Is the Use of a Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Approach Associated with Rapid Recovery After Lumbar Decompressive Laminectomy? A Preliminary Analysis of a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Minimally Invasive Treatment for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Matched Comparison Between Tubular Microdiscectomy and Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy

Background and objectives Discectomy for lumbar disc herniation is the most common spinal surgical procedure. Technological advances have led to the emergence of minimally invasive surgical approaches such as tubular microdiscectomy (TMD) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD). The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of PELD to those of TMD at one-year follow-up. Materials and methods This observational registry-based (Spine Tango) cohort study included patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniation submitted to PELD or TMD. The inclusion criteria were patients who underwent minimally invasive lumbar discectomy (PELD or TMD), patients who attended a follow-up after a minimum of 12 months post surgery, and valid pre- and postoperative questionaries. The primary endpoint was defined as the difference between pre- and postoperative Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the back. The matching was based on a 1:1 nearest neighbor matching without replacement. Results A total of 109 patients were included in this study. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed achieving 86 patients in the matched sample. Regarding COMI improvement, we found no significant difference between the PELD and TMD groups (paired t-test: estimate, -0.23; standard error, 0.6; p=0.7), and we also did not find any significant difference between groups concerning Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D). Medication usage and return to work were similar among the matched groups. Conclusions PELD is a technique that minimizes tissue damage achieving good clinical outcomes similar to TMD. This was observed one year after surgery from patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that measured pain improvement, disability, and quality of life.

A Beginner's Perspective on Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery in Single-Level Lumbar Decompression: A Comparative Study with a Microscopic Surgery

Background

The application of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) in spine surgery is increasing. However, the clinical results of related studies have been inconsistent. In this study, the perioperative and clinical outcomes of two techniques in single-level lumbar decompression surgery were compared using the perspective of a spine surgeon experienced in microscopic surgery but inexperienced in BESS.

Methods

This is a retrospective study performed with prospectively collected data. From April 2019, 50 consecutive patients who underwent a single-level lumbar decompression surgery with BESS were evaluated. Additionally, the data of 150 consecutive patients who underwent the same microscopic surgery before April 2019 were collected. We performed 1 : 1 ratio propensity score matching for these two groups to adjust for baseline variables. The postoperative patient-reported outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and numeric rating scale for the back and leg preoperatively and at 6 months after surgery. The laboratory data (C-reactive protein [CRP, mg/L] and hemoglobin [Hb, g/dL]) were measured preoperatively and 3 times (1, 2, and 3 or 4 days) postoperatively. In these periods, the peak and lowest CRP and Hb concentrations were evaluated. The perioperative outcomes, operation time (from skin incision to dressing), length of hospital stay, drainage (for 24 hours after surgery), and surgery-related complications were also evaluated.

Results

Forty-seven patients (27 men and 20 women) were included in each group. The postoperative 6-month ODI was significantly lower in the BESS group than in the microscope group (6.90 ± 5.98 vs. 11.54 ± 9.70). The peak CRP concentration (16.63 ± 19.41 vs. 42.40 ± 37.73, p < 0.001) and CRP increment (peak CRP minus preoperative CRP, 14.69 ± 19.47 vs. 40.71 ± 37.32, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the microscope group. Operation time (83.72 ± 35.71 vs. 70.27 ± 23.24, p = 0.047) was significantly longer in the BESS group. Surgery-related complications were found in 6 and 3 cases in the BESS group (3 revisions, 2 dural tears, and 1 conversion to open surgery) and microscope group (2 revisions and 1 hematoma), respectively.

Conclusions

BESS as a new technique resulted in satisfying short-term outcomes. It was a well-tolerated option for surgical treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative disease. The relatively high incidence of recurrence at the index level and incidental dural tears should be considered for surgeons new to BESS; however, these were manageable complications.

Comparison of Primary Versus Revision Lumbar Discectomy Using a Biportal Endoscopic Technique

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes of the biportal endoscopic technique for primary lumbar discectomy (BE-LD) and revision lumbar discectomy (BE-RLD).

METHODS

Eighty-one consecutive patients who underwent BE-LD or BE-RLD, and could be followed up for at least 12 months were divided into two groups: Group A (BE-LD; n = 59) and Group B (BE-RLD; n = 22). Clinical outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab's criteria. Perioperative results included operation time (OT), length of hospital stay (LOS), amount of surgical drain, and kinetics of serum creatine phosphokinase (CPK) and C-reactive protein (CRP). Clinical and perioperative outcomes were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 2 days and at 3, 6, and 12 months. Postoperative complications were noted.

RESULTS

Both groups showed significant improvement in pain (VAS) and disability (ODI) compared to baseline values at postoperative day 2, which lasted until the final follow-up. There were no significant differences in the improvement of the VAS and ODI scores between the groups. According to the modified MacNab's criteria, 88.1 and 90.9% of the patients were excellent or good in groups A and B, respectively. OT, LOS, amount of surgical drain, and kinetics in serum CRP and CPK levels were comparable. Complications in Group A included incidental durotomy (n = 2), epidural hematoma (n = 1), and local recurrence (n = 1) and in Group B incidental durotomy (n = 1) and epidural hematoma (n = 1).

CONCLUSION

BE-RLD showed favorable clinical outcomes, less postoperative pain, and early laboratory recovery equivalent to BE-LD.

Uniportal versus biportal endoscopic spine surgery: a comprehensive review

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic spine surgery techniques are minimally invasive alternatives to conventional open surgery for degenerative spinal diseases. Clinical studies and meta-analyses have proven the usefulness of uniportal full-endoscopic spine procedures. However, a steep learning curve is a critical barrier for endoscopic procedures. Recently, biportal endoscopic spine surgeries have been developed to make it easier for spine surgeons to learn and perform. Consequently, the biportal approach has gained popularity among aspiring endoscopic spine surgeons. This review compared the characteristics of uniportal and biportal surgeries to help spine surgeons perform endoscopic procedures more effectively.

AREA COVERED

The review analyzed English-language clinical literature in Core databases and compared uniportal and biportal endoscopic spine surgery techniques. Clinical studies have compared the technical principles of both techniques, and the authors suggested appropriate strategies for learning and practicing endoscopic procedures.

EXPERT OPINION

Uniportal, full-endoscopic spine surgery is a minimally invasive procedure that preserves muscles and uses a keyhole approach under local anesthesia. In contrast, biportal surgery is more familiar to a surgeon and can be performed more widely, although the keyhole approach is limited. Aspiring endoscopic spine surgeons can learn either method according to the surgeon's preference and the clinical situation.

Percutaneous Biportal Endoscopic Fenestration for Symptomatic Foraminal Tarlov Cyst

Perineural (Tarlov) cysts are a common benign pathology in the lumbosacral area but are rarely symptomatic, even when compressing the spinal root. Despite the rarity of Tarlov cyst formation in the foramen of the spine, this type is more symptomatic than those in other sites due to the narrow space. We introduce a biportal endoscopic fenestration for symptomatic foraminal Tarlov cysts. We present the case of a 40-year-old woman experiencing radiating pain in her right lower leg for 4 years. On seeking treatment, her great toe and ankle plantar flexion power had decreased. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed a cystic mass located in the L5-S1 intervertebral foramen that compressed the lumbar nerve root. Partial laminotomy was performed using a percutaneous biportal endoscopic system with a far lateral approach. An oval cystic mass of 2.6×1.1 cm was identified on high-definition images. Partial bone and foraminal ligament removal and cystic membrane fenestration were performed for nerve decompression. After decompression, the patient's motor weakness and radiating pain improved. Due to high-definition images and the minimally invasive laminotomy procedures associated with percutaneous biportal endoscopic fenestration, a foraminal Tarlov cyst was fenestrated safely, and weakness arising from radiculopathy was resolved in the current case. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(2):e125-e128.].

Clinical efficacy and imaging outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopy with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression in the treatment of severe lumbar spinal stenosis

Objective

To investigate the clinical efficacy and imaging outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) in the treatment of severe lumbar spinal stenosis (SLSS).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 50 patients with SLSS treated with UBE-ULBD from October 2018 to March 2021. Visual analog scale (VAS) for back and legs pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), modified Macnab criteria, complications, hospital stay, preoperative and postoperative dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) and Schizas grade, mean angle of facetectomy and osseous lateral recess decompression rate were examined.

Results

The mean follow-up period was 10.7 months. The mean hospital stay was 2.76 ± 1.02 days. At the final follow-up, VAS for back pain and legs pain decreased from 7.22 ± 0.95 to 1.26 ± 0.44 and from 7.88 ± 0.69 to 1.18 ± 0.39, respectively; ODI decreased from 69.88 ± 6.32% to 14.96 ± 2.75%. According to the modified Macnab criteria, the results were excellent in 24 (48%), good in 22 (44%), and fair in 4 (8%). Excellent or good results (a satisfactory outcome) were obtained in 92% of the patients. There were 2 cases of complications of dural sac tear. The postoperative DSCA was significantly enlarged compared with that before surgery, from 44.74 ± 9.85 to 126.86 ± 14.81 mm². According to Schizas grade, the stenosis grade changes from preoperative grade C in 16 cases, grade D in 34 cases, to postoperative grade A in 40 cases, and grade B in 10 cases. The mean angle of facetectomy of the ipsilateral facet joint was 70.87 ± 5.68 ∘ , contralateral was 65.07 ± 4.98 ∘ . The decompression rate was 70.81 ± 4.43% (ipsilateral side) and 71.22 ± 3.68% (contralateral).

Conclusions

UBE-ULBD has a good clinical effect in the treatment of SLSS, and has achieved satisfactory results in spinal canal enlargement, undercutting of facet joints, and decompression effect. It is a safe and effective surgical for SLSS.

Modified Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Results in Improved Clinical Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and describe the clinical efficacy and safety of a modified unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy.

METHODS

From February 2019 to February 2020, patients who met the inclusion criteria were treated using a modified unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy. During the operation, the herniated disc was removed and the ligamentum flavum was preserved. Clinical efficacy was assessed via postoperative imaging and follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 70 patients were followed up for more than 2 years, including 51 males and 19 females, aged 49.4 ± 16.0 years. All operations were completed and no complications were noted. Postoperative lumbar magnetic resonance imaging showed that the decompression of the nerve root was sufficient and the ligamentum flavum was preserved in all patients. Postoperative lumbar CT showed that the caudal lamina and inferior articular process of the cephalad vertebral were partially removed. Lower back and leg pain were significantly relieved after surgery, and the Oswestry Disability Index was significantly improved compared to presurgery measurements (P ＜ 0.01). After 2 years of follow-up, the sensory and muscle strength of nerve roots were significantly recovered (P ＜ 0.01). According to the MacNab score of the patients, 40 cases were defined as "excellent," 26 cases were "good," 2 cases were "fair," and 2 cases were "poor."

CONCLUSIONS

Modified unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy can completely remove a lumbar herniated disc; relieve lower back and leg pain; improve lumbar function; reduce the risk of dural tearing, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, and epidural hematoma; and reduce the epidural adhesion and arachnoiditis caused by ligamentum flavum resection.

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.

Clinical and radiologic outcomes of biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy in obese patients: a retrospective case-control study

BACKGROUND

Obese patients have a higher risk of complications during spinal surgery than non-obese patients. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have examined the differences in clinical and radiological outcomes after biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (BELD) between obese and non-obese patients. The study evaluated the association between obesity and outcomes after BELD in patients with lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study conducted from March 2017 to March 2021 at two hospitals with 360 patients who underwent BELD after showing no improvement with conservative treatment. Clinical and radiologic outcomes were retrospectively analyzed after BELD in the non-obese (body mass index [BMI] < 30 kg/m²) and obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) groups. Demographic data and surgery-related factors were compared between the two groups. Clinical outcomes were followed up for 12 months after surgery and analyzed for differences.

RESULTS

A total of 211 patients were enrolled in this study, and through case-control matching, the data of 115 patients (29, obese group; 86, non-obese group) were analyzed. The two groups showed no significant differences in Oswestry Disability Index, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), and visual analog scale scores measured immediately after BELD and 12 months after surgery. After surgery, back pain, radiating leg pain, and EQ-5D scores improved. However, there was no significant difference in improvement, residual herniated disc, hematoma, or recurrence between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Obese patients who underwent BELD for lumbar disc herniation showed no significant difference in clinical and radiologic outcomes compared with non-obese patients.

Recent Updates on Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: Techniques, Technologies, and Indications

A number of minimally invasive spine surgeries (MISSs) have been developed to address the drawbacks of open spine surgery. Their advantages include small skin incisions, reduction in tissue damage, quick recovery, and short hospital stay. However, the clinical outcomes are comparable to open surgery. There was a cap on the number of indications that could be set for all spinal illnesses. The indications for MISSs have been expanding owing to mechanical and technological advances in medical equipment. Thus, this review presents the various MISSs developed to date, surgical indications, surgical techniques, and their advantages and disadvantages.

[Learning curve analysis of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the learning curve of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-LIF).

METHODS

Fifty-five patients with single-segment lumbar degenerative disease treated with UBE-LIF between December 2020 and February 2022 were selected as the research subjects. The patients were grouped according to the operation sequence, the first 27 cases were in the early group, and the last 28 cases were in the late group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in age, gender, disease type, and surgical segment distribution ( P>0.05). The operation time, the amount of hemoglobin loss (the difference between 1 day before operation and 3 days after operation), the hospital stay after operation, and the incidence of perioperative complications were recorded; the learning curve of UBE-LIF was analyzed by log-curve regression analysis.

RESULTS

All the operations were successfully completed without changing to other operations. The operation time, the amount of hemoglobin loss, and hospital stay in the early group were significantly more than those in the late group ( P<0.05). Complications occurred in 2 cases (7.4%) in the early group, including 1 case of dural tear during operation and 1 case of epidural hematoma after operation, and 1 case (3.6%) with transient radiculitis in the late group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups ( P=0.518) . The log-curve regression analysis showed that the operation time decreased significantly with the increase of the number of patients ( P<0.05). The operation time tended to be stable after the surgeon completed 17 cases.

CONCLUSION

For single-level lumbar degenerative disease, the operation time of UBE-LIF can decrease gradually with the increase of the number of patients, and tend to be stable after 17 cases.

Endoscopic Spinal Surgery (BESS and UESS) Versus Microscopic Surgery in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES

Various minimally invasive surgical techniques have been developed as alternatives to conventional surgery. According to recent studies, endoscopic spinal surgery (ESS) (biportal ESS [BESS] or uniportal ESS [UESS]) is more favorable compared with microscopic spinal surgery (MSS). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the latest evidence on the use of ESS compared with MSS in lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

A systematic electronic search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Database, and Korea Med was performed until December 2019 to identify studies that compared ESS and MSS in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

RESULTS

Overall, 1167 patients were included from three randomized controlled trials, six retrospective cohorts, and two prospective case-control studies. This review only presented 3 direct comparative studies. The study had inherent limitations specifically in terms of the study design. Meta-analysis of hospital stay (days) showed significant difference between BESS and MSS, UESS and MSS, BESS +UESS, and MSS at the final follow-up (95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.66 to -.77; P = .003; I² = 97%, 95% CI: -2.95 to -1.22; P <.00001; I² = 90%, and 95% CI: -2.89 to -1.48; P <.00001; I² = 96%, respectively). However, meta-analysis showed no significant difference in other results.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a shorter duration of hospital stay was observed in ESS, there were no significant differences in efficacy and safety between ESS and MSS. Further studies are required to validate these results.

A meta-analysis of clinical effects of microscopic unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression (ULBD) versus biportal endoscopic ULBD for lumbar canal stenosis

Osbjective

Several studies have shown that both microscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression (ULBD) and unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) ULBD are effective for treating lumbar canal stenosis (LCS). However, there are different viewpoints as to which surgical technique is superior. Therefore, this meta-analysis investigated the clinical efficacy and side effects of microscopic ULBD and UBE ULBD for treating LCS.

Methods

To identify relevant studies describing the clinical outcomes and complication rates of microscopic ULBD and UBE ULBD for LCS, several databases were systematically searched in the Internet. The visual analog scale score for back and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index were used to assess clinical outcomes. Furthermore, data about perioperative outcomes and complications were documented.

Results

In total, six studies with 450 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The UBE ULBD was found to be superior to microscopic ULBD in terms of efficacy against early postoperative back and leg pain. However, there was no significant difference between the two procedures in terms of final clinical outcomes and complications. In addition, compared with microscopic ULBD, UBE ULBD was associated with a significant reduction in the length of hospital stay and C-reactive protein levels 2 days after surgery.

Conclusion

UBE ULBD and microscopic ULBD for the treatment of LCS were similar in terms of final clinical outcomes and complications. However, UBE ULBD has several advantages over microscopic ULBE, including a shorter hospital stay and faster alleviation of postoperative back and leg pain.

Case Report: Five-Level Unilateral Laminectomy Bilateral Decompression (ULBD) by Two-Stage Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy (UBE)

Introduction

Unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) is a relatively new yet common minimally invasive procedure in spine surgery, capable of achieving adequate decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis through unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression (ULBD). Neither additional fusion nor rigid fixation is required, as UBE-ULBD rarely causes iatrogenic lumbar instability. However, to our knowledge, five-level ULBD via two-stage UBE without lumbar fusion has been yet to be reported in the treatment of multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis.

Case description

We present a case of an 80-year-old female patient who developed progressive paralysis of the lower extremities. Radiographic examinations showed multilevel degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis and extensive compression of the dural sac and nerve roots from L1-2 to L5-S1. The patient underwent five-level ULBD through two-stage UBE without lumbar fusion or fixation. One week after the final procedure, the patient could ambulate with walking aids and braces. Moreover, no back pain or limited lumbar motion was observed at the 6-month follow-up.

Conclusion

Multilevel ULBD through UBE may provide elderly patients with an alternative, minimally invasive procedure for treating spinal stenosis. This procedure could be achieved by staging surgeries. In this case, we reported complaints of little back pain, despite not needing to perform lumbar fusion or fixation.

Clinical Evaluation of Surgery for Single-Segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

To compare the efficacy and safety of different surgical procedures for patients with single‐segment lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), Bayesian network meta‐analysis (NMA) was conducted in this study. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which reported 2 years' results after surgery were searched from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials up to February 2021. Eligible RCTs that contained at least two of the following surgical procedures, bilateral decompression via the unilateral approach (BDUL), decompression with conventional laminectomy (CL), decompression with fusion (DF), endoscopic decompression (ED), interspinous process devices only (IPDs), decompression with interlaminar stabilization (DILS), decompression with lumbar spinal process‐splitting laminectomy (LSPSL), and minimally invasive tubular decompression (MTD), would be included after screening based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Twenty eligible RCTs were included, with a total of 2201 patients enrolled. The NMA showed that the following surgical procedures ranked first (surface under the cumulative ranking) when compared with CL and DF: DILS for ODI (SUCRA 87.8%); LSPSL for back pain (95%); and MTD for leg pain (95.6%). MTD ranked among the top three surgical procedures for most outcomes. The quality of the synthesized evidence was low according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. DILS, LSPSL, MTD, IPDs, and ED are the most effective procedures for patients with single‐segment LSS. Because of combining efficacy and safety, MTD may be the most promising routine surgical option for treating single‐segment LSS.

Comparing the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive biportal endoscopic spine surgery versus conventional microscopic discectomy in single-level lumbar herniated intervertebral disc (ENDO-BH Trial): a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled equivalence trial study protocol

Background

Biportal endoscopic surgery has recently been performed in lumbar discectomy, with advantages over conventional surgery, such as less skin scarring and muscle damage. However, the clinical results have not been established. Although previous studies reported no difference between the biportal endoscopic and microscopic discectomy clinical results, the evidence was weak. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the biportal endoscopic discectomy versus the microscopic discectomy.

Methods

This prospective multicenter randomized controlled equivalence trial is designed to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of patients who underwent lumbar discectomy using biportal endoscopy or microscopy. We will include 100 participants (50 per group) with a lumbar herniated disc. The primary outcome will be the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score 12 months after surgery based on a modified intention-to-treat strategy. The secondary outcomes will include the visual analog scale score for low back and lower extremity radiating pain, the ODI score, the Euro-Qol-5-Dimensions score, surgery satisfaction, walking time, postoperative return to daily life period, postoperative surgical scar, and surgery-related variables, such as postoperative drainage, operation time, admission duration, postoperative creatine kinase, and implementation status of conversion to open surgery. Radiographic outcomes will also be analyzed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) and simple radiographs. Safety will be assessed by evaluating all adverse and severe adverse events and surgery-related effects. The participants will be assessed by a blinded assessor before surgery (baseline) and 2 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.

Discussion

This trial will be the first prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to analyze the efficacy and safety of biportal endoscopic discectomy in lumbar herniated disc.

This trial is designed for evaluating the equivalence of the results between biportal endoscopic and microscopic discectomy including adequate sample size, blinded analyses, and prospective registration to reduce bias. This trial will provide enough data on the effectiveness and safety of biportal endoscopic surgery and will be an important study that allows clear conclusions.

Trial registration

Clinical Research Information Service (cris.nih.go.kr.) (KCT0006191). Registered on 27 March 2021

Spinal endoscopy: evidence, techniques, global trends, and future projections

The utilization of indirect visualization during procedures has been increasingly replacing traditional forms of direct visualization across many different surgical specialties. The adoption of arthroscopy, using small cameras placed inside joints, has transformed musculoskeletal care over the last several decades, allowing surgeons to provide the same anatomic solutions with less tissue dissection, resulting in lower requirements for inpatient care, reduced costs, and expedited recovery.  For a variety of reasons, spine surgery has lagged behind other specialties in the adoption of indirect visualization.  Nonetheless, patient demand for less invasive spine procedures and surgeon drive to provide these solutions and improve care quality has driven global adoption of spinal endoscopy.  There are numerous endoscopic platforms and techniques currently utilized, and these systems are rapidly evolving.  Additionally, the variance in technology and health system incentives across the globe has generated tremendous regional heterogeneity in the utilization of spinal endoscopic procedures.  We present a consolidated review, including the background, evidence, techniques, and trends in spinal endoscopy, so that clinicians can gain a deeper understanding of this rapidly evolving domain of spinal healthcare.

Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy compared with microscopic decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Systematic evaluation of the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search and compared the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and microscopic decompression (MD) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis from several databases.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the operation time of UBE was shorter than that of MD. [SMD = -0.443, 95% CI (-0.717, -0.169), P  = .002]. Compared with MD, the patients' back pain was slighter on the 1st day, 1-2 months and 6 months after UBE. During the long-term follow-up, there was no significant difference in back pain between MD and UBE [SMD = -0.519, 95% CI (-0.934, -0.104), P  = .014]. There was no significant difference in lower limb visual analogue score (VAS) score between UBE decompression and MD [SMD = -0.105, 95% CI (-0.356, 0.146), P  = .412]. The results of meta-analysis showed that the C-reactive protein (CRP) level of UBE was lower than that of MD [weighted mean difference = -1.437, 95% CI (-2.347, -0.527), P  = .002]. There was no significant difference in other clinical effects between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

The operation time of UBE was shorter than that of MD, and it was superior to micro decompression in early back VAS score, lower limb VAS score and early postoperative CRP level. There was no statistical difference between UBE and MD in other outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) with microscopic tubular technique is an established surgical procedure with several potential advantages, including decreased surgical-related morbidity, reduced length of hospital stay, and accelerated early rehabilitation. A recently introduced biportal endoscopic technique for spine surgery presents familiar surgical anatomy and can be conducted using a conventional approach with a minimal footprint; it is also applicable to TLIF.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of biportal endoscopic technique transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) and microscopic tubular technique transforaminal lumbar interbody (MT-TLIF) in patients with single- or two-segment lumbar spinal stenosis with or without spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

One hundred two participants with neurogenic intermittent claudication or lumbar radiculopathy with single- or two-level lumbar spinal stenosis with or without spondylolisthesis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) score for the back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Short Form-36 health survey Questionnaire (SF-36). Demographic data, operative data (total operation time, estimated blood loss, amount of surgical drain, postoperative transfusion, and length of hospital stay), and laboratory results (plasma hemoglobin, serum creatine phosphokinase, and C-reactive protein) were also evaluated. The fusion rate was assessed using the Bridwell interbody fusion grading system. Postoperative complications were also noted.

METHODS

Patients were divided into two groups: group A (BE-TLIF) and group B (MT-TLIF). The clinical outcomes, including VAS-Back and VAS-Leg, ODI, and SF-36 scores, were evaluated at 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery. Differences in demographics, operative data, and the laboratory and radiological results were assessed between the two groups. The fusion rate was assessed using standard standing lumbar radiographs and computed tomography scans conducted 1 year after surgery.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients were analyzed in this study, 47 from group A and 32 from group B. Demographic and operative data were comparable for both the groups. The VAS-Back and SF-36 scores were more significantly improved in group A than in group B at 1 month after surgery. However, there were no significant differences between groups for the mean VAS-Back, VAS-Leg, ODI, and SF-36 scores at 1year after the surgery. Although the total operation time was significantly longer in group A, the estimated blood loss and the amount of surgical drainage was significantly higher in group B (p < .001). There were no between-group differences for the fusion rate and postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Both BE-TLIF and MT-TLIF provided equivalent and favorable clinical outcomes and fusion rates. Further large-scale, randomized, controlled trials with long-term follow-ups are warranted.

Biportal endoscopic posterior lumbar decompression and vertebroplasty for extremely elderly patients affected by lower lumbar delayed vertebral collapse with lumbosacral radiculopathy

Background

Lower lumbar osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture in extremely elderly patients can often lead to lumbosacral radiculopathy (LSR) due to delayed vertebral collapse (DVC). Surgical intervention requires posterior instrumented lumbar fusion as well as vertebral augmentation or anterior column reconstruction depending on the cleft formation and intravertebral instability. However, it is necessary to decide on surgery in consideration of the patient’s frail status, surgical invasiveness, and rehabilitation. In the lower lumbar DVC without intravertebral instability, biportal endoscopic posterior lumbar decompression and vertebroplasty (BEPLD + VP) can be simultaneously attempted. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of BEPLD + VP for the treatment of DVC-related LSR.

Methods

This retrospective case series enrolled 18 consecutive extremely elderly (aged ≥ 75-year-old) patients (6 men and 12 women) who had lower lumbar (at or below L3) DVC-related LSR. Patients who require anterior column reconstruction, such as cleft formation accompanied by intravertebral instability and patients who have not been followed for more than 6 months, were excluded from this study. All patients underwent BEPLD + VP under epidural anesthesia. Clinical results were evaluated by the visual analog scale (VAS) score and the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) scores.

Results

Most of the patients had DVC affecting level L4, with the deformation being a flat type or concave type rather than a wedge type. The VAS score (back and leg) significantly decreased from 7.78 ± 1.17 and 6.89 ± 1.13 preoperatively to 2.94 ± 0.64 and 2.67 ± 1.08 within 2 postoperative days (p < 0.001). The mJOA score significantly improved from 4.72 ± 1.27 preoperatively to 8.17 ± 1.15 in the final follow-up (p < 0.001). The mean recovery rate (RR) in the last follow-up was 56.07% ± 9.98. Incidental durotomy was reported in two patients and epidural hematomas in another two patients; however, all patients improved with conservative treatment, and no re-operation was required.

Conclusions

BELPD + VP was a type of salvage therapy that reduces surgical morbidity, requires major spine surgery under general anesthesia and provides good clinical outcomes in extremely elderly patients with DVC-related LSR.

Percutaneous Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy and Bilateral Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

To introduce a new surgery, percutaneous endoscopic unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression (Endo-ULBD) using visual trepan, and investigate its efficacy and safety in elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. In our retrospective study, a total of 69 patients were enrolled between March 2018 and September 2018; 31 patients were treated with Endo-ULBD and 38 patients were treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery (PLIF). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospitalization duration were compared between the two groups. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the degree of pain. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) were used to evaluate lumbar function and quality of life, respectively. Lumbar X-ray, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were performed postoperatively at different time points. MacNab's outcome assessment and perioperative complications were also documented. The surgeon completed all surgeries successfully, and all 69 patients were followed up. The operative time of the Endo-ULBD group was 60.68 ± 0.47 min, while that of the PLIF group was 120.23 ± 10.24 min. The operative time of the Endo-ULBD group was shorter than that of the PLIF group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The volume of intraoperative blood loss was 47.25 ± 0.43 mL in the Endo-ULBD group and 256.90 ± 20.83 mL in the PILF group (P < 0.001). The length of hospital stay in the Endo-ULBD group was 5.12 ± 1.60 days and that in the PILF group was 10.54 ± 1.82 days (P < 0.001). The VAS scores at postoperative 1 day, 3 months, 6 months, final follow-up (Endo-ULBD: 6.58 ± 0.65, 4.55 ± 0.54, 2.78 ± 0.24, 1.31 ± 0.78; PLIF: 7.19 ± 1.14, 4.80 ± 0.13, 2.71 ± 0.83, 1.29 ± 0.56) were significantly improved compared with those before surgery (Endo-ULBD: 8.63 ± 0.37; PLIF: 8.31 ± 1.34). The ODI and EQ-5D scores of lumbar function and quality of life at each time point after surgery (Endo-ULBD ODI: 30.29% ± 0.47%, 23.35% ± 0.95%, 19.45% ± 0.81%, 10.84% ± 0.36%; EQ-5D: 0.38 ± 0.15, 0.45 ± 0.17, 0.63 ± 0.14, 0.71 ± 0.20; PLIF ODI: 33.56% ± 1.58%, 25.69% ± 2.69%, 20.01% ± 1.49%, 10.72% ± 0.29%; EQ-5D: 0.33 ± 0.03, 0.39 ± 0.05, 0.62 ± 0.07, 0.72 ± 0.10) were significantly improved compared with those before surgery (Endo-ULBD: 44.56 ± 1.32, 0.33 ± 0.07; PLIF: 43.79 ± 1.91, 0.31 ± 0.09, respectively), with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05); however, there was no significant difference between the two groups at the last follow-up (P > 0.05). At the last follow-up, the excellent and good efficacy rate was 90.3% (28/31) in the Endo-ULBD group and 89.4% (34/38) in the PILF group (χ² = 0.089, P = 0.993). No mortality, irreversible nerve injury, or even paralysis occurred in either group. Endo-ULBD for lumbar spinal stenosis has the advantages of less trauma, a shortened operation time, and rapid recovery and is an effective alternative for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Strict surgical indications, reasonable surgical plans, and experienced surgeons are important factors to ensure safety and satisfactory postoperative efficacy.

Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: Techniques, Technologies, and Indications

Over the past few decades, interest in minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has increased tremendously due to its core principle of minimizing approach-related injury while providing outcomes similar to traditional open spine procedures. With technical and technological advancements, MISS has expanded its utility not only to simple spinal stenosis, but also to complex spinal pathologies such as metastasis, trauma, or adult spinal deformity. In this article, we review the techniques and technology in MISS and discuss the indications, benefits, and limitations of MISS.

Microscopic decompressive laminectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic decompressive laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common lumbar degenerative disease in the elderly, usually requiring surgery if conservative treatment fails. Microscopic decompressive laminectomy (MDL) and percutaneous endoscopic decompressive laminectomy (PEDL) have been widely used to treat LSS. This study aims to provide a protocol for the evaluation and comparison of the efficacy, safety and applicability between MDL and PEDL.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MDL and PEDL for treating LSS from inception to December 2019 in the following databases: PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase and China Biology Medicine. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook 5.2.0. Subsequently, a meta-analysis will be performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Given the nature of this study, no ethical approval will be required. The protocol will be disseminated via a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020164765.

A Historical Review of Endoscopic Spinal Discectomy

As an essential component of minimally invasive spine surgery, endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) has continuously evolved and has been accepted as a practical procedure by the worldwide spine community. Especially for lumbar disc herniation (LDH), the percutaneous endoscopic or full-endoscopic discectomy technique has been scientifically proven through randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses to be a good alternative to open discectomy. The initial concept of endoscopic spine discectomy was concerned with indirect disc decompression using various instruments such as blind forceps, a nucleotome, laser, radiofrequency coblation, and some chemical agents. The main surgical field has been shifted from the intradiscal space to the epidural space. Precise and selective discectomy for extruded LDH in the epidural space under high-quality endoscopic visualization is now feasible. Furthermore, the medical applications of ESS is broadening to include spinal stenosis, segmental instability, infection, and even intradural lesions. In this review article, I describe the history of endoscopic spine discectomy and decompression techniques, as well as evolution of the paradigm. This history may help indicate the future of practical ESS.

Ten-Step Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Under Computed Tomography-Based Intraoperative Navigation: Technical Report and Preliminary Outcomes in Mexico

BACKGROUND

The principal advantage of intraoperative spinal navigation is the ease of screw placement. However, visualization and the integration of navigation can be explored with the use of navigation-guided full-endoscopic techniques.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the stepwise intraoperative navigation-assisted unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) technique and to present our preliminary results in a Mexican population.

METHODS

A 10-step summary of the UBE-TLIF operative technique was described, and the clinical and radiological results are presented and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 7 patients were treated. We observed the value of integrating navigation and endoscopic visualization when decompression had to be performed.

CONCLUSION

Together, intraoperative navigation and direct visualization through the endoscope may be a useful surgical tool for surgeons with experience in endoscopic spinal surgery.

Comparision of biportal endoscopic and microscopic decompression in treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: A comparative study protocol

BACKGROUND

Microscopic bilateral decompression (MBD) has been suggested as an alternative to open laminectomy and fusion. Recently, percutaneous biportal endoscopic decompression (PBED) has begun to attract attention. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate postoperative pain, functional disability, symptom reduction and satisfaction, and specific surgical parameters between the MBD and PBED techniques in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

A retrospective review of LSS patients performed with MBD or PBED technique between May 2015 and June 2018 was conducted. Institutional review board approval in People's Hospital of Ningxia Hui Nationality Autonomous Region was obtained prior to conducting chart review and analysis. We received informed consent from all patients before surgery. The primary outcomes assessed were the preoperative to postoperative changes in leg/back pain and disability/function, patient satisfaction with the procedure, and postoperative quality of life. The secondary outcomes including duration of postoperative hospital stay, time to mobilization, postoperative analgesic use, complication rates, and baseline patient characteristics were prospectively collected.

RESULTS

The hypothesis was that the PBED technique would achieve better clinical outcomes as compared to the MBD technique in LSS.

Biportal endoscopic decompression vs. microscopic decompression for lumbar canal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Lumbar decompressive surgery is the gold standard treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Minimally invasive surgical techniques have been introduced with the aim of reducing the morbidity associated with open surgery. The purpose of the present study was to systematically search the literature and perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing the outcomes between biportal endoscopic technique and microscopic technique for lumbar canal stenosis decompression. A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify relevant articles up to 15th of December 2019. Eligible studies were retrieved, data were extracted by two authors independently and risks of bias were assessed. A total of six studies involving 438 patients were selected for review. The results of the pooled analysis indicated similar operative times [mean difference (MD), -3.41; 95% CI, -10.78-3.96; P<0.36], similar complications (MD, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.33-1.46; P=0.34), similar visual analogue scale scores for back and leg pain at the time of the final follow-up and similar Oswestry disability indexes (MD, -0.28; 95% CI, -1.25-0.69; P=0.58) for the two procedures. In conclusion, biportal endoscopic technique is a viable alternative to microscopic technique for lumbar canal stenosis decompression with similar operative time, clinical outcomes and complications.

Biportal endoscopic versus microscopic lumbar decompressive laminectomy in patients with spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Biportal endoscopic decompressive laminectomy is a widely performed procedure and shows acceptable clinical outcomes. However, the evidence regarding the advantages of biportal endoscopic surgery is weak, a randomized controlled trial is therefore warranted.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical efficacies of biportal endoscopic and microscopic decompressive laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Sixty-four participants suffering from low back and leg pain with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis who required decompressive laminectomy.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes were assessed with the use of patient-reported outcome measures, visual analog scale (VAS) score for low back and lower extremity radiating pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) score, and painDETECT for neuropathic pain. Surgery-related outcomes including operation time, length of hospital stay, postoperative drainage, and serum creatine phosphokinase were evaluated. Perioperative (<30 days) and late (1-12 months) complications were also noted.

METHODS

All participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo biportal endoscopic or microscopic decompressive laminectomy. The primary outcome was the ODI score at 12 months after surgery based on a modified intention-to-treat strategy. The secondary outcomes included VAS score for low back and lower extremity radiating pain, ODI scores, EQ-5D score, and painDETECT score. There were no sources of funding and no conflicts of interest associated with this study.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between groups in the mean ODI score at 12 months after surgery (30 in the microscopy vs. 29 in the biportal endoscopy group, p=.635). There were also no significant differences in low back and lower extremity pain VAS scores, ODI, EQ-5D scores, and painDETECT scores at the 3-, 6-, or 12-month follow-up. Operation time, length of hospital stay, serum creatine phosphokinase, and perioperative complications, such as durotomies and symptomatic hematoma, showed no significant differences between the groups; however, one participant underwent additional revision surgery 9 months after the index surgery in the microscopy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the study design limitation of relatively short duration of follow-up, this trial suggests that biportal endoscopic decompressive laminectomy is an alternative to and offers similar clinical outcomes as microscopic open surgery in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.

Pooled analysis of unsuccessful percutaneous biportal endoscopic surgery outcomes from a multi-institutional retrospective cohort of 797 cases

BACKGROUND

Spinal percutaneous biportal endoscopic surgery (PBES) is a minimally invasive surgery; however, it is associated with several poor outcomes. This study aimed to analyze unsuccessful PBES outcomes and verify their relationships with patient satisfaction.

METHODS

From May 2015 to June 2018, PBES was performed at several institutions. Unsuccessful outcomes (reoperation and prolonged hospital stay) due to various reasons (hematoma, lesion recurrence, incomplete decompression, dural tear, instability, ascites, and infection) were analyzed. To verify the relationships between surgical experience and unsuccessful outcomes, the first 50 cases and the later cases were compared. Logistic regression was used to assess the relationships between unsuccessful outcomes and patient dissatisfaction.

RESULTS

Among 866 patients, 797 cases with 1-year follow-up and complete data were analyzed. In total, 82 patients with unsuccessful outcomes were identified (10.29%). The incidences of hematoma (p < 0.04), incomplete operation (p < 0.01), and dural tear (p < 0.01) were significantly higher in the first 50 cases than in the later cases. Analyses of the relationship between unsuccessful outcomes and patient dissatisfaction showed that incomplete decompression (odds ratio (OR) 4.06), postoperative instability (OR 3.64), hematoma (OR 3.25), ascite (OR 3.25), dural tear (OR 3.02), and local recurrence (OR 2.45, 95%) contributed significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Unsuccessful PBES outcomes were mostly associated with hematomas, incomplete decompression, and dural tears; instability, ascites, and infection contributed to a lesser extent. Incomplete decompression, instability, hematoma, ascite, dural tear, and local recurrence were significantly related to patient dissatisfaction. The potential for poor outcomes should be described to the patient and considered prior to surgery.

Endoscopy-Assisted Diagnosis and Revision of a Malpositioned Screw

BACKGROUND

Pedicle screw insertion is a common procedure in spine surgery, and freehand, fluoroscopic, and robotic-assisted techniques all are used. These are indirect methods that use fluoroscopy, and direct visualization of canal involvement has not been possible. However, owing to the development of high-definition imaging modalities, delicate procedures that use endoscopy are possible.

CASE DESCRIPTION

A 47-year-old man presented with severe radiating pain in his leg after undergoing L5-S1 level endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and percutaneous pedicular screw fixation. The patient then underwent an endoscopy-assisted technique for violated spinal canal and screw revision in which the misplaced screw was directly visualized using endoscopy and the trajectory of the misplaced screw was changed. With 30° endoscopy, we directly visualized the screw thread and root compression. Then with 0° endoscopy, we changed the screw trajectory inside the pedicle with an anatomic landmark. The patient's radiating pain was completely relieved after revision of the malpositioned screw. Postoperative imaging showed the revised screw trajectory inside the pedicle.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion does not require an additional incision, and early recovery after the procedure is possible. Accurate diagnosis of canal pathology and treatment are possible with direct visualization using endoscopy.