Percutaneous Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery Using a 30-Degree Arthroscope in Patients With Severe Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Technical Note

Efficacy of Biportal Endoscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis With Single-Arm Analysis and Comparative Analysis With Microscopic Decompression and Uniportal Endoscopic Decompression

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Biportal endoscopic decompression is a minimally invasive surgical technique for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biportal endoscopic decompression through both a single-arm analysis and a comparative analysis.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify eligible studies reporting the outcomes of biportal endoscopic decompression for LSS. Single-arm analysis and comparisons with microscopic and uniportal endoscopic decompression were performed. Evaluated outcomes included visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back pain and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, operation time, estimated blood loss, duration of hospital stay, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Single-arm analysis demonstrated significant improvements in VAS back pain, VAS leg pain, and ODI scores after biportal endoscopic decompression at postoperative 1-day to 36-month follow-up (all P < .001), compared with preoperative levels. The pooled mean single-level operation time was 71.44 min, and the pooled mean hospital stay was 3.63 days. The overall adverse event rate was 4.0%, with dural tear being the most common complication (3.0%). Compared with microscopic decompression, biportal endoscopic decompression showed significantly lower VAS back pain at 1-month ( P < .001) and 6-month ( P < .001) follow-up; lower VAS leg pain at 1-month ( P = .045) follow-up; lower ODI scores at 3-month ( P < .001), 12-month ( P = .017), and >12-month ( P = .007) follow-up; lower estimated blood loss ( P = .003); and shorter hospital stay ( P < .001). Adverse event rates did not differ between the techniques. No significant differences were observed between biportal endoscopic and uniportal endoscopic decompression groups for most efficacy and safety outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Biportal endoscopic decompression emerges as a safe and effective alternative for LSS, presenting potential advantages over the microscopic technique and comparable efficacy with the uniportal endoscopic technique.

Early Clinical and Radiologic Evaluation of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy and Bilateral Decompression in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

 The aim of this study is to evaluate the changes in radiologic parameters and clinical outcomes following unilateral biportal endoscopic unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression (UBE ULBD) for treatment of central lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

 Forty-one central lumbar spinal stenosis patients who underwent UBE ULBD were enrolled from April 2021 to February 2023. Visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and the modified MacNab criteria were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively. The preoperative and postoperative cross-sectional area of the spinal canal (CSAC), anteroposterior diameter, horizontal width, and ipsilateral and contralateral lateral recess height were calculated from axial computed tomography (CT) scans. Percentage of facet joint preservation measured on axial CT scans was obtained preoperation and postoperation.

RESULTS

 The VAS for back and leg pain improved from 7.24 ± 0.80 and 7.59 ± 0.59 preoperatively to 2.41 ± 0.55 and 2.37 ± 0.62 (p < 0.05) postoperatively and 1.37 ± 0.54 and 1.51 ± 0.55 at the last follow-up (p < 0.05). For ODI, improvement from 60.37 ± 4.44 preoperatively to 18.90 ± 4.66 (p < 0.05) at the last follow-up was observed. CT scans demonstrated that the postoperative CSAC increased significantly from 287.84 ± 87.81 to 232.97 ± 88.42 mm (p < 0.05). The mean postoperative anteroposterior diameter and horizontal width increased significantly from 18.01 ± 3.13 and 19.57 ± 3.80 to 22.19 ± 4.56 and 21.04 ± 3.72 mm, respectively (p < 0.05). The ipsilateral lateral recess height and contralateral lateral recess height were 3.39 ± 1.12 and 3.20 ± 1.14 mm preoperatively and 4.03 ± 1.37 and 3.83 ± 1.32 mm (p < 0.05) postoperatively, with significant differences. The ipsilateral and contralateral facet joint preservations were 88.17 and 93.18%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

 The UBE ULBD surgery is a safe and effective treatment for central lumbar spinal stenosis, associated with significant improvement in clinical outcomes and radiologic parameters. Studies with larger samples and longer follow-up periods are needed for further research.

Risk Factors of Hidden Blood Loss in Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Surgery for Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

OBJECTIVE

Unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) surgery has recently been used as a minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and is associated with less perioperative blood loss. However, perioperative hidden blood loss (HBL) may be neglected during UBE. This study aimed to examine the volume of HBL and discuss the influential risk factors for HBL during unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery.

METHODS

From January 2022 to August 2022, 51 patients underwent percutaneous unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis at the Department of Spinal Surgery of the Affiliated Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital of Southwest Medical University and were enrolled in this study. The data included general indicators (age, sex and body mass index [BMI]), underlying disease (hypertension and diabetes), laboratory test results (prothrombin time [PT], activated partial thromboplastin time [APTT], fibrinogen [Fbg]), and preoperative and postoperative hematocrit and hemoglobin), related imaging parameters (severity of intervertebral disc [IVD] degeneration and soft tissue thickness of the interlaminar approach), number of operated vertebrae and operation time. Total blood loss (TBL) and HBL during surgical procedures were measured via the Gross formula. Influential factors were further analyzed by multivariate linear regression analysis and t-tests.

RESULTS

The mean HBL was 257.89 ± 190.66 mL for single-operation patients and 296.58 ± 269.75 mL for two-operation patients. Patients with lower PT (p = 0.044), deeper tissue thickness (p = 0.047), and diabetes mellitus were determined to have more HBL during UBE. The operation time might also be an important factor (p = 0.047). However, sex (p = 0.265), age (p = 0.771/0.624), BMI (p = 0.655/0.664), APTT (p = 0.545/0.751), degree of degenerated IVD (p = 0.932/0.477), and hypertension (p = 0.356/0.896) were not related to HBL.

CONCLUSION

This study determined the different influential factors of HBL during UBE. PT, tissue thickness, and diabetes mellitus are the independent risk factors that affect HBL incidence. Long PT may decrease the volume of HBL within a certain range. Tissue thickness and diabetes mellitus can lead to an increased volume of HBL.

Study on early efficacy of UBED and PEID in the treatment of L5/S1 intervertebral disc herniation

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to compare early efficacy of UBED and PEID in the treatment of L5/S1 IDH.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty-two patients who underwent surgical treatment for L5/S1 IDH were divided into two groups: UBED and PEID. Operation time, complications, VAS/ODI score were recorded. MacNab evaluation was completed one and three months postoperatively.

RESULTS

All patients were successfully operated without infection, nerve injury, or huge hematoma in the spinal canal. There were no significant differences in operation time and hospitalization days between the two groups (p > 0.05). All patients were followed up after the operation and low back/leg pain was significantly reduced. VAS for low back pain, VAS for leg pain, ODI scores in both groups one and three months after the operation were significantly lower than pre-operation (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between one and three months after the operation in both groups (p > 0.05). There were no significant differences in VAS for low back pain, leg pain, ODI score, and overall efficacy between the two groups one and three months post-operation (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

UBED and PEID have very good early efficacy in treating L5/S1 IDH. Because UBED has a wider vision field and more flexible operation, it can be used as a useful complement to PEID.

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.

[Research progress of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis]

Objective

To review the application and progress of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Methods

The domestic and foreign literature on the application of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in the treatment of LSS was extensively reviewed, and the advantages, disadvantages, and complications of different surgical methods were summarized.

Results

At present, minimally invasive spinal decompression mainly includes microscopic bilateral decompression, microendoscopic decompression, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression, unilateral biportal endoscopy, and so on. Compared with traditional open surgery, different minimally invasive spinal decompression techniques can reduce the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative pain of patients, thereby reducing hospital stay and saving treatment costs.

Conclusion

The indications of different minimally invasive spinal decompression are different, but there are certain advantages and disadvantages. When patients have clear surgical indications, individualized treatment plans should be formulated according to the symptoms and signs of patients, combined with imaging manifestations.

Indications for and Outcomes of Three Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Approaches for the Decompression of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review

Objective: In this systematic review, we summarized the indications for and outcomes of three main unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) approaches for the decompression of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature was performed using Ovid Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid’s Cochrane Library. The following information was collected: surgical data; patients’ scores on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Macnab criteria; and surgical complications. Results: In total, 23 articles comprising 7 retrospective comparative studies, 2 prospective comparative studies, 12 retrospectives case series, and 2 randomized controlled trials were selected for quantitative analysis. The interlaminar approach for central and bilateral lateral recess stenoses, contralateral approach for isolated lateral recess stenosis, and paraspinal approach for foraminal stenosis were used in 16, 2, and 4 studies, respectively. In one study, both interlaminar and contralateral approaches were used. L4-5 was the most common level decompressed using the interlaminar and contralateral approaches, whereas L5-S1 was the most common level decompressed using the paraspinal approach. All three approaches provided favorable clinical outcomes at the final follow-up, with considerable improvements in patients’ VAS scores for leg pain (63.6–73.5%) and ODI scores (67.2–71%). The overall complication rate was <6%. Conclusions: The three approaches of UBE surgery are effective and safe for the decompression of various types of DLSS. In the future, long-term prospective studies and randomized control trials are warranted to explore this new technique further and to compare it with conventional surgical techniques.

Complications of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

In recent years, unilateral biportal endoscopic spinal surgery has been used for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with good results. Some investigators counted the total incidence of complications in unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, but none have analyzed the incidence of specific complications. The present study further counted the incidence of specific complications and gave the possible causes of the complications.

METHODS

English databases including PubMed were searched to collect relevant literature on unilateral biportal endoscopic spinal surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. The inquiry period is from January 1, 2015, to July 1, 2022. The literature was screened, information extracted, and risk of bias evaluated by the researchers, followed by Meta analysis using R4.2.1 and RStudio statistical software.

RESULTS

In total, we included 14 studies involving 707 patients. The included studies were retrospective case series, The results of the single-arm rate meta-analysis showed that the total complication rate of unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis was 8.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] [0.060; 0.103]); of which, the highest incidence of dural tear was 4.5% (95% CI [0.030; 0.064]), the incidence of symptomatic postoperative spinal epidural hematoma was approximately 1.1% (95% CI [0.001; 0.027]), the incidence of incomplete decompression was 2.0% (95% CI [0.007; 0.038]), the incidence of transient palsy was 2.6% (95% CI [0.005; 0.057]).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of total complications of unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis was 8.1%, dural tear remained a major complication with an incidence of 4.5%, incomplete decompression was 2.0%, transient palsy was 2.6%, and, unexpectedly, symptomatic postoperative spinal epidural hematoma was only 1.1%.

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.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Muscle Invasiveness between Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy and Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation at L5/S1 Level

OBJECTIVE

Both unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) could achieve favorable outcomes for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). There are limited studies comparing the two different methods of endoscopic discectomy. The objective was to comprehensively compare the clinical outcome and muscle invasiveness of UBED and PEID for the treatment of LDH at L5/S1 level with at least 1-year follow-up.

METHODS

The retrospective cohort study enrolled 106 LDH patients of L5/S1 level from January 2018 to December 2020. There were 51 patients who underwent UBED (22 males and 29 females, 43.8 ± 14.2 years old) and 55 patients underwent PEID (28 males and 27 females, 42.3 ± 13.8 years old). Clinical outcomes and surgical invasiveness were compared between the two groups for at least 1 year follow-up. Clinical outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), complications, recurrence of LDH, intraoperative anesthesia time, operative time, number of intraoperative fluoroscopies, and postoperative length of stay. Surgical invasiveness was evaluated with serum CPK level and change rate of lean multifidus cross-sectional area (LMCSA). Independent-sample t test and paired sample t test were used to compare continuous data. Chi-square test and Fisher's precision probability tests were used to analyze the categorical data.

RESULTS

Both groups achieved favorable clinical outcomes at the last follow-up, including VAS and ODI (all Ps <0.05). The intraoperative anesthesia time for UBED was longer, but with no difference of operative time. As for intraoperative fluoroscopy times (2.5 vs 2.4), postoperative length of stay (2.1 vs 2.0 days), postoperative complications (5.9% vs 3.6%), there were also no significant difference. The serum CPK level and change rate of LMCSA for UBED was higher than PEID at postoperative 1st day. At the last follow-up, there was no significant difference in the change rate of LMCSA between the two groups (P = 0.096).

CONCLUSIONS

Both UBED and PEID could achieve favorable clinical outcomes for the treatment of L5/S1 LDH. Despite UBED is more invasive, the radiological manifestation of paraspinal muscle invasiveness was equal at last follow-up with at least 1 year. UBED is a safe and innovative alternative choice for treatment of LDH at L5/S1 level.

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.

Complications of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-analysis of Single-arm Studies

PURPOSE

This article aims to summarize the incidence of these complications through a meta-analysis, analyze the causes of complications and provide clinical promotion and recommendations.

METHODS

Databases and retrieval platform including PubMed, Web of science, Springer link, Cochrane clinical trials, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, Europe PMC, Wiley online, OVID, Clinical trials, CNKI and WanFang, and supplement the literature through Google Scholar, collect all the unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) controlled trials and non-controlled trials of UBE in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). The search time limit is from January 1, 2000 to December 25, 2021. After two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies, meta-analysis was performed using Stata 15.1 software.

RESULTS

Finally, 24 studies were included, including 999 patients. The results of a single-arm rate meta-analysis showed that the overall complication rate of UBE treatment of LSS was 6.27% [95% CI (0.0412, 0.0876)], and the incidence of dural tear was 2.49% [95% CI (0.0133, 0.0390)], the incidence of transient paresthesia was 0.14% [95% CI (0.0000, 0.0072)], the incidence of postoperative spinal epidural hematoma was 0.27% [95% CI (0.0000, 0.0096)], the incidence of postop headache, inadequate decompression, root injury and infection was 0.00%.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence shows that the complication rate of UBE in the treatment of LSS is low, mainly due to dural tears. Limited by the number and quality of included studies, the above conclusions still need to be confirmed by more studies.

A new method for establishing operative channels in unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery: Technical notes and preliminary results

BACKGROUND

The unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) technique has been widely used in spine surgery. At present, a traditional rigid working channel is available for the UBE system. A metal semicircular canal is located in the working channel. However, due to the metal material of the working channel, arthroscopy and instruments are constrained from moving in UBE surgery. Additionally, an assistant is needed during the procedure to hold the traditional working channel.

OBJECTIVE

For simplicity of operation and convenient movement of the arthroscopy and instrument, we describe a new method for establishing operative channels in UBE surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 50 patients who underwent unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) from February 2020 to August 2020 via our new method. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) score were measured preoperatively and 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months postoperatively. Statistical comparisons were made using analysis of covariance and paired t tests.

RESULTS

The VAS scores for back pain at the five time points were 5.20 ± 2.57, 1.96 ± 0.95, 1.50 ± 0.84, 1.64 ± 1.08 and 1.18 ± 0.39. The leg pain VAS scores were 7.02 ± 2.25, 2.02 ± 1.27, 1.48 ± 0.89, 1.32 ± 0.79 and 0.88 ± 0.52. The ODI values were 51.08 ± 19.97, 19.62 ± 15.51, 8.26 ± 7.40, and 7.54 ± 6.42 to 3.24 ± 1.10. The postoperative ODIs and VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain were significantly lower than those before surgery, and differences were statistically significant (all p< 0.05). The pressure of the closed outflow was significantly higher than that of the open outflow (37.35 ± 13.11 mm Hg vs. 24.55 ± 12.64 mm Hg p= 0.003). After we tightened the infusion strap to open the outflow, the pressure decreased significantly (26.4 ± 14.08 mm Hg vs. 37.35 ± 13.11 mm Hg p= 0.015). There were 2 cases of complications, including 1 case of postoperative recurrence and 1 case of dural tears.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the technical feasibility, safety, and efficacy of modified channel establishment in UBE surgery.

[Research of learning curves for unilateral biportal endoscopy technique and associated postoperative adverse events]

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the characteristics of the learning curve and the occurrence of postoperative adverse events during the development of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique by comparing the clinical data of early and late patients treated with UBE technique.

METHODS

All patients who underwent single-level UBE technique between April 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021 were selected as the research subjects. According to the surgical options, all patients were allocated into 3 groups: unilateral decompression and discectomy (UDD) group, unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) group, and lumbar intervertebral fusion (LIF) group. The first 60 cases from each group were extracted and ranked orderly. The endoscopic operation time, the times of fluoroscopy during non-internal fixation implantation, the postoperative hospital stay, the drainage volume, the decrease of hemoglobin, the decrease of hematocrit, and the adverse events were collected. In each group, the patients were allocated into early and late cases according to the operation sequence. The first 30 cases of each group were classified as early cases, and the last 30 cases as late cases. Statistical analysis was performed on the above observation indicators between the early and late cases, and a scatter plot of relevant data changes was drawn to observe the change trend.

RESULTS

Compared with the early cases, the endoscopic operation time and the times of fluoroscopy during non-internal fixation implantation of late cases in each group were significantly lower ( P<0.05); the postoperative hospital stay of late cases in LIF group was significantly shorter ( P<0.05); the decreased values of hemoglobin and hematokrit of late cases in ULBD group and LIF group were significantly lower ( P<0.05); the postoperative drainage volume of late cases in ULBD group significantly decreased ( P<0.05). The endoscopic operation time and the times of fluoroscopy during non-internal fixation implantation of 3 groups showed a significant downward trend. The adverse events occurred in 3 early cases and 1 late case of the UDD group, in 6 and 3 cases of the UBLD group, and 8 and 3 cases of the LIF group, respectively. The difference was not significant between the early and late cases ( P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

In the early practice of UBE technique, there is a high incidence of complication, and the surgical trauma is relatively large, which is related to the lack of understanding of the UBE technique characteristics and insufficient surgical experience. With the proficiency of surgical techniques and accumulation of experience, the operation time and the incidence of postoperative adverse events were significantly reduced.

Biportal endoscopic spine surgery for cervical disk herniation: A technical notes and preliminary report

Biportal endoscopic spine surgery (BESS) for cervical disk herniation (CDH) has been rarely reported. The aim of the article is to describe a novel BESS as a posterior approach for CDH and report the preliminary outcomes and complications. This single-centered retrospective chart review included 109 consecutive patients who underwent BESS for symptomatic single-level CDH. Working and viewing portals were created in each unilateral paravertebral area at the target disk level. Endoscopic exploration allowed for effective and minimally invasive decompression via safe access to the medial foramen with minimal laminectomy and facetectomy. Clinical outcomes, including the visual analog scale, neck disability index, Macnab criteria, and the motor function of the involved arm, were evaluated at 4, 8, 12, and 24 postoperative weeks. Visual analog scale and neck disability index improved significantly at 24 weeks postoperatively (P < .01). According to the Macnab criteria, "excellent," "good," and "fair" results were obtained for 55.9%, 30.3%, and 13.8% of patients, respectively. The post 24-week distribution of the involved upper extremity strength grade was significantly improved compared to the initial value (P = .02). One patient had a motor weakness with a decreased grade over 4 weeks from excessive irrigation. The posterior approach of BESS was efficient and feasible for the treatment of CDH.

Effects of Knee Debridement with Flurbiprofen on Knee Function, Inflammatory Levels, and Bone Metabolism Activity in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis

Objective

The objective of this study is to explore the effects of knee debridement with flurbiprofen on the knee function, inflammatory levels, and bone metabolism activity in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Methods

110 patients with knee osteoarthritis who underwent arthroscopic debridement in our hospital from 2020.01 to 2022.01 were selected for retrospective analysis. Based on whether or not flurbiprofen was used in combination during the perioperative phase, the patients were divided into the control group (only arthroscopic debridement of the knee) and the research group (flurbiprofen with arthroscopic debridement of the knee), with 55 cases in each group. The indexes such as knee function, inflammatory levels, and bone metabolism activity of the two groups were analyzed.

Results

According to hospital for special surgery (HSS) evaluation for knee function, most patients in the control group were assessed as “moderate,” while patients in the research group were mainly focused on “excellent” and “good,” and their excellent and good rates were remarkably higher than those in the control group (P < 0.05). There were no significant variations in bone metabolism indices such as osteoprotegerin levels (OPG), insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), β-isomerized C-terminal telopeptide (β-CTX), and receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL) before treatment between both groups (P > 0.05), with higher OPG, IGF-1 levels, and remarkably lower β-CTX, RANKL levels in the research group than those in the control group after treatment (P < 0.05). There were no remarkable differences in pain between both groups before treatment (P > 0.05), while at 24 h and 48 h after surgery, the VAS scores in the research group were remarkably lower than those in the control group (P < 0.05). In terms of inflammatory factors, the levels of interleukin-1β (IL-1β), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) in the research group were remarkably lower than those in the control group after treatment (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Arthroscopy coupled with flurbiprofen provides a good analgesic effect in the therapeutic treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis, which contributes to the recovery of knee function with definite results. Its mechanism may be associated with the control of inflammatory response and the regulation of bone metabolism disorder.

[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.

Salmonella spondylodiscitis and epidural abscess successfully treated with unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy and debridement: a rare case report

Spinal epidural abscess (SEA) is a rare but severe infection with potentially devastating consequences. Epidural abscesses caused by Salmonella serogroup C2 are even rarer and tend to be more invasive with multidrug resistance. Early diagnosis, effective use of antibiotics and surgical intervention are the mainstay strategies for managing SEA, especially for more virulent and multidrug-resistant Salmonella infections. This case report presents a rare case of an elderly and fragile woman with Salmonella spondylodiscitis and an extensive epidural abscess, which were successfully treated with intravenous antibiotics and unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) debridement and drainage through four small surgical incisions. After surgery, her fever subsided, she regained consciousness and her low back pain dramatically improved. Follow-up magnetic resonance imaging showed complete resolution of the epidural abscess. At 6 months after surgery, the patient regained muscle strength, ambulated with a walker and had no recurrence of the infection. The UBE technique can effectively eradicate infection while minimizing surgery-related risks and complications. A multidisciplinary team is required to achieve a good outcome.

Global and Current Research Trends of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy/Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Bibliometric and Visualization Study

The study aimed to make a bibliometric analysis of the current research situation in unilateral biportal endoscopy/biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (UBE/BESS). Research data sets were acquired from the Web of Science database. The study chosed “biportal endoscopic spinal surgery” OR “two portal endoscopic spinal surgery” OR “percutaneous biportal endoscopic decompression” OR “unilateral biportal endoscopy” OR “irrigation endoscopic discectomy” as the search terms. The literature search was limited to articles published before March 5, 2021. We only included original articles and reviews. VOS viewer and Citespace software were used to analyze the data and generate visualization knowledge maps. Annual trend of publications, distribution, H‐index status, co‐authorship status, and research hotspots were analyzed. A total of 74 publications met the requirement. The sum number of citations was 31,204, in which 19,336 were no self‐citations. The average citation of all the papers was 21.84 times. The H‐index of all the publications was 85. South Korea's total number of articles was far higher than that of other countries and regions (61, 82.4%), followed by United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Peoples Republic of China (three, ranking second, accounting for 12.2% of the total). For the most productive authors, Choi ranked first with 21 articles, Kim ranked second with 16 articles, and Heo ranked third with 12 articles. The journal with the greatest number of publications was World Neurosurgery, with a total of 18 (39.1%) papers. Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery ranked second with six (13.0%) papers. In third place, there were fix articles published by Asian Spine Journal and Neurospine, accounting for 21.8% of the total articles. These top three journals accounted for 73.9% of all the papers. Spondylolisthesis and endoscopic decompression were the research hotspots in recent years. The number of publications has showed an upward trend with a stable rise in recent years. South Korea is the country with the highest productivity, not only in quality, but also in quantity. Barun Hosp and Leon Wiltse Mem Hosphave published most articles. Choi is the most productive author. World Neurosurgery is the most productive journal. Spondylolisthesis and endoscopic decompression are the research hotspots in recent years. Indeed, this study provides new insight into the growth and development of UBE/BESS.

Lumbosacral interbody fusion using a biportal endoscopic technique for patients with multilevel severe degenerative lumbosacral spondylosis: Technical note and case presentations

Background Open decompression and posterior interbody fusion are standard surgical interventions for multiple degenerative lumbosacral spondylosis (DLS). Despite their clinical efficacy, intraoperative and postoperative complications have led to the demand for a minimally invasive approach. A biportal endoscopic approach is an advanced minimally invasive surgical option. Objective and Methods The data of two patients with multiple DLS who had undergone biportal endoscopic spine surgery (BESS) were retrospectively analyzed. Parameters such as the surgical difficulty, duration of operation, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications were reviewed. Pain and functionality were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), respectively. Results Both patients were female and aged 75 and 73 years, respectively; they complained of back pain, claudication, pain and weakness in the lower extremities, and gait disturbance. The symptoms lasted 5 and 8 years, respectively. The multilevel BESS approach was applied bilaterally. Dissection, laminofacetectomy, decompression, excision, cage insertion, and screw implantation were performed. The operation durations were 170 and 160 minutes with blood loss of 500 mL and 650 mL, respectively. Back pain, leg pain, and ODI scores significantly improved; no false joints or additional neurological deficits were noted on follow-up. Conclusions The presented BESS technique is a minimally invasive treatment option for patients with multiple DLS, which typically requires a complicated surgical approach. Randomized controlled studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are needed to verify the superiority of this operation.

Efficacy and Complications of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

As an emerging minimally invasive endoscopic technique, unilateral biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (UBESS) has the advantages of flexibility, a wide and clear field of view, and less soft tissue damage. However, the clinical evidence is insufficient and controversy exists regarding UBESS for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). In the present meta-analysis, we investigated the clinical efficacy and complications of UBESS for the treatment of LSS.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched through to June 1, 2021 to identify all reported studies on UBESS for LSS. Only English-language studies with original reported data from ≥30 cases were considered for inclusion. The patient demographics, operative time, hospital stay, complications, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index, and Macnab criteria were extracted. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane collaboration tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for retrospective studies. A meta-analysis was performed using a random or fixed effect model according to the heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with 586 patients and 607 operation levels were included. The mean single-level operative time, hospital stay, and follow-up duration were 61.10 minutes, 2.32 days, and 14.7 months, respectively. At the final follow-up visit, the mean VAS score for leg pain had decreased from 7.23 preoperatively to 1.83 postoperatively, the mean VAS score for back pain had decreased from 6.30 to 1.95, and the mean Oswestry disability index had significantly improved from 56.99 to 17.83. The average satisfied outcome (excellent or good using the Macnab criteria) was 86%. The overall complication rate was 5%, and the most common complication was a dural tear, with an incidence of 2%, followed by epidural hematoma with an incidence of 1%. The remaining complications were nerve root injury, inadequate decompression, and postoperative headache.

CONCLUSIONS

From the available clinical results and experience from reported studies, UBESS for LSS is a feasible and effective approach and a worthwhile choice for clinicians. However, the complications associated with the procedure should also be seriously considered.

Surgical decompression via the unilateral intervertebral foraminal approach with local anesthesia for treating elderly patients with lumbar central canal stenosis

OBJECTIVE

Surgical decompression via a posterior interlaminar approach is widely used for treating lumbar central canal stenosis (LCCS). However, this surgical approach poses a challenge for elderly patients with comorbidities. Thus, the authors tried a new surgical decompression via the unilateral intervertebral foraminal approach with local anesthesia to treat such patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of surgical decompression via the unilateral intervertebral foraminal approach with local anesthesia for patients with LCCS.

METHODS

Patients with LCCS who underwent surgical decompression, performed by a single surgeon, between January 2016 and March 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients received decompression via the unilateral intervertebral foraminal approach with local anesthesia. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, modified Macnab criteria, walking distance, and Schizas classification were used as outcome predictors. Additionally, a decompression evaluation method was designed for use after spinal endoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

Overall, 23 patients with a mean age of 69 years were included in this study, with a mean follow-up of 28 months. Low-back and leg pain were significantly improved after decompression surgery. Postoperative ODI scores and walking distances were statistically significantly better than before surgery. Postoperatively, the Schizas classification for all patients was improved by at least 1 grade compared with the preoperative grade. No complications occurred during the follow-up period. According to the novel decompression evaluation method, all patients had at least achieved decompression in part 123+B.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical decompression via the unilateral intervertebral foraminal approach with local anesthesia showed promising outcomes in the treatment of elderly patients with LCCS. Additionally, a proposed postoperative decompression evaluation method can help guide surgical decompression.

Clinical comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for single l4/5-level lumbar disk herniation

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this research was to investigate the outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for the single L4/5-level lumbar disk herniation (sLDH).

METHODS

From January 2018 to January 2021, a total of 40 patients with sLDH were retrospectively analyzed in this study. All the patients had received spinal surgeries in Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University and Affiliated Nantong Hospital 3 of Nantong University. Among them, 20 patients were treated with PELD (PELD group), and 20 patients were treated with UBE discectomy (UBE group). Postoperative length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, operation time, and clinical complications of the patients were compared between the two groups. The visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were measured before surgeries and 3 days, 1, and 6 months after surgeries.

RESULTS

Compared with the UBE group, the PELD group had obviously less intraoperative blood loss, shorter operative time, and shorter hospital stay. The differences in the rate of complications were not statistically significant between the two groups. The VAS score and the ODI score of the two groups had a great reduction after operation. In addition, both the groups had satisfactory clinical outcome; the VAS score and ODI of the PELD group decreased more obviously.

CONCLUSION

The UBE for sLDH yielded similar clinical outcomes to PELD as minimally invasive surgeries; however, PELD is superior to UBE in terms of intraoperative blood loss, operative time, postoperative hospitalization, and short-term postoperative pain relief. The advantages and disadvantages of the two surgeries should be circumspectly balanced when evaluating a patient for a minimally invasive surgery for sLDH, selecting the most appropriate surgical method for patients.

Biportal endoscopic technique in the treatment of spinal stenosis: early clinical experiences and results

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive procedures in spine surgery have undergone significant development in recent times. A demand emerged from both surgeons and patients to develop and perform these types of surgeries in order to prevent biomechanical and surgical complications. Our study aimed to present early clinical results of a biportal endoscopy technique in the treatment of degenerative spinal stenosis.

METHOD

We created a retrospective database of patients who underwent biportal spinal endoscopic decompression at the National Institute of Clinical Neuroscience, Department of Neurosurgery, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary, in 2019. The surgical steps of technique is discussed in details.

RESULTS

Retrospectively, we identified and collected 21 patients in our retrospective analysis. The early results after endoscopic decompression were excellent, 17 patients (81%) mentioned good general comfort which coincided with small incisions and the preservation of posterior spinal muscles. Three patients (14%) mentioned good condition and minor postoperative pain which could be controlled with analgesics. One patients (5%) mentioned postoperative discomfort. The patients were controlled at 3, 6 and 9 months. The mean follow-up time was 7 months.

DISCUSSION

Biportal endoscopic technique was developed to fulfil the requirements of minimally invasive techniques. Our results indicate this method may be highly effective for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and an alternative to conventional microsurgical decompression; however, our study limited by its retrospective manner and small population size.

Novel Instruments for Percutaneous Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery for Full Decompression and Dural Management: A Comparative Analysis

Background: Post-laminectomy syndrome is a common cause of dissatisfaction after endoscopic interlaminar approach. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of our two newly designed instruments for laminotomy, a dural protector attached to the scope and a knot pusher for water-tight suturing of the incidental dural tears. Material and Methods: This was a multicenter evaluation. Efficacy was quantified as the pre-to-postoperative improvement in pain (visual analog scale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), patient satisfaction (modified MacNab score), and length of hospital stay. Safety was quantified by the incidence and location of dural tears, rate of revision, and radiological outcomes. Outcomes were evaluated between the control (before instrument development) and experimental (after instrument development) groups. Results: There was a significant improvement in leg pain in the experimental group (p = 0.03), with greater patient satisfaction in the control group (p < 0.01). There was no incidence of dural tears in the area of the traversing and exiting nerve roots in the experimental group. Water-tightness of sutures was confirmed radiologically. Conclusion: The novel dural protector and the knot pusher for water-tight sutures improved the efficacy and safety of decompression and discectomy; however, a prolonged operative time was a drawback.