF), minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs).

METHOD

A literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies comparing Endo-LIF, MIS-TLIF and OTLIF published from September 2017 to September 2022 for the treatment of LDD were retrieved. Data were extracted from preset clinical outcome measures, including operation time, estimated intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), complications, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, etc.

RESULT

Thirty-one studies with 3467 patients were included in this study. Network meta-analysis showed that in the comparison of the 3 procedures, Endo-LIF was superior to MIS-TLIF and OTLIF in terms of reducing EBL, LOS, time to ambulation, and VAS score of back pain. MIS-TLIF was superior to Endo-LIF in terms of ODI improvement, and OTLIF required the shortest intraoperative fluoroscopy time. There was no significant difference in operative time, complication rate, fusion rate, VAS score of leg pain, or JOA score among the 3 procedures.

CONCLUSION

Endo-LIF, MIS-TLIF and OTLIF each have their own advantages and disadvantages and show similar results in many respects, except for better early outcomes achieved with the more minimally invasive procedure.

A novel mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: technical note and preliminary results

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is an effective and popular surgical procedure for the management of various spinal pathologies, especially degenerative diseases. Surgeons have been pursuing minimally invasive technology as soon as TLIF was appeared. Currently, TLIF can be performed with transforaminal approaches by open surgery, minimally invasive surgery or percutaneous endoscope. We provide a detailed description of a new modified open TLIF with percutaneous pedicle screws, which we refer to as mini-open TLIF. The objective of this study was to present feasibility of this procedure and the preliminary results.

METHODS

The study is a prospective study. From January 2021 to March 2022, 96 patients (43 males and 53 females) with neurological symptoms due to degenerative lumbar spine diseases were enrolled. Operation time, blood loss, ambulatory time, hematocrit and complications were recorded during perioperative period. Clinical symptoms were evaluated 1 week, 3 months and 12 months after surgery. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for lower back pain and leg pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were assessed. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively to emulate cross-sectional area of paraspinal muscles. The lumbar interbody fusion rate was evaluated by CT scanning.

RESULTS

The mean operation time of single level was 112.6 min, and the mean operation time of multilevel was 140.1 min. Intraoperative blood loss of single level was 64.5 ml and was 116.3 ml of multilevel. The VAS and ODI scores before and after surgery were significantly different (P < 0.0001) and reached minimal clinically important difference. Atrophy rate of paraspinal muscles was 2.5% for symptomatic side and 1.2% for asymptomatic side. The cross-sectional area before and after the operation and atrophy rate had no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Mini-open TLIF is effective and feasible for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases especially in multilevel disease, with minor damage to muscle and shorter operation time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (No. JD-LK2023045-I01).

Comparison of the safety and efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a 1-year follow-up

Objectives

To compare the short-term outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (BLIF) and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF).

Methods

Sixty patients diagnosed with L4/5 spinal stenosis who underwent BLIF and ULIF were included (30 in each group). Clinical evaluation was performed preoperatively and postoperatively in the 1st week, 1st month, and 1st year. Factors such as the visual analogue score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), operative time, surgical complications, and radiological outcomes (fusion rate, screw loosening, and cage subsidence) were compared between the two groups.

Results

All patients showed improved mean VAS and ODI at all three postoperative follow-ups, and no statistically significant differences were detected between the BLIF and ULIF groups. The mean operative time in the BLIF group was shorter than that in the ULIF group. Nerve root injury occurred in two patients in the BLIF group, while leakage of cerebrospinal fluid occurred in one patient in the ULIF group. All adverse events were treated adequately prior to discharge. The fusion rates with definite and probable grades were significantly higher in the BLIF group than that in the ULIF group. One case of cage subsidence with no screw loosening occurred in each group.

Conclusion

Both BLIF and ULIF are safe and effective surgical techniques. Compared with ULIF, BLIF has the advantages of shorter operative time and a higher fusion rate. Other merits of BLIF include a wider surgical field, greater maneuverability of instruments, visibility during cage implantation, and transverse orientation of the cage.

Comparison of the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Retrospective Matched Case-Control Study

OBJECTIVE

We compared the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients who underwent single-segment Mis-TLIF or Endo-TLIF between June 2016 and June 2019 at our hospital. The patients in each treatment group were matched 1:1 for sex, age, and type of lumbar degenerative disease, and their clinical outcomes were compared at discharge and at 1 and 2 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

Our study included 64 patients, with 32 patients in each treatment group. Operative time and fluoroscopy time were significantly higher in the Endo-TLIF versus Mis-TLIF groups, whereas estimated blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and the low back pain visual analog scale score at discharge were significantly lower. Both treatments achieved exact interbody fusion at the final-follow up. There was no significant difference in the visual analog scale score or Oswestry Disability Index between the groups at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Complication rates were higher in the Endo-TLIF group (21.9%) than in the Mis-TLIF group (6.2%), although the difference was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was no difference in the long-term outcomes between the treatments, Endo-TLIF had less blood loss and a lower postoperative drainage volume and low back pain visual analog scale score at discharge than Mis-TLIF. However, the longer operative time and potentially higher complication rate of Endo-TLIF suggest that surgeons may need to overcome the steeper learning curve than the procedure of Mis-TLIF.

Comparison of short-term efficacy of MIS-TLIF and Endo-LIF in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar diseases

Background

A prospective controlled study was conducted to compare the short-term clinical results and postoperative complications of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar decompression and fusion (minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, MIS-TLIF) and percutaneous endoscope-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion, Endo-LIF) in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar diseases, to provide some scientific guidance for clinicians to select surgical treatment for patients with lumbar degeneration.

Methods

From October 2020 to October 2021, a total of 62 patients were enrolled, with 31 patients in the MIS-TLIF group and 31 patients in the Endo-LIF group. All patients were followed up for 6 months. The following information from the two groups of patients was recorded: (1) operation time, radiation exposure time, intraoperative blood loss, bed rest time, and hospital stay; (2) ODI score (The Oswestry Disability Index), low back pain VAS score (Visual Analogue Scale), and lumbar vertebra JOA score (Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scores) 1 day before the operation; 1, 3, 6 days after operation; and 1, 3 and 6 months after operation. (3) X-ray evaluations of lumbar fusion at the last follow-up.

Results

There were significant differences in operation time, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, and hospitalization cost between the two groups. The MIS-TLIF group was significantly better than the Endo-LIF group, and the intraoperative bleeding volume of the Endo-LIF group was significantly better than that of the MIS-TLIF group, but there was no significant difference in postoperative bed rest time and postoperative hospital stay. There was no significant difference in the scores of ODI, VAS, and JOA between the two groups before and after the operation. At the last follow-up, the fusion rate was 100% in the MIS-TLIF group and 100% in the Endo-LIF group.

Conclusions

There was no significant difference in short-term clinical efficacy and safety between Endo-LIF and MIS-TLIF in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar diseases, but MIS-TLIF was significantly better than Endo-LIF in terms of the operation time, hospitalization cost, and fluoroscopy time, and Endo-LIF was significantly better than MIS-TLIF in terms of intraoperative blood loss.

Full-Endoscopic versus Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Although full-endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF) has been tried as the latest alternative technique to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interobody fusion (MIS-TLIF) since mid-2010, the evidence is still lacking. We compared the clinical outcome and safety of Endo-LIF to MIS-TLIF for lumbar degenerative disease.

METHODS

We systematically searched electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library to find literature comparing Endo-LIF to MIS-TLIF. The results retrieved were last updated on December 11, 2020. The perioperative outcome included the operation time, blood loss, complication, and hospital stay. The clinical outcomes included Visual analog scale (VAS) of low back pain and leg pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the radiological outcome included pseudoarthosis rate with 12-month minimum follow-up.

RESULTS

Four retrospective observational studies and one prospective observational study comprising 423 patients (183 Endo-LIF and 241 MIS-TLIF) were included, and the pooled data analysis revealed low heterogeneity between studies in our review. Baseline characteristics including age and sex were not different between the two groups. Operation time was significantly longer in Endo- LIF (mean difference [MD], 23.220 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.669-35.771; p=0.001). However, Endo-LIF resulted in less perioperative blood loss (MD, -144.710 mL; 95% CI, 247.941-41.478; p=0.023). Although VAS back pain at final (MD, -0.120; p=0.586), leg pain within 2 weeks (MD, 0.005; p=0.293), VAS leg pain at final (MD, 0.099; p=0.099), ODI at final (MD, 0.141; p=0.093) were not different, VAS back pain within 2 weeks was more favorable in the Endo-LIF (MD, -1.538; 95% CI, -2.044 to -1.032; p<0.001). On the other hand, no statistically significant group difference in complication rate (relative risk [RR], 0.709; p=0.774), hospital stay (MD, -2.399; p=0.151), and pseudoarthrosis rate (RR, 1.284; p=0.736) were found.

CONCLUSION

Relative to MIS-TLIF, immediate outcomes were favorable in Endo-LIF in terms of blood loss and immediate VAS back pain, although complication rate, mid-term clinical outcomes, and fusion rate were not different. However, the challenges for Endo-LIF include longer operation time which means a difficult learning curve and limited surgical indication which means patient selection bias. Larger-scale, well-designed study with long-term follow-up and randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm and update the results of this systematic review.

Radiation Dose Reduction and Surgical Efficiency Improvement in Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Assisted by Intraoperative O-arm Navigation: A Retrospective Observational Study

Objective: Endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) has gained increasing popularity among spine surgeons. However, with the use of fluoroscopy, intraoperative radiation exposure remains a major concern. Here, we aim to introduce Endo-TLIF assisted by O-arm-based navigation and compare the results between O-arm navigation and fluoroscopy groups.Methods: Sixty-four patients were retrospectively analyzed from May 2019 to September 2020; the nonnavigation group comprised 34 patients, and the navigation group comprised 30 patients. Data on radiation dose, blood loss, postoperative drains, surgery time, complications, and length of hospital stay (LOS) were collected. Clinical outcomes were evaluated from postoperative data such as fusion rate, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and visual analogue scale (VAS). Radiation dose and surgery time were selected as primary outcomes; the others were second outcomes.Results: All patients were followed up for at least 12 months. No significant differences were detected in intraoperative hemorrhage, postoperative drains, hospital LOS, or complications between the 2 groups. The radiation dose was significantly lower in the navigation group compared with the nonnavigation group. The time of cannula placement and pedicle screw fixation was significantly reduced in the navigation group. No significant differences were detected between the clinical outcomes in the 2 groups (VAS and ODI scores).Conclusion: The present study demonstrates that O-arm-assisted Endo-TLIF is efficient and safe. Compared with fluoroscopy, O-arm navigation could reduce the radiation exposure and surgical time in Endo-TLIF surgery, with similar clinical outcomes. However, the higher doses exposed to patients remains a negative effect of this technology.

Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Objective

This study aimed to compare postoperative outcomes in surgical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PE-LIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Methods

We reviewed a total of 89 patients undergoing single-level surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis from January 2018 to July 2021. The cases were categorized as PE-LIF (Group PE-LIF, 41 cases) or MIS-TLIF (Group MIS-TLIF, 48 cases) approach. Parameters obtained at baseline through at least six months of follow-up were collected. The surgical outcomes involving the operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative bed staying time, and length of hospital stays were analyzed. PROs included the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), modified MacNab standard evaluation, intervertebral fusion rate, and postoperative complications.

Results

A total of 89 patients were included in this analysis involving 41 patients who underwent PE-LIF and 48 patients who underwent MIS-TLIF. The 2 groups were similar in gender, age, body mass index, follow-up time and surgery levels (P > 0.05), and were not significantly different in the length of hospital stays (P > 0.05). PE-LIF had a significantly longer operative time, greater fluoroscopy time, lower estimated blood loss and shorter bed rest time than MIS-TLIF. Both groups improved significantly from baseline for the VAS and ODI scores. PE-LIF was associated with a lower VAS score for back pain at three-day after surgery. There were no significant differences between PE-LIF and MIS-TLIF in the excellent or good rates and intervertebral fusion rates at the last follow-up (P > 0.05). As for related complications, there were no significant complications occurred, and no significant differences were seen in the complications between both groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

To summarize, PE-LIF and MIS-TLIF are both safe and effective for LSS. PE-LIF has a definite short-term curative effect with less trauma.

Full Endoscopic Posterolateral Transarticular Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Transparent Plastic Working Tubes: Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Results

Background

A series of full-endoscopic lumbar interbody fusions have been reported, but special fusion cages or operating instruments are often needed, and there are many complications in the operation and the learning curve is long. We have used a single portal endoscopic system for lumbar interbody fusion in a novel posterolateral transarticular approach, which will take advantage of the incision for pedicle screw insertion and avoid nerve root damage by using a transparent plastic working tube. The purpose of this study was to present the surgical technique of full endoscopic posterolateral transarticular lumbar interbody fusion (FE-PTLIF) and to analyze the preliminary clinical results.

Methods

A total of 39 patients (17 men and 22 women; mean age [x̅ ± s] 55.2 ± 12.2 years) have been enrolled in this retrospective study between March 2019 and January 2021 in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University. All patients were treated with full endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion via posterolateral transarticular approach with a transparent plastic working tube. Demographic characteristics, diagnosis, operative time, and estimated blood loss were evaluated. Intraoperative photo and perioperative imaging were recorded. The preoperative and postoperative clinical data were collected for statistical analysis.

Results

The preliminary clinical follow-up data achieved good results. No patients had serious postoperative complications and none of these patients required revision surgery during the perioperative or follow-up period. We compared the visual analogue scale and Oswestry disability index scores before and after surgery. The differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The mean total blood loss (including drainage blood) was 54.4 ± 20.3 ml. The mean operative time was 130.5 ± 23.8 min. At the last follow-up, the fusion rate of the lumbar intervertebral space was 100%.

Conclusions

This novel posterolateral transarticular approach and transparent plastic working tube can reduce the difficulty of the operation, so that the conventional intervertebral fusion cage [bullet-shaped polyetheretherketone (PEEK) nonexpandable fusion cage] and surgical instruments can be used in the full endoscopic lumbar intervertebral fusion surgery, which can reduce the cost and improve the efficiency of the operation.

Comparison of electromagnetic and optical navigation assisted Endo-TLIF in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis

Uniportal full endoscopic posterolateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation is a promising, minimally invasive method for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, repeated radiation exposure from X-rays and the steep learning curve remain to be improved.

Percutaneous Bilateral Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note and Preliminary Results

Objective

The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility and clinical efficacy of the percutaneous bilateral endoscopy technique (microendoscopic trans-Kambin's triangle lumbar interbody fusion + percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal decompression of the lumbar spinal canal, ME-TKT-LIF+ PETD) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

Methods

From May 2016 to September 2018, 29 patients (16 males and 13 females) who suffered from neurologic symptoms due to degenerative lumbar spine disease and underwent percutaneous bilateral endoscopy technique were enrolled. A microendoscope was used for fusion, and a percutaneous endoscope was used for spinal canal decompression. These patients' perioperative and clinical outcome-related parameters were collected and analyzed.

Results

The mean intraoperative blood loss was 72.8 ± 40.6 ml, the operation time was 87.1 ± 10.1 min, the postoperative ambulatory time was 1.69 ± 1.0 days, the hospital stay was 2.6 ± 1.3 days, and the follow-up period was 22.34 ± 4.2 months. The visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) were significantly improved at the early postoperative and last follow-up, respectively. According to the modified MacNab criteria, 11 (11/29) cases were rated as excellent, 15 (15/29) as good, and 3 (3/29) as fair, and the excellent and good rate was 89.7%. Twenty-eight (28/29) cases demonstrated solid fusion, and the fusion rate was 96.6%.

Conclusion

The percutaneous bilateral endoscopy technique is safe and feasible in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, with the advantage that more normal anatomical structures are preserved. It is an optional method of lumbar interbody fusion.

[Comparative study on effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic and Wiltse-approach transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) and Wiltse-approach TLIF (W-TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

The clinical data of 47 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis who met the selection criteria between July 2018 and June 2019 were retrospectively analyzed, in which 21 patients were treated with PE-TLIF (PE-TLIF group) and 26 patients were treated with W-TLIF (W-TLIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in age, gender, disease duration, level of spondylolisthesis vertebrae, spondylolisthesis degree, spondylolisthesis type, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain and leg pain, lumbar Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, and the disc height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), and Taillard index (TI) of the operated vertebrae ( P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative bedridden time, and complications were compared between the two groups. The VAS score and JOA score were used to evaluate the improvement of pain and function. At last follow-up, DH, SL, and TI of operated vertebrae were measured by X-ray films, and lumbar CT was performed to evaluate the interbody fusion.

RESULTS

Compared with W-TLIF group, the operation time in PE-TLIF group was significantly longer, but the intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage were significantly less, and the postoperative bedridden time was significantly shorter ( P<0.05). There were 2 cases of transient lower limb radiating pain in PE-TLIF group and 1 case of superficial incision infection in W-TLIF group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications (9.5% vs. 3.8%) between the two groups ( χ 2=0.037, P=0.848). The patients in both groups were followed up 12-24 months, with an average of 17.3 months in PE-TLIF group and 17.7 months in W-TLIF group. The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, and the JOA scores of the two groups significantly improved at each time point after operation when compared with those before operation ( P<0.05). Compared with W-TLIF group, the VAS scores of low back pain in PE-TLIF group significantly lower at 3 days and 3 months after operation ( P<0.05), and the JOA score of PE-TLIF group was significantly higher at 3 months after operation ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in each score at any other time point between the two groups ( P>0.05). At last follow-up, the DH, SL, and TI of operated vertebrae of the two groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in the differences of each parameter between the two groups ( P>0.05). According to Suk's standard, the fusion rates of PE-TLIF group and W-TLIF group were 90.5% (19/21) and 92.3% (24/26), respectively, with no significant difference ( χ 2=0.000, P=1.000). At last follow-up, there was no case of Cage sunk into the adjacent vertebral body, or dislodgement of Cage anteriorly or posteriorly in both groups.

CONCLUSION

PE-TLIF and W-TLIF are both effective in the treatment of grade Ⅰ and Ⅱ lumbar spondylolisthesis. Although the operation time is prolonged, PE-TLIF has less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage, shorter postoperative bedridden time, and can get more obvious short-term improvement of low back pain and function.

Enhanced Recovery after an Innovative Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective Observational Study

Background

The objective of this study was to investigate the enhanced recovery clinical effects of an innovative percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) for the treatment of patients with LSS and degenerative instability.

Methods

From January 2019 to March 2020, 51 patients with single-segment LSS and degenerative instability were prospectively included in our study (ChiCTR1900020679). The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the visual analogue scale (VAS) on lumbar and leg pain (VAS-LBP and VAS-LP), serum creatine kinase (CK), the peak intensity of sulphur hexafluoride microbubble contrast agent (PI), and the maximal cross-sectional area of multifidus muscle (Max-CSA) around the surgical incision were assessed preoperatively, postoperatively, and at regular follow-up.

Results

All patients were followed up. The mean postoperative bedridden time was 20.45 ± 2.66 hours. The ODI, VAS-LBP, and VAS-LP were improved significantly after operation compared to these data before operation in all the patients (P < 0.05). The CK at 1 day after operation was higher compared to the data before the operation (P < 0.05), and there was no significant difference on CK at 1 week after operation (P > 0.05). The PI at 1 week after operation was higher compared to this item before operation (P < 0.05), and there was no significant difference on PI at 1 month or 3 months after operation (P > 0.05). The Max-CSA at 1 week after operation was higher compared to this item before the operation (P < 0.05), and there was no significant difference in Max-CSA at 1 month or 3 months after operation compared with before the operation (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Our results and systematic review presented the innovative PE-TLIF technique could obtain satisfactory and effective outcomes for the treatment of patients with LSS and degenerative instability. Our PE-TLIF technique also had the ability to decrease the MF injury and obtain an enhanced recovery.

Spinal Biomechanical Modelling in the Process of Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Herniation in Middle-Aged and Elderly

Lumbar disc herniation is one of the common clinical diseases of the lower lumbar spine in orthopedics. The purpose is to remove the herniated disc nucleus pulposus tissue, remove the compressed part of the disease, and relieve symptoms, such as nerve pain. In the past, biomechanics research mostly relied on in vitro measurements, but the complicated internal environment of the human body prevented us from further measurement and research. However, with the development of computer technology, the use of computer CT scanning, software three-dimensional reconstruction, and displacement study three-dimensional spine biomechanics method makes the research of biomechanics into in vitro simulation stage and has gradually become the focus of current research. The postoperative biomechanics was simulated and the comparison model was established at the same time. At the same time, we combined the clinical follow-up data and studied the clinical data for the treatment of postoperative recurrence of lumbar disc herniation. We compared and analyzed the initial operation method and the experimental results and obtained the prevention of recurrence. The results showed that when one inferior articular process was removed, the lumbar spine appeared unstable to rotate to the opposite side; when one inferior articular process was completely removed, the movement of the lumbar spine in all directions was unstable. Better research on the biomechanical properties of the spine will help the diagnosis and treatment of clinical lumbar disc herniation. Therefore, when performing posterior lumbar spine surgery, not only should the exposure of the surgical field and thorough decompression be considered, but also the biomechanical properties of the lumbar spine should be comprehensively evaluated.

Cost-effectiveness of open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF): a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The number of performed instrumented lumbar spine surgeries and associated health-care-related costs has increased over the last decades, and will increase further in the future. With the consistent growth of health-care-related costs, cost-effectiveness of surgical techniques is of major relevance. Common indications for instrumented lumbar spine surgery are spondylolisthesis and degenerative disease. A commonly used technique is the open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF). Nowadays, there is an increasing interest in the minimally invasive variation of this technique (minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [MITLIF]). Currently available literature describes that MITLIF has comparable or even better clinical results compared to OTLIF. Cost-effectiveness of MITLIF and OTLIF is important considering the growing health-care related costs, although no consensus has been reached regarding the most cost-effective technique. In this systematic review, previous literature concerning costs and cost-effectiveness of OTLIF was compared with MITLIF in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis or degenerative disease. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed.

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate the current literature on cost-effectiveness of OTLIF compared MITLIF to in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis or degenerative disease.

STUDY DESIGN

This study is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

STUDY SAMPLE

Clinical studies reporting costs or cost-effectiveness for either OTLIF or MITLIF in patients with spondylolisthesis, lumbar instability, or degenerative disease were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The following data items were evaluated: study design, study population, utility measurement tool, gained quality adjusted life years (QALYs), cost sources, health care and societal perspective costs, total costs, costs per QALY (cost-effectiveness) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using databases PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane, Clinical Trials, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, NHS Centre for Review and Dissemination, Econlit and Web of Science on studies reporting OTLIF or MITLIF, spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability or degenerative disease, and costs. Relevant studies were selected and reviewed independently by two authors. For comparison, all costs were converted to American dollars with the reference year 2018.

RESULTS

After duplicate removal, a total of 892 studies were identified. Eventually, 32 studies were included. Nine studies compared OTLIF and MITLIF directly. All studies mentioned health care perspective costs. Seven studies mentioned societal perspective costs. Cost-effectiveness of OTLIF was mentioned in five studies, ranging from $47,303/QALY to $218,766/QALY. Cost-effectiveness of MITLIF was mentioned in one study, $121,105/QALY. Meta-analysis of hospital perspective costs showed a significant overall effect in favor of MITLIF, with a mean difference of $2,650. There was great heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion factors, baseline characteristics, and calculation methods. Overall quality of studies was low.

CONCLUSIONS

OTLIF and MITLIF appear to be expensive interventions when using a threshold of $50,000/QALY. Results of this study and previous literature suggest that MITLIF is more cost-effective compared to OTLIF. Considering the increase in health care costs of instrumented spine surgery, cost-effectiveness could be one of the factors in surgical decision-making. Prospective randomized studies directly comparing cost-effectiveness of OTLIF and MITLIF from both hospital and societal perspectives are needed to obtain higher level of evidence.

The technical feasibility and preliminary results of minimally invasive endoscopic-TLIF based on electromagnetic navigation: a case series

Background

Uniportal full endoscopic posterolateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation is a promising, minimally invasive method for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, repeated radiation exposure from X-rays and the steep learning curve remain to be improved.

Methods

This retrospective study explored the effects of electromagnetic navigation on improving Endo-TLIF with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. Clinical information from 42 patients who had received Endo-TLIF with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation from May 2019 to November 2020 was analyzed retrospectively. The procedures were assisted under electromagnetic navigation. The rate of adjustment for guide wires, frequency of X-ray exposure, operative time, accuracy of pedicle screw location, and clinical outcomes were recorded.

Results

The mean follow-up for 42 patients was 11.9 ± 3.1 months. The mean age of the patients was 56.1 ± 9.26 years, with a female/male ratio of 25:17. According to postoperative CT scans and 3D reconstructions, the excellent and good rate of pedicle screws was 96.4%. The rate of adjustment for guide wires under the assistance of electromagnetic navigation was 1.78%, and the frequency of X-ray exposure was 8.27 ± 1.83. The operative time was 167.25 ± 28.16 min, including the duration of guide wire insertion (14.63 ± 5.45 min) and duration of decompression and cage placement (75.43 ± 13.97 min). The duration of hospitalization after operation was 2.59 ± 1.16 days. The preoperative VAS score was 7.51 ± 1.91, and the preoperative ODI was 82.42 ± 8.7%. At the last follow-up, the VAS score was 2.09 ± 0.59, and the ODI was 11.09 ± 3.2%. There were statistically significant improvements in the VAS score and ODI in all patients at the follow-up (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Electromagnetic navigation can provide accurate positioning and guidance in real time, which improves the surgical efficiency of percutaneous pedicle screw placement and endoscopic decompression in Endo-TLIF with reduced radiation exposures.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-021-01148-9.

Is stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion superior to instrumented lateral lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-level, low-grade, lumbar spondylolisthesis?

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare surgical trauma and radiographic and clinical outcomes of stand-alone and instrumented lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in the treatment of single-level low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

Ninety-five patients with single-level low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis, who underwent stand-alone LLIF (stand-alone group, [n = 54]) or LLIF plus percutaneous posterior fixation (instrumented group, [n = 41]) were enrolled in this study. Operative time, intraoperative blood loss, serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and creatine kinase (CK) levels, the length of postoperative bed rest time, and hospital stay were compared between the 2 groups. Disc height, the percent of slip, segment lordosis, lumbar lordosis, the visual analog scale score, the Oswestry Disability Index and complications were also compared.

RESULTS

Operative and bed rest time were shorter, intraoperative blood loss was less, and postoperative CRP and CK levels were lower in the stand-alone group. During follow-up, 6 patients in stand-alone group underwent posterior fixation due to cage subsidence. Although satisfactory radiographic results were achieved in both groups, the maintenance of increased disc heights and segment lordosis was inferior in the stand-alone group at the final follow-up. Greater improvement in postoperative VAS scores and ODI were observed in the stand-alone group, although the rates of cage subsidence and revision were higher.

CONCLUSION

Stand-alone LLIF was superior to instrumented LLIF in terms of tissue trauma for the treatment of single-level low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, stand-alone LLIF was inferior in the maintenance of disc height and segment lordosis, and the occurrence of cage subsidence and revision.

Surgical Outcomes After Single-Level Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and objective Novel surgical advancements have introduced endoscopic operative techniques for low back surgery, including transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), which theoretically allows for improved decompression with minimal invasiveness. In addition, endoscopically performed TLIF has allowed for the use of local anesthesia as an alternative method to general anesthesia for patients. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic TLIF and also compare the outcomes in patients undergoing general versus local anesthesia. Methods The databases of PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were queried for all studies involving patients undergoing endoscopic TLIF. After the extraction of the data and assessment of study quality via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, statistical analysis was performed with the R software (The R Foundation, Vienna, Austria) metafor package. The random-effects model was used as the data was largely heterogeneous (I2 >50%). Results In total, 15 studies involving a total of 441 patients were selected for the final quantitative meta-analysis. The overall mean difference between the postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) leg scores and preoperative VAS scores was 3.45 (95% CI: 4.93-1.97, p: <0.01). Postoperative VAS low back scores revealed a mean difference of 3.36 (95% CI: 5.09-1.63, p: <0.01). The overall mean difference of ODI scores was 4.58 (95% CI: 6.76-2.40, p: <0.01). Mean blood loss was 136.32 mL and the mean operative time was 149.15 minutes. The mean length of stay postoperatively was lower in the local anesthesia group compared to the general anesthesia group (1.40 vs 5.99 days respectively). There were no outcome variables of patients undergoing general anesthesia versus local anesthesia that showed statistically significant differences in this analysis due to the small amount of data published on patients undergoing endoscopic TLIF with local anesthesia. In addition, the failure of studies in reporting standard deviations as data parameters further limited the quantitative analysis. Conclusion Endoscopic TLIF appears to be a viable option for patients undergoing lumbar interbody fusion. Initial data reveal that endoscopic TLIF with local anesthesia may offer patients outcomes similar to those in patients undergoing endoscopic TLIF with general anesthesia, with lower operative times and length of stay.

The Evolution of Transforaminal Endoscopic Spine Surgery

Transforaminal endoscopic spine surgery (T-ESS) has become a well-accepted technique. The first attempts at percutaneous discectomy by Kambin and Hijikata opened a new chapter of endoscopic spine surgery. By the last quarter of the twentieth century, spine surgeons had begun to adopt this novel technique. Many researchers helped advance endoscopic spine surgery, but the turning point was the description of a safe transforaminal triangle of safety by Parviz Kambin. Since then, the indications for T-ESS have increased as a result of the description of different surgical approaches such as inside-out, outside-in, and half-and-half. We present a review of crucial historical advancements in T-ESS and also discuss the evolution of endoscopes, the techniques used, development of endoscopic instruments and equipment, transforaminal thoracic endoscopy, transforaminal endoscopic interbody fusions, the growth of extended indications, and the future direction of T-ESS. This review provides a detailed description of key historical moments and a bird's-eye view of the vast scope of T-ESS.