Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the biportal endoscopic techniques versus microscopic tubular technique

A novel endoscope-port unit for lumbar microendoscopic surgery: a single-center case series review

Minimally invasive spinal surgery has shown benefits not only from a clinical standpoint but also in some cost-effectiveness metrics. Microendoscopic procedures combine optical advantages of endoscopy with the preservation of bimanual surgical maneuvers that are not feasible with full percutaneous endoscopic procedures. TELIGEN is a new endoscopic platform designed to optimize these operations. Our aim was to present a retrospective review of surgical data from the first consecutive cases applying this device in our institution and describe some of its technical details. 25 patients have underwent procedures using this device at our institution to the date, with a mean follow-up of 341.7 ± 45.1 days. 17 decompression-only procedures, including microendoscopic discectomies (MED) and decompression of stenosis (MEDS), with or without foraminotomies (± MEF) and 8 microendoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (ME-TLIF) were performed. Mean age and body mass index (BMI) were respectively 58.8 ± 17.4 years and 27.6 ± 5.3 kg/m2. Estimated blood loss (13 ± 4.8, 12.8 ± 6.98 and 76.3 ± 35.02 mL), postoperative length of hospital stay (11.2 ± 21.74, 22.1 ± 26.85 and 80.7 ± 44.60 h), operative time (130.3 ± 58.53, 121 ± 33.90 and 241.5 ± 45.27 min) and cumulative intraprocedural radiation dose (14.2 ± 6.36, 15.4 ± 12.17 and 72.8 ± 12.26 mGy) are reported in this paper for MED ± MEF, MEDS ± MEF and ME-TLIF, respectively. TELIGEN affords an expanded surgical field of view with unique engineered benefits that provide a promissing platform to enhance minimally invasive spine surgery.

In Vivo Comparison of Positive Microbial Culture by Wound Irrigation Methods: Biportal Endoscopic Versus Open Microscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors and prevalence of intraoperative contamination (IoC) through the microbial culture of superficial and deep samples obtained during surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Surgical site infection (SSI) in spinal surgery is a serious complication. The prevalence of IoC may differ based on surgical approach and technique, even in the setting of the same procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this in vivo study, microbial cultivation was performed with superficial (ligamentum flavum, LF) and deep (nucleus pulposus, NP) surgical specimens to evaluate IoC in 132 patients undergoing single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Biportal endoscopic -TLIF was performed under continuous wound irrigation (group A, n=66), whereas open microscopic (OM) TLIF was performed under intermittent wound irrigation (group B, n=66). LF and NP specimens were homogenized, gram stained, and cultured in aerobic and anaerobic media for 14 days. Microbial culture results and the occurrence of SSI in the two groups were assessed. The χ 2 test and Fisher exact test were used to determine significant differences among categorical variables. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the influence of patient characteristics on the prevalence of positive microbial cultures.

RESULTS

Of the 132 patients, 34 (25.8%) had positive microbial cultures, and positive culture required an incubation period of 72 hours to 2 weeks in all these patients except for three. Overall, positive culture was significantly higher in group B than in group A ( P =0.029). The subgroups of LF- and NP-positive cultures were 18.18% (n=24) and 12.88% (n=17), respectively; the SSI was 0.76% (n=1). Group A had a significantly lower subgroup of NP-positive culture than group B ( P =0.035). OM technique was an independent risk factor associated with overall positive culture ( P <0.05). The most common microorganism was Cutibacterium acnes ( C. acnes ).

CONCLUSIONS

Biportal endoscopic-TLIF with continuous wound irrigation showed significantly lower overall and NP-positive cultures than OM-TLIF with intermittent irrigation. The most common strain of positive culture was C. acnes .

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Learning Curve of Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery: A Retrospective 2-Center Study

OBJECTIVE

Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) technique is a novel, useful, and minimally invasive therapeutic strategy for lumbar degenerative diseases, which has advantages over other surgical techniques. However, the degree of technical difficulty in learning BESS is controversial and not well established. This study aims to determine the learning curve of BESS technique through cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis.

METHODS

A total of 144 consecutive patients who underwent BESS with lumbar decompressive discectomy between 2017 and 2023 were included. A retrospective bicenter study was performed.

RESULTS

Three doctors with endoscopy experience employed the BESS technique for 51, 42, and 46 procedures, respectively. The CUSUM test of the 3 doctors showed adequate technical ability at the 45th, 41st, and 44th operations respectively. Two doctors without endoscopy experience gave up further use of BESS technique due to technical difficulties after initial attempt. The overall complication rates of the 3 surgeons using the BESS technique were 3.92% (n = 2), 6.82% (n = 3), and 2.17% (n = 1), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that BESS is an effective treatment, and the learning curves of BESS for lumbar discectomy using CUSUM analysis were 41 ∼ 45 cases in trainees with endoscopic experience. Endoscopic experience contributes to the learning curve of the BESS technique.

Comparison of Fusion Rate and Clinical Outcomes in Minimally Invasive and Conventional Posterior Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The fusion rate, clinical efficacy, and complications of minimally invasive fusion surgery and open fusion surgery in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease are still unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and WANFANG databases.

RESULTS

This study included 38 retrospective studies involving 3097 patients. Five intervention modalities were considered: unilateral biportal endoscopic-lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-LIF), percutaneous endoscopic-lumbar interbody fusion (PE-LIF), minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Quality assessment indicated that each study met acceptable quality standards. PE-LIF demonstrated reduced low back pain (Odds Ratio = 0.50, Confidence Interval: 0.38-0.65) and lower complication rate (Odds Ratio = 0.46, Confidence Interval: 0.25-0.87) compared to PLIF. However, in indirect comparisons, PE-LIF showed the lowest fusion rates, with the ranking as follows: UBE-LIF (83.2%) > MIS-TLIF (59.6%) > TLIF (44.3%) > PLIF (39.8%) > PE-LIF (23.1%). With respect to low back pain relief, PE-LIF yielded the best results, with the order of relief as follows: PE-LIF (96.4%) > MIS-TLIF (64.8%) > UBE-LIF (62.6%) > TLIF (23.0%) > PLIF (3.2%). Global and local consistency tests showed satisfactory results, and heterogeneity tests indicated good stability.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to conventional open surgery, minimally invasive fusion surgery offered better scores for low back pain and Oswestry Disability Index, lower complication rates, reduced bleeding, and shorter hospital stays. However, minimally invasive fusion surgery did not show a significant advantage in terms of fusion rate and had a longer operative time.

Preliminary Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of the "No-Punch" Decompression Techniques for Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To avoid the most offending surgical instrument for dural tears, we develop a "no-punch" decompression technique for unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spine surgery.

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 68 consecutive patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis segments. The treatment results were evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS) for low back and leg pain, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiological outcomes were evaluated using the preoperative and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging.

RESULTS

This study included 36 male and 32 female patients who received 109 segments of decompression, with an average age of 68.7 (37-90 years). The average operation time was 52.2 minutes. The average hospital stay was 3.1 days. There were no dural tears but 3 minor surgical complications, all treated conservatively. The VAS for low back and leg pain improved from 4.6 and 7.0 to 0.8 and 1.2. The JOA score improved from 16.2 to 26.8, with an improvement rate of 82.0%. The ODI improved from 50.1 to 18.7. All these improvements were statistically significant. The cross-sectional dural area improved from 61.1 to 151.3 mm2, with an average increase of 90.2 mm2 and 205.3%. 87.1% of the ipsilateral facet joints and 84.7% of the contralateral facet joints were preserved. In 61% of the decompressed segments, the ipsilateral facet joints were preserved better than the contralateral facet joints.

CONCLUSION

The UBE "no-punch" decompression technique effectively avoids the dural tears. It provides effective neural decompression, excellent facet joint preservation, and good treatment outcomes.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic versus microscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

In the past decade, Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) with a microscopic tubular technique has become a surgical procedure that reduces surgical-related morbidity, shortens hospital stays, and expedites early rehabilitation in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD). Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) has emerged as a novel surgical technique. The present study aims to compare the clinical outcomes and postoperative complications of MIS-TLIF and Endo-TLIF for treating LDD.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of LLD patients undergoing either Endo-TLIF or MIS-TLIF was performed. Patient demographics, operative data (operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization), and complications were recorded. The visual analog scale (VAS) score for leg and back pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

This study involved 80 patients, 56 in the MIS-TLIF group and 34 in the Endo-TLIF group. The Endo-TLIF group showed a more substantial improvement in the VAS for back pain at 3 weeks post-surgery compared to the MIS-TLIF group. However, at the 1-year mark after surgery, there were no significant differences between the groups in the mean VAS for back pain and VAS for leg pain. Interestingly, the ODI at one year demonstrated a significant improvement in the Endo-TLIF group compared to the MIS-TLIF group. Additionally, the MIS-TLIF group exhibited a shorter operative time than the Endo-TLIF group, with no notable differences in estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, and complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF are both safe and effective for LDD. In surgical decision-making, clinicians may consider nuances revealed in this study, such as lower early postoperative back pain with Endo-TLIF and shorter operative time with MIS-TLIF.

Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically evaluate the optimal surgical fusion approach for lumbar spondylolisthesis, to provide the latest and most reliable evidence for future clinical practice.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Ovid-Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus databases was conducted from inception to September 1, 2023, to identify relevant records. Two independent reviewers performed the literature screening, data extraction, and assessment of study quality.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized controlled trials involving 892 patients met the inclusion criteria. The network evidence plot showed that posterolateral fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) were the most used fusion techniques. The network meta-analysis results revealed that minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) had a significantly greater improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) compared to endoscopic-TLIF, while PLIF had a significantly better fusion effect than posterolateral fusion. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were observed between other fusion surgeries in terms of improving ODI, fusion rate, complications, or the improvement of visual analog scale-low back pain. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve results indicated that MIS-TLIF had the greatest potential for improving ODI, visual analog scale-low back pain, and complications, while PLIF had the greatest potential for increasing fusion rates. However, the existing selection bias, measurement bias, reporting bias, and publication bias may have reduced the reliability of the meta-analysis results.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the various fusion surgeries for lumbar spondylolisthesis, MIS-TLIF appears to provide the greatest benefit to patients. However, more high-quality, large-scale studies are needed to further investigate the treatment efficacy of different fusion surgeries for lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Ultrasonic bone curette-assisted unilateral approach for bilateral decompression with MIS-TLIF for severe lumbar spinal stenosis

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of bilateral decompression with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) assisted by an ultrasonic bone curette (UBC) for treating severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) and traditional tool laminectomy decompression MIS-TLIF for treating severe DLSS.

METHODS

The clinical data of 128 patients with single-segment severe DLSS who were admitted between January 2017 and December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 67 patients were treated with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF using an ultrasonic bone curette (UBC group), whereas 61 patients were treated with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF using traditional tools (traditional group, control). A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate back and lower limb pain before the operation,immediate postoperative, and one week, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after the operation. Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Zurich claudication score (ZCQ) were employed to evaluate the improvement in low back and lower limb function. At the last follow-up, the Bridwell bone graft fusion standard was utilized to evaluate bone graft fusion.

RESULTS

The decompression time of laminectomy was significantly shorter in the UBC group than in the traditional group (control group), and the intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume were significantly less in those in the control group (P < 0.05). The VAS, ODI, and ZCQ scores of the two groups after the operation were significantly improved compared to those before the operation (P < 0.05). The UBC group had better VAS back scores than the control group immediate postoperative and one week after the operation(P < 0.05). The UBC group had better VAS lower limb scores than the control group immediate postoperative (P < 0.05).The incidence of perioperative complications, hospitalization time, dural sac cross-sectional area (CSA), and dural sac CSA improvement rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05). VAS and ODI scores did not differ significantly between the two groups before,three, six months, one year, and two years after surgery (P > 0.05). The ZCQ scores did not differ significantly between the two groups before the operation at one week, six months, one year, and two years after the operation (P > 0.05). According to the Bridwell bone graft fusion standard, bone graft fusion did not occur significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05) at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

UBC unilateral fenestration bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF in treating severe DLSS can achieve clinical efficacy as traditional tool unilateral fenestration bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF and reduce intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage. It can also shorten the operation time, effectively reduce the work intensity of the operator, and reduce the degree of low back pain during short-term follow-ups. Therefore, this is a safe and effective surgical method.

A Comparison of 2 Cage Sizes in Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the fusion and subsidence rate and clinical outcomes when using different-sized static PEEK cages in BE-TLIF.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Biportal endoscopic techniques for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) have been shown to have similar clinical and fusion outcomes with faster clinical recovery in comparison to tubular surgery. Subsidence of the interbody, however, could be a complication.

METHODS

Patients who underwent 1 or 2 level BE-TLIF for degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis between January 2019 and January 2022 were included. A 32×10 mm cage (group A) and a 40×15 mm cage (group B) were compared. The visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg symptoms, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were collected. Plain radiographs and computed tomography assessed fusion and subsidence at a minimum of 12 months.

RESULTS

Of the 69 enrolled patients, 39 group A patients (51 levels) and 30 group B patients (32 levels) were compared. The operation time per level was 123 ± 15.8 and 138 ± 10.5 minutes per fusion level in groups A and B, respectively (P < 0.05). ODI improved from 64.8 ± 6.2 to 15.7 ± 7.1 in group A and from 65.3 ± 5.6 to 15.1 ± 6.3 in group B at the final follow-up (P < 0.05). VAS leg and back score improvement between the groups did not differ; however, the 3-month postoperative VAS back improvement was significantly higher in group B. The final fusion rate at the final follow-up did not significantly differ; however, the fusion ratio at 1 year was higher in group B (P < 0.05). Subsidence occurred in 5 cases (9.8%) in group A and none in group B (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

BE-TLIF using a larger cage can be performed safely with similar patient-reported outcome measures with a faster fusion rate with less subsidence risk.

LEVEL OF STUDY

III.

Pushing the Limits of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery-From Preoperative to Intraoperative to Postoperative Management

The introduction of minimally invasive surgery ushered in a new era of spine surgery by minimizing the undue iatrogenic injury, recovery time, and blood loss, among other complications, of traditional open procedures. Over time, technological advancements have further refined the care of the operative minimally invasive spine patient. Moreover, pre-, and postoperative care have also undergone significant change by way of artificial intelligence risk stratification, advanced imaging for surgical planning and patient selection, postoperative recovery pathways, and digital health solutions. Despite these advancements, challenges persist necessitating ongoing research and collaboration to further optimize patient care in minimally invasive spine surgery.

Comparison of Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for patients with lumbar degenerative diseases.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The MIS-TLIF has been widely used in lumbar degenerative diseases and achieved favorable clinical effects. The main disadvantage is the limited working space and visualization, especially in the deeper operational field, for preparing fusion bed. In recent years, with the development of surgical techniques, optical technology, and special instruments, Endo-TLIF has gradually been applied.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies between Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF in the lumbar degenerative diseases. The following outcome measures were extracted: visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index, fusion rate, disk height, segmental lordosis, operative time, length of hospital stay and complications. Data analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

Eight studies comprising 687 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled result revealed there was no significant differences in the VAS of leg, Oswestry Disability Index, fusion rate, disk height, segmental lordosis, and complication rate between the 2 groups ( P >0.05). However, the VAS of back in the Endo-TLIF group was significantly less than those in the MIS-TLIF group within 2 weeks after surgery [weighted mean difference (WMD)=-1.33 (-1.98, -0.68), P <0.0001] and at 3 months postoperatively [WMD=-0.72(-0.85, -0.59), P <0.00001]. The Endo-TLIF group also seemed to fewer VAS of back at the last follow-up (≥12 mo) [WMD=-0.12 (-0.25, -0.00), P =0.05]. Compared with the MIS-TLIF group, the Endo-TLIF group was associated with longer operation time [WMD=26.74 (2.14, 51.34), P =0.03], but shorter length of hospital stay [WMD=-1.98(-2.91, -1.05), P <0.0001].

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with minimally invasive TLIF, endoscopic TLIF achieved comparable improvement of symptoms and intervertebral fusion, longer operation time, and smaller surgical trauma. Endoscopic TLIF, which requires a demanding learning curve, maybe a feasible and effective technique for the patients with symptomatic lumbar degenerative diseases.

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.

Advances and Challenges of Endoscopic Spine Surgery

The purpose of this paper is to review the data supporting current endoscopic surgical techniques for the spine and the potential challenges and future of the field. The origins of endoscopic spine surgery can be traced back many decades, with many important innovations throughout its development. It can be applied to all levels of the spine, with many robust trials supporting its clinical outcomes. Continued clinical research is needed to explore its expanding indications. Although the limitations of starting an endoscopic program can be justified by its cost effectiveness and positive societal impact, challenges facing its widespread adoption are still present. As more residency and fellowship programs include endoscopy as part of their spine training, it will become more prevalent in hospitals in the United States. Technological advancements in spine surgery will further propel and enhance endoscopic techniques as they become an integral part of a spine surgeon's repertoire.

Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications between endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study compares the efficacy and complications of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar fusion (Endo-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) in treating lumbar degenerative diseases. It aims to provide reference data for clinical decision-making.

METHODS

We identified randomized controlled studies and non-randomized controlled studies on Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF for treating lumbar degenerative diseases based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were managed with Endnote X9 software and meta-analyzed using Revman 5.3 software. Extracted outcomes included lower back VAS score, lower extremity pain VAS score, low back pain ODI score, complication rate, fusion rate, time to surgery, blood loss, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

① Thirteen high-quality studies were included in this meta-analysis, totaling 1015 patients-493 in the Endo-TLIF group and 522 in the MIS-TLIF group. ② Meta-analysis results revealed no significant differences in preoperative, postoperative 6-month, and final follow-up waist VAS scores, lower limb pain VAS score, ODI index, complications, and fusion rate between the two groups (P > 0.05). The MIS-TLIF group had a shorter operative time (MD = 29.13, 95% CI 10.86, 47.39, P = 0.002) than the Endo-TLIF group. However, the Endo-TLIF group had less blood loss (MD = - 76.75, 95% CI - 111.59, - 41.90, P < 0.0001), a shorter hospital stay (MD = - 2.15, 95% CI - 2.95, - 1.34, P < 0.00001), and lower lumbar VAS scores both immediately postoperative (≤ 2 week) (MD = - 1.12, 95% CI - 1.53, - 0.71, P < 0.00001) compared to the MIS-TLIF group.

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis results indicated that Endo-TLIF is similar to MIS-TLIF in terms of long-term clinical outcomes, fusion rates, and complication rates. Although MIS-TLIF has a shorter operation time, Endo-TLIF can significantly reduce blood loss and hospital stay duration. Endo-TLIF offers the advantages of less surgical trauma, reduced blood loss, faster recovery, and early alleviation of postoperative back pain.

Clinical comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion verse 3D microscope-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis with lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study with 24-month follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To explore the safety and the mid-term efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and 3D microscope-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MMIS-TLIF) for treating single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis with lumbar spinal stenosis (DLS-LSS).

METHODS

The clinical data of 49 patients who underwent UBE-TLIF or MMIS-TLIF in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed, including 26 patients who underwent the UBE-TLIF and 23 patients who underwent the MMIS-TLIF. The demographic and perioperative outcomes of patients before and after surgery were reviewed. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients before surgery and at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery. The lumbar lordosis angle (LL), disc height (DH) and lumbar intervertebral fusion rate were assessed before surgery and at the last follow-up.

RESULTS

The VAS and ODI scores of the two groups were improved compared with those before surgery. The ODI of UBE-TLIF group was lower than that of MMIS-TLIF group at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery, and there were no significant differences between the two groups at other time points (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in VAS between the two groups at each time point (P > 0.05). However, the UBE-TLIF group had more advantages in blood loss and hospital stay. The complications between the UBE-TLIF group (11.54%) and the MMIS-TLIF group (17.39%) were comparable (P > 0.05). Radiographic outcomes showed that the LL and DH of the two groups were improved compared with those before surgery, and the difference before and after surgery was not significant (P > 0.05). The fusion rate was 96.2% in the UBE-TLIF group and 95.7% in the MMIS-TLIF group. There was no significant difference in the fusion rate between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both UBE-TLIF and MMIS-TLIF have favorable outcomes for treating single-segment DLS-LSS. Both groups have the advantages of clear surgical vision, high surgical efficiency, and favorable mid-term efficacy. In addition, compared with MMIS-TLIF, UBE-TLIF causes less intraoperative bleeding and faster postoperative recovery.

The Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review, and Future Perspective

Lumbar interbody fusion stands as a preferred surgical solution for degenerative lumbar spine diseases. The procedure primarily aims to establish lumbar segment stability, directly addressing patient symptoms associated with spinal complications. Traditional open surgery, though effective, is linked with notable morbidities and extended recovery time. To mitigate these concerns, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has garnered significant popularity, presenting an appealing alternative with numerous benefits such as reduced soft tissue trauma, decreased blood loss, and expedited recovery. Among MIS procedures, full endoscopic spinal surgery, characterized by its minimal invasiveness, holds the potential to further minimize morbidities while enhancing surgical outcomes. Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion, a novel procedure within this paradigm, has gained attention for offering advantages comparable to those of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. However, the safety, efficacy, and associated surgical techniques and instrument design of this method continue to be subjects of ongoing debate. This paper critically reviews current evidence on the safety, efficacy, and advantages of endoscopic lumbar spinal interbody fusion, examining whether it could indeed supersede existing mainstream techniques.

Comparing the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

This study was registered on International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (ID: CRD42023432460). We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Database, and Wei Pu Database by computer to collect controlled clinical studies on the efficacy and safety of unilateral BE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF in lumbar degenerative diseases from database establishment to May 2023. Two researchers screened the literature, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias of the included studies, recorded the authors, and sample size, and extracted the intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative drainage, Oswestry disability index, Visual analogue scale, lumbar lordosis, disk height, hospital length stay, fusion rate, and complications in each study. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 software provided by Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

A total of 14 cohort studies with a total of 1007 patients were included in this study, including 472 patients in the BE-TLIF group and 535 patients in the MIS-TLIF group. The BE-TLIF group had lower intraoperative blood loss than the MIS-TLIF group [mean difference (MD) = - 78.72, 95% CI (- 98.47, - 58.97), P < 0.00001] and significantly reduced postoperative drainage than the MIS-TLIF group [MD = - 43.20, 95% CI (- 56.57, - 29.83), P < 0.00001], and the operation time was longer than that of the MIS-TLIF group [MD = 22.68, 95% CI (12.03, 33.33), P < 0.0001]. Hospital length stay in BE-TLIF group was significantly less than that in MIS-TLIF group [MD = - 1.20, 95% CI (- 1.82, - 0.57), P = 0.0002].

CONCLUSION

Compared with MIS-TLIF, BE-TLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, less early postoperative low back and leg pain, shorter postoperative hospital length stay, and faster early functional recovery.

Different lumbar fusion techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively compare and assess the effects of different lumbar fusion techniques in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to December 24, 2022 in this network meta-analysis. Outcomes were pain (pain, low back pain, and leg pain), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), complications, reoperation, and fusion. Network plots illustrated the direct and indirect comparisons of different fusion techniques for the outcomes. League tables showed the comparisons of any two fusion techniques, based on both direct and indirect evidence. The efficacy of each fusion technique for LSS was ranked by rank probabilities.

RESULTS

Totally 29 studies involving 2,379 patients were eligible. For pain, percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) was most likely to be the best technique, followed by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PLIF) had the greatest likelihood to be the optimal technique for low back pain, followed sequentially by MIS-TLIF, minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-PLIF), XLIF, Endo-TLIF, TLIF, oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). MIS-PLIF was ranked the most effective technique concerning leg pain, followed by Endo-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, TLIF, Endo-PLIF, PLIF, OLIF, PLF, and XLIF. As regards JOA scores, Endo-TLIF had the maximum probability to be the best technique, followed by MIS-TLIF and TLIF. Endo-PLIF had the greatest likelihood to be the optimum technique for complications, followed by TLIF, MIS-TLIF, Endo-TLIF, OLIF, and XLIF.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive fusion techniques may be effective in the treatment of LSS, compared with traditional techniques. Minimally invasive techniques were likely non-inferior with regards to postoperative complications.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus conventional interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis compares the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) to conventional interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD).

METHODS

An extensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Research related to UBE-TLIF published up to November 2022 was reviewed. The relevant articles were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as an evaluation of the quality of the data extraction literature. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included six high-quality case-control trials (CCTs) involving 621 subjects. The clinical outcomes assessment showed no statistical differences in complication rates, fusion rates, leg pain VAS scores, or ODI scores. After UBE-TLIF, low back pain VAS scores were significantly improved with less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter hospital stay. A longer time was required for UBE-TLIF, however.

CONCLUSION

Despite the lack of sufficient high quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in this study, the results of this meta-analysis suggest that UBE-TLIF is more effective than open surgery in terms of length of stay, blood loss reduction during surgery, and improved low back pain after surgery. Nevertheless, the evidence will be supplemented in the future by more and better quality multicenter randomized controlled trials.

Short-term clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the short-term clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases by meta-analysis.

METHODS

A computer-based search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP) was conducted from the inception of the each database to April 2023. The searched literature was then screened according to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The critical data were extracted and analyzed using Review Manager software5.4.1. Pooled effects were calculated on the basis of data attributes by mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the studies.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies and 949 patients met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis, 445 in the UBE-LIF group and 504 in the MIS-TLIF group. UBE-TLIF was superior to MIS-TLIF in terms of intraoperative blood flow, postoperative drainage flow, duration of hospital stay, VAS score for low back pain and ODI score, but the operative time was longer than MIS-TLIF group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of total complication rate, modified Macnab grading criteria, fusion rate, VAS score of leg pain, lumbar lordosis, intervertebral disk height.

CONCLUSION

Both UBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF are effective surgical modalities for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases. They have similar treatment outcomes, but UBE-TLIF has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and faster recovery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study has been registered at INPLASY.COM (No. INPLASY202320087).

Comparison of efficacy between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and prognosis of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

Chinese and English databases were retrieved for the period from database creation to December 31, 2022. Case-control studies on unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion were collected. The observation indexes consisted of operation times, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain score, postoperative oswestry disability index score, postoperative MacNab excellent and good rate, imaging fusion rate at the last follow-up, and complications. The NO rating table was employed to assess the quality of the included literature, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Revman5.4.1 and Stata17.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 738 surgical patients were considered, including 347 patients in the ULIF group and 391 in the MIS-TLIF group. This Meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences in mean operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, length of hospital stay, and early postoperative (1-2W) visual analogue scale/score (VAS) scores for back pain. No significant differences were observed in the final follow-up postoperative VAS scores for back pain, postoperative leg VAS score, postoperative oswestry disability index score, excellent and good rate of postoperative modified MacNab, imaging fusion rate, and complications.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the MIS-TLIF group, the ULIF group had longer operation time, lower intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume, lower lumbar VAS score in the early postoperative period, and shorter hospital stay. ULIF is less invasive than traditional MIS-TLIF, making it a trustworthy surgical option for lumbar degenerative diseases with comparable fusion efficiency, superior MacNab rate, and complication rate.

Clinical outcomes and complications after biportal endoscopic spine surgery: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 3673 cases

PURPOSE

Current literature suggests that biportal spinal endoscopy is safe and effective in treating lumbar spine pathology such as lumbar disc herniation, lumbar stenosis, and degenerative spondylolisthesis. No prior study has investigated the postoperative outcomes or complication profile of the technique as a whole. This study serves as the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of biportal spinal endoscopy in the lumbar spine.

METHODS

A PubMed literature search provided over 100 studies. 42 papers were reviewed and 3673 cases were identified with average follow-up time of 12.5 months. Preoperative diagnoses consisted of acute disc herniation (1098), lumbar stenosis (2432), and degenerative spondylolisthesis (229). Demographics, operative details, complications, and perioperative outcome and satisfaction scores were analyzed.

RESULTS

Average age was 61.32 years, 48% male. 2402 decompressions, 1056 discectomies, and 261 transforaminal lumbar Interbody fusions (TLIFs) were performed. Surgery was performed on 4376 lumbar levels, with L4-5 being most common(61.3%). 290 total complications occurred, 2.23% durotomies, 1.29% inadequate decompressions, 3.79% epidural hematomas, and < 1% transient nerve root injuries, infections, and iatrogenic instability. Significant improvement in VAS-Back, VAS-Leg, ODI, and Macnab Scores were seen across the cohort.

CONCLUSION

Biportal spinal endoscopy is a novel method to address pathology in the lumbar spine with direct visualization through an endoscopic approach. Complications are comparable to previously published rates. Clinical outcomes demonstrate effectiveness. Prospective studies are required to assess the efficacy of the technique as compared to traditional techniques. This study demonstrates that the technique can be successful in the lumbar spine.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Complications Between Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is a classic surgical procedure for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD). With the development of endoscopic technology, endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) can also achieve adequate decompression and interbody fusion. However, whether Endo-TLIF is superior to MIS-TLIF has not been adequately studied. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the treatment difference between Endo-TLIF vs MIS-TLIF.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies to compare the clinical outcomes and complications associated with Endo-TLIF vs. MIS-TLIF for the treatment of LDD. A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases for studies published up to April 1, 2022. Both retrospective and prospective studies that compared between Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF were included.

RESULTS

A total of 8 studies involving 581 patients were finally included in this meta-analysis. Endo-TLIF significantly prolonged the operation time, but reduced the blood loss amount and length of hospital stay. Moreover, Endo-TLIF was superior to MIS-TLIF on relief of back pain and functional recovery in the early postoperative period. However, there were no significantly differences in long-term clinical outcomes, fusion rate and incidence of complications between Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF.

CONCLUSIONS

Endo-TLIF was similar to MIS-TLIF in the long-term clinical outcomes, fusion and complication rates. Endo-TLIF prolongs the operation time, but shortens the length of hospital stay, and has the advantages of less surgical trauma, less blood loss, faster recovery, and early postoperative back pain relief.

Biportal endoscopic extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a 3D-printed porous titanium cage with large footprints: technical note and preliminary results

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to introduce biportal endoscopic extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-EFLIF), which involves insertion of a cage through a more lateral side as compared to the conventional corridor of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. We described the advantages and surgical steps of 3D-printed porous titanium cage with large footprints insertion through multi-portal approach, and preliminary results of this technique.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 12 consecutive patients who underwent BE-EFLIF for symptomatic single-level lumbar degenerative disease. Clinical outcomes, including a visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain and the Oswestry disability index (ODI), were collected at preoperative months 1 and 3, and 6 months postoperatively. In addition, perioperative data and radiographic parameters were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean patient age, follow-up period, operation time, and volume of surgical drainage were 68.3 ± 8.4 years, 7.6 ± 2.8 months, 188.3 ± 42.4 min, 92.5 ± 49.6 mL, respectively. There were no transfusion cases. All patients showed significant improvement in VAS and ODI postoperatively, and these were maintained for 6 months after surgery (P < 0.001). The anterior and posterior disc heights significantly increased after surgery (P < 0.001), and the cage was ideally positioned in all patients. There were no incidences of early cage subsidence or other complications.

CONCLUSIONS

BE-EFLIF using a 3D-printed porous titanium cage with large footprints is a feasible option for minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion. This technique is expected to reduce the risk of cage subsidence and improve the fusion rate.

Comparison of surgical invasiveness, hidden blood loss, and clinical outcome between unilateral biportal endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Currently, hidden blood loss (HBL) has been paid more and more attention by spine surgeons. Simultaneously, it has been the effort of spine surgeons to explore more advantages of minimally invasive surgery. More and more articles have compared unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (BE-LIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). But so far, there is no HBL comparison between BE-LIF and MIS-TLIF. This study aims to compare the surgical invasiveness, hidden blood loss, and clinical outcome of BE-LIF and MIS-TLIF and to provide insight regarding minimally invasive surgery for lumbar degenerative disease (LDD).

METHODS

We enrolled 103 eligible patients with LDD who underwent BE-LIF (n = 46) and MIS-TLIF (n = 57) during August 2020-March 2021. We collected data, including demographics, perioperative haematocrit, operative and postoperative hospital times, serum creatine kinase (CK) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and hospitalization costs. Total and hidden blood loss was calculated. Clinical outcomes were assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) score for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), modified MacNab criteria, fusion rate, and complications.

RESULTS

Basic demographics and surgical data were comparable. The CRP and CK levels were generally lower in the BE-LIF than in the MIS-TLIF group, especially CRP levels on postoperative day (POD) three and CK levels on POD one. True total blood loss, postoperative blood loss, and hidden blood loss were significantly reduced in the BE-LIF group compared with the MIS-TLIF group. Postoperative hospital times was statistically significantly shorter in the BE-LIF group. The VAS pain and ODI scores improved in both groups. At three days and one month, the VAS lower back pain scores were significantly better after BE-LIF. Clinical outcomes did not otherwise differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with MIS-TLIF, BE-LIF has similar medium and short-term clinical outcomes. However, it is better regarding surgical trauma, early lower back pain, total and hidden blood loss, and recovery time. BE-LIF is an adequate option for selected LDD.

The Role and Future of Endoscopic Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review

Many types of surgeries are changing from conventional to minimally invasive techniques. Techniques in spine surgery have also changed, with endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) becoming a major surgical technique. Although ESS has advantages such as less soft tissue dissection and normal structure damage, reduced blood loss, less epidural scarring, reduced hospital stay, and earlier functional recovery, it is not possible to replace all spine surgery techniques with ESS. ESS was first used for discectomy in the lumbar spine, but the range of ESS has expanded to cover the entire spine, including the cervical and thoracic spine. With improvements in ESS instruments (optics, endoscope, endoscopic drill and shaver, irrigation pump, and multiportal endoscopic), limitations of ESS have gradually decreased, and it is possible to apply ESS to more spine pathologies. ESS currently incorporates new technologies, such as navigation, augmented and virtual reality, robotics, and 3-dimentional and ultraresolution visualization, to innovate and improve outcomes. In this article, we review the history and current status of ESS, and discuss future goals and possibilities for ESS through comparisons with conventional surgical techniques.

Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Double Cages: Surgical Techniques and Treatment Outcomes

Objective: To describe the surgical techniques and the treatment outcomes of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BETLIF) using double cages.Methods: This study included 89 patients with 114 fusion segments between July 2019 and May 2021. One pure polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage and 1 composite titanium-PEEK cage were used for interbody fusion. Clinical outcomes measures included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for lower back pain and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores. Computed tomography (CT) of the lumbar spine 1 year postoperatively was used to evaluate the Bridwell interbody fusion grades.Results: There were significant improvement in VAS for lower back pain from 5.2 ± 3.1 to 1.7 ± 2.1, VAS for leg pain from 6.3 ± 2.5 to 1.7 ± 2.0, ODI from 46.7 ± 17.0 to 12.7 ± 16.1, and JOA score from 15.6 ± 6.3 to 26.4 ± 3.2. The p-values were all < 0.001. The average hospital stay was 5.7 ± 1.1 days. The CT studies available for 60 fusion segments showed successful fusion (Bridwell grade I or grade II) in 56 segments (93.3%). Significant cage subsidence of more than 2 mm was only noted in 3 segments (5.0%). Complications included 1 dural tear, 2 pedicle screws malposition, and 2 epidural hematomas, in which 2 patients required reoperations.Conclusion: BETLIF with double cages provided good neural decompression and a sound environment for interbody fusion with a big cage footprint, a large amount of bone graft, endplate preservation, and segmental stability.

The Use of Dual Direction Expandable Titanium Cage With Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Technical Consideration With Preliminary Results

Objective: Expandable cage technology has emerged for lumbar interbody fusion to restore intervertebral disc space height and alignment through a narrow surgical corridor. The purpose of this study is to present the technique of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using dual direction expandable cage and provide early clinical results.Methods: We performed the biportal endoscopic TLIF using a dual direction expandable titanium cage for height restoration and a larger footprint in 10 patients. Clinical parameters including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS), and complications were retrospectively analyzed. Also, we investigated radiologic parameters using preoperative and postoperative x-ray images.Results: We successfully inserted dual direction expandable cages during biportal endoscopic TLIF. There was no significant subsidence or collapse of the expandable cages during the 6-month follow-up period. Lumbar lordosis and disc height were significantly increased after surgery. ODI and VAS scores were significantly improved at 6 months after surgery.Conclusion: In this report, we describe the first use of a dual direction expandable interbody TLIF cage that expands in both width and height in biportal endoscopic TLIF surgery. Early clinical and radiographic outcomes of this TLIF technique may be favorable in early 6-month follow-up.

Comparing the efficacy and complications of unilateral biportal endoscopic fusion versus minimally invasive fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and mate-analysis

BACKGROUND

Unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) has been gradually applied in clinical practice. UBE has two channels, with good visual field and operating space, and has achieved good results in the treatment of lumbar spine diseases. Some scholars combine UBE with vertebral body fusion to replace traditional open fusion surgery and minimally invasive fusion surgery. The efficacy of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) is still controversial. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, BE-TLIF and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) are compared in the efficacy and complications of lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were used to search literatures related to BE-TLIF before January 2023, to identify relevant studies, and systematically review all literatures. Evaluation indicators mainly include operation time, hospital stay, estimated blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Macnab.

RESULTS

A total of 9 studies were included in this study; a total of 637 patients were collected, and 710 vertebral bodies were treated. Nine studies showed that there was no significant difference in VAS score, ODI, fusion rate, and complication rate between BE-TLIF and MI-TLIF at the final follow-up after surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that BE-TLIF is a safe and effective surgical approach. BE-TLIF surgery has similar good efficacy to MI-TLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. And compared with MI-TLIF, it has the advantages of early postoperative relief of low-back pain, shorter hospital stay, and faster functional recovery. However, high-quality prospective studies are needed to validate this conclusion.

Postoperative bone graft migration into the thecal sac and shifting down to the lower level after an endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a case report

BACKGROUND

Postoperative bone graft migration (PBGM) is a fairly rare spinal postoperative complication. Its occurrence after endoscopic surgery has rarely been reported in the literature so far. This is a case report of a 52-year-old male occurring PBGM into the thecal sac in the 8th days after an endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ELIF), which can make surgeons more minded with such serious rare complication after BGM.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 52-year-old male patient, underwent a L4-5 ELIF, presented with an acute radiculopathy on right leg and urinary incontinence in the 8^th postoperative day. An emergency lumbar Computed Tomography(CT scan) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) demonstrated bone graft migration into the thecal sac at the L4-5 level, and shifting down to the lower level. The revision surgery was performed at once successfully. Finally, the patient got well managed before discharge.

CONCLUSION

Supported by this case report, we believe that PBGM into the thecal sac is a rare but horrible complication of ELIF. However, too much volume of bone graft and its posterior placement are more prone to developing this complication. Finally, we are not sure that the outcome presented in this study will be repeated in future cases.

Clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

In recent years, unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) has been more and more favored by spinal surgeons because of its advantages of low trauma, rapid recovery, high fusion rate and fewer complications.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical effects of ULIF with those of conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective case control study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Twenty-seven patients treated by ULIF and thirty-three patients treated by PLIF.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The preoperative baseline and surgical technique-related outcomes (mean operation time, blood loss during operation, postoperative drainage, and postoperative hospital stay) were compared between the two groups. The clinical status of the two groups before and after surgery were also compared: visual analogue scale (VAS) score of the legs and back, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The clinical laboratory indexes of the two groups before and after the operation were compared: C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), creatine phosphokinase (CPK), interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), as well as the incidence of complications, such as dural tear, nerve root injury and infection.

METHODS

Adult patients who underwent L3-S1 single level lumbar interbody fusion were included in the study. They were divided into a PLIF group and a ULIF group according to the type of surgery. This study comprised 60 cases: 27 cases in the ULIF group and thirty-three cases in the PLIF group.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in preoperative baseline between the two groups. The ULIF group experienced less blood loss, postoperative drainage and a shorter postoperative hospital stay than the PLIF group; however the ULIF group required a longer operation time than the PLIF group (p<.05). CRP, ESR, CPK, IL-6, and TNF-α levels of the PLIF group were all significantly higher than those of the ULIF group 5 days after surgery (p<.05). The improvements in the VAS scores for back pain, VAS scores for leg pain and JOA score in the ULIF group were all significantly better than those in the PLIF group at 5 days after surgery (p<.05). There was no significant difference in fusion rate at 6 months between the 2 groups (p>.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that ULIF and PLIF were both effective surgical techniques for lumbar interbody fusion. However, ULIF caused less bleeding, reduced inflammatory reaction, less tissue damage and faster postoperative recovery compared with PLIF. Both long-term follow-up and larger clinical studies are needed to validate the clinical and radiological results of this surgery.

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.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion enhanced the recovery of patients with the lumbar degenerative disease compared with the conventional posterior procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Minimally invasive endoscopic technique is an important component of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol for neurosurgery. In recent years, unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) has been used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD). This study aims to investigate whether ULIF could enhance the recovery of patients with LDD compared with the conventional minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed for relevant studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library database, China National Knowledge Internet, and Wanfang database. Surgical data, clinical outcomes, radiographic outcomes, and surgical complications were compared between patients with LDD who underwent ULIF and those who underwent conventional MI-TLIF or PLIF.

Results

Notably, 12 studies, comprising 981 patients with LDD, were included. Of these patients, 449 underwent ULIF and 532 patients (355 MI-TLIF and 177 PLIF) were treated with conventional procedures. There was no significant difference in the fusion rate, cage subsidence rate, and surgical complications between the ULIF group and the MI-TLIF or PLIF group. Compared with MI-TLIF, the ULIF group presented a significantly reduced estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD, -106.00; 95% CI -140.99 to -71.10, P < 0.001) and shorter length of hospital stay (LOS) (WMD, -1.27; 95% CI -1.88 to -0.66, P < 0.001); better short-term improvement in ODI (WMD, -2.12; 95% CI -3.53 to -0.72, P = 0.003) and VAS score for back pain (VAS-BP) (WMD, -0.86; 95% CI -1.15 to -0.58, P < 0.001) at 1 month post-operatively. Compared with PLIF, the ULIF group presented a significantly reduced EBL (WMD, -149.22; 95% CI -284.98 to -13.47, P = 0.031) and shorter LOS (WMD, -4.40; 95% CI -8.04 to -0.75, P = 0.018); better short-term improvement in VAS-BP (WMD, -1.07; 95% CI -1.77 to -0.38, P = 0.002) and VAS score for leg pain (VAS-LP) (WMD, -0.40; 95% CI -0.72 to -0.08, P = 0.014) at 1-2 week post-operatively; enhanced short- and long-term improvement in ODI at 1 month post-operatively (WMD, -3.12; 95% CI -5.72 to -0.53, P = 0.018) and the final follow-up (WMD, -1.97; 95% CI -3.32 to -0.62, P = 0.004), respectively.

Conclusion

Compared with conventional MI-TLIF and PLIF, ULIF was associated with reduced EBL, shorter LOS, and comparable fusion rate as well as complication management. Compared with MI-TLIF, a better short-term improvement in VAS-BP and ODI was achieved by ULIF; compared with open PLIF, additional enhanced short-term improvement in VAS-LP and long-term improvement in ODI were observed in ULIF. ULIF could enhance the recovery of patients with LDD compared with conventional posterior procedures.

Systematic trial registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=230695, CRD42021230695.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic extreme transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with large cage combined with endoscopic unilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases: a technical note and preliminary effects

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the study was to investigate the feasibility and preliminary effects of unilateral biportal endoscopic extreme transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(UBE-eXTLIF) with large cage combined with endoscopic unilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

Patients with lumbar degenerative diseases who received UBE-eXTLIF with large cage combined with endoscopic unilateral pedicle screw fixation from June 2022 to July 2022 were retrospectively analyzed, including 4 females and 1 males. The clinical symptoms and signs were consistent with the imaging changes. We recorded operation time, length of postoperative hospital stay, and complications. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified Macnab scale was used to evaluate the clinical efficacy at preoperative, postoperative 1 month, and the last follow-up.

RESULTS

The operation was successfully completed in all cases. The operation time was 150-180 min, with an average of 164.60 ± 12.03 min. No serious complications such as dural tears and vascular and nerve injuries occurred during operation. All the patients got out of bed 1-3 days after surgery and were hospitalized 4-5 days after surgery, with an average of 4.20 ± 0.45 days. Preoperative VAS scores of low back pain were 6.20 ± 0.84 and respectively decreased to 2.20 ± 0.45 and 1.40 ± 0.55 at postoperative 1 month and at the last follow-up, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Preoperative VAS scores of lower limb pain were 4.60 ± 2.61 and respectively decreased to 1.00 ± 0.71 and 0.60 ± 0.55 at postoperative 1 month and at the last follow-up, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Preoperative ODI scores were 62.00 ± 3.16 and respectively decreased to 38.00 ± 1.41 and 32.40 ± 3.29 at postoperative 1 month and at the last follow-up, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). According to the modified Macnab criteria, the final outcome was excellent in 4 cases and good in 1 case. Five patients could return to normal activities within 3 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

UBE-eXTLIF with large cage combined with endoscopic unilateral pedicle screw fixation can achieve excellent clinical results and may become a new minimally invasive endoscopic fusion method for lumbar degenerative diseases.

Biportal endoscopic versus microscopic discectomy for lumbar herniated disc: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Biportal endoscopic discectomy has been frequently performed in recent years and has shown acceptable clinical outcomes. However, evidence regarding its efficacy and safety remains limited.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of biportal endoscopic with that of open microscopic discectomy in patients with single-level herniated lumbar discs.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, multicenter, open-label, assessor-blind, non-inferiority controlled trial.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Sixty-four participants suffering from low back and leg pain with a single-level herniated lumbar disc and required discectomy.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes were assessed with the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score for surgical site, low back and lower extremity, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for lumbar disabilities, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions value for quality of life, and painDETECT for neuropathic pain. Surgery-related outcomes such as hospital stay, operation time, and opioid usage were collected. Adverse events occurring during the follow-up period were also noted.

METHODS

All participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo biportal endoscopic (biportal group) or microscopic discectomy (microscopy group). The primary outcome was the difference in ODI scores at 12-months post surgically based on a modified intention-to-treat strategy, with a non-inferiority margin of 12.8 points. The secondary outcomes included PROMs, surgery-related outcomes, and adverse events.

RESULTS

The ODI score at the 12-month follow-up was 11.97 in the microscopy group and 13.89 in the biportal group (mean difference, 1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.50 to 7.34), showing the non-inferiority of biportal group. The results for the secondary outcomes were similar to those for the primary outcome. Creatinine phosphokinase ratios were low in the biportal group. Early surgical site pain was slightly lower in the biportal group (mean difference of VAS pain score at 48-hr, -0.98; 95% CI, -1.77 to -0.19). Adverse events including reoperation showed no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Biportal endoscopic discectomy was non-inferior to microscopic discectomy over a 12 month period. Biportal endoscopic discectomy is suggested to be a relatively safe and effective surgical technique with the slight advantage of reduced muscle damage. However, the clinical implications of surgical site pain should be carefully considered.

An overview of lumbar anatomy with an emphasis on unilateral biportal endoscopic techniques: A review

Unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) is a major surgical technique used to treat degenerative lumbar diseases. The UBE technique has the advantages of flexible operation, high efficiency, and a large observation and operation space. However, as a typical representative of minimally invasive techniques, UBE still needs to complete a wide range of decompression and tissue resection in a narrow working space, resulting in many surgery-associated injuries. Therefore, it is necessary to reduce complications by familiarity with the anatomy of the lumbar spine. Based on the UBE technique, this review article provides historical and current information on the anatomical structures of the lumbar vertebrae, such as the articular process, pedicle, lamina, ligamentum flavum, nerve root, intervertebral disc, and artery supply.

[Short-term effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for Meyerding degree Ⅰ or Ⅱ single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis]

Objective

To investigate the short-term effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) in the treatment of Meyerding degree Ⅰ or Ⅱ single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Methods

The clinical data of 26 patients with Meyerding degree Ⅰ or Ⅱ single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis treated with UBE-TLIF between January 2021 and August 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, there were 10 males and 16 females with a mean age of 61.5 years (range, 35-76 years). The lesion segment included L 3, 4 in 2 cases, L 4, 5 in 18 cases, and L 5, S 1 in 6 cases. There were 17 cases of degenerative spondylolisthesis and 9 cases of isthmic spondylolisthesis; according to the Meyerding classification of spondylolisthesis, 19 cases were grade Ⅰ and 7 cases were grade Ⅱ. Twenty-one cases were complicated with lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis and 5 cases with lumbar spinal stenosis. The operation time, hospitalization stay, complications, hemoglobin (Hb) and serum creatine kinase (CK) levels before operation and at 1 day after operation were recorded; lumbar lordosis angle changes and postoperative spondylolisthesis reduction were evaluated by lumbar anteroposterior and lateral X-ray films before operation and at last follow-up; visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate the low back pain and leg pain before operation, at 2 days, 1 week, 2 weeks after operation, and at last follow-up; Oswestry disability index (ODI) was used to evaluate the functional recovery of the patients before operation and at last follow-up.

Results

The operation was successfully completed in all 26 patients, with an average operation time of 181.9 minutes (range, 130-224 minutes) and an average hospitalization stay of 6.3 days (range, 3-9 days). Hb levels were significantly lower and serum CK levels were significantly higher at 1 day after operation when compared with those before operation ( t=7.594, P<0.001; t=-15.647, P<0.001). No serious complication occurred during and after operation. CT examination at 3 days after operation showed that the percutaneous screw was not in good position in 1 case, and nerve paralysis (pain, numbness) occurred in 2 cases after operation, which were improved within 2 weeks after operation. All the 26 patients were followed up 6-11 months, with an average of 8.7 months. Complete reduction (the slippage reduction rate was 100%) was achieved in 24 patients (92.3%), and partial reduction (the slippage reduction rate was 87.5%) in 2 patients (7.7%). During the follow-up, there was no complication such as incision infection, fusion Cage subsidence or displacement, and internal fixator loosening. The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain significantly improved at each time point after operation when compared with those before operation ( P<0.05); there was no significant difference in the VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain between at 2 days and 1 week after operation, the VAS scores of low back pain between at 1 week and 2 weeks after operation, and the VAS scores of leg pain between at 2 weeks after operation and last follow-up ( P>0.05); but there was significant difference between the other time points after operation ( P<0.05). ODI and lumbar lordosis angle significantly improved at last follow-up ( P<0.05).

Conclusion

UBE-TLIF provides favorable short-term effectiveness and obvious advantages of minimally invasive in the treatment of Meyerding degree Ⅰ or Ⅱ single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, the safety and long-term effectiveness need to be further studied.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion assisted by intraoperative O-arm total navigation for lumbar degenerative disease: A retrospective study

Background

Recently, unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (BE-LIF) has been successfully applied for degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine, with good clinical results reported. However, the drawbacks include radiation exposure, limited field of view, and steep learning curves.

Objective

This retrospective study aimed to compare the results between navigation and non-navigation groups and explore the benefits of BE-LIF assisted by intraoperative O-arm total navigation.

Methods

A total of 44 patients were retrospectively analyzed from August 2020 to June 2021. Perioperative data were collected, including operative time, estimated intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative hospital stay, radiation dose, and duration of radiation exposure. In addition, clinical outcomes were evaluated using postoperative data, such as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS), modified MacNab criteria, Postoperative complications and fusion rate.

Results

The non-navigation and navigation groups included 23 and 21 patients, respectively. All the patients were followed up for at least 12 months. No significant differences were noted in the estimated intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative hospital stay, fusion rate, or perioperative complications between the two groups. The radiation dose was significantly lower in the navigation group than in the non-navigation group. The average total operation time in the navigation group was lower than that in the non-navigation group (P < 0.01). All clinical outcomes showed improvement at different time points postoperatively, with no significant difference noted between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Compared with the non-navigation approach, O-arm total navigation assistive BE-LIF technology not only has similar clinical results, but also can provide accurate intraoperative guidance and help spinal surgeons achieve accurate decompression. Furthermore, it can reduce radiation exposure to surgeons and operation time, which improve the efficiency and safety of surgery.

Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus other spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) versus other forms of spine surgery.

Methods

Electronic databases were systematically searched up to February 2022. The authors used Review Manager 5.3 to manage the data and perform the review.

Results

After the preliminary selection of 239 studies from electronic databases, the full inclusion criteria were applied; 16 studies were found to be eligible for inclusion. These 16 studies enrolled 1,488 patients: 653 patients in the UBE group, 570 in the microendoscopic discectomy group, 153 in the percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy group, and 70 in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion group. UBE was superior to microendoscopic discectomy regarding 1-day Visual Analog Scale(VAS) back pain scores (P < 0.00001). No difference was found between UBE and microendoscopic discectomy regarding 1-day Visual Analog Scale leg pain scores (P = 0.25), long-term VAS back pain scores (P = 0.06), long-term VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.05), Oswestry Disability Index scores (P = 0.09) or complications (P = 0.19). Pooled analysis indicated that UBE was similar to percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy regarding 1-day VAS back pain scores (P = 0.71), 1-day VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.37), long-term VAS back pain scores (P = 0.75), long-term VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.41), Oswestry Disability Index scores (P = 0.07) and complications (P = 0.88). One study reported no difference between UBE and posterior lumbar interbody fusion regarding long-term VAS back pain, long-term VAS leg pain, or Oswestry Disability Index scores.

Conclusions

UBE is superior to microendoscopic discectomy to relieve back pain 1 day postoperatively. However, these two procedures are similar regarding 1-day leg pain relief, long-term effects, and safety. UBE and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy are similar regarding 1-day pain relief, long-term effects and safety. More evidence is needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UBE versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

[Analysis of technical advantages and disadvantages of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and its trend prospect]

OBJECTIVE

To review and evaluate the technical advantages and disadvantages and research progress of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion.

METHODS

The domestic and foreign related research literature on percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion was extensively consulted. The advantages, disadvantages, and effectiveness were summarized. And the development trend of this technology was prospected.

RESULTS

Compared with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion has less intraoperative and postoperative bleeding, better improvement of low back pain in the early stage after operation, and similar long-term effectiveness, fusion rate, and incidence of complication, but a longer learning curve. The operation time of biportal and large-channel uniportal endoscopic lumbar fusion is close to that of MIS-TLIF, but the operation time of small-channel uniportal endoscopic fusion is longer than that of MIS-TLIF.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion has the advantages of less trauma and good effectiveness, but its learning curve is long, and indications should be strictly selected for this operation. In the future, with the continuous development and complementation of various endoscopic fusion technologies, this technology will gain better application prospects.

[Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive tubular transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and minimally invasive tubular TLIF (MT-TLIF) in treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

A clinical data of 75 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases, who met the selection criteria between August 2019 and August 2020, was retrospectively analyzed, including 35 patients in the UBE- TLIF group and 40 patients in the MT-TLIF group. There was no significant difference in general data such as gender, age, body mass index, disease type and duration, and surgical segment between the two groups ( P>0.05), which was comparable. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hemoglobin (Hb) before operation and at 1 day after operation, the length of hospital stay, incidence of complications, and visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short-Form 36 Health Survey Scale (SF-36 scale), intervertebral disc height (IDH), sagittal Cobb angle, lumbar lordosis (LL), and the intervertebral fusion were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Compared with MT-TLIF group, UBE-TLIF group had significantly longer operation time but less intraoperative blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay ( P<0.05). The Hb levels in both groups decreased at 1 day after operation, but there was no significant difference in the difference before and after operation between the two groups ( P>0.05). All patients were followed up, and the follow-up time was (14.7±2.5) months in the UBE-TLIF group and (15.0±3.4) months in the MT-TLIF group, with no significant difference ( t=0.406, P=0.686). In both groups, the VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, SF-36 scale, and ODI after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference between 1 month after operation and last follow-up ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, and SF-36 scale between the two groups before and after operation ( P>0.05). At 1 month after operation, the ODI in the UBE-TLIF group was significantly better than that in the MT-TLIF group ( P<0.05). At 1 month after operation, IDH, Cobb angle, and LL in both groups recovered when compared with those before operation ( P<0.05), and were maintained until last follow-up ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the IDH, Cobb angle, and LL between the two groups at each time point ( P>0.05). Thirty-three cases (89.2%) in the UBE-TLIF group and 35 cases (87.5%) in the MT-TLIF group achieved fusion, and the difference was not significant ( χ ²=0.015, P=0.901). In the UBE-TLIF group, 1 case of intraoperative dural tear and 1 case of postoperative epidural hematoma occurred, with an incidence of 5.7%. In the MT-TLIF group, 1 case of intraoperative dural tear, 1 case of postoperative epidural hematoma, and 1 case of superficial infection of the surgical incision occurred, with an incidence of 7.5%. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups ( χ ²=1.234, P=1.000).

CONCLUSION

Compared with MT-TLIF, UBE-TILF can achieve similar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, and has the advantages of smaller incision, less bleeding, and shorter length of hospital stay.

Endoscopic Techniques for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Principles and Context

Endoscopic techniques in spine surgery are rapidly evolving, with operations becoming progressively safer and less invasive. Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) procedures comprise many spine procedures that have benefited from endoscopic assistance and minimally invasive approaches. Though considerable variation exists within endoscopic LIF, similar principles and techniques are common to all types. Nonetheless, innovations continually emerge, requiring trainees and experienced surgeons to maintain familiarity with the domain and its possibilities. We present two illustrative cases of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with a comprehensive literature review of the different approaches to endoscopic LIF procedures.