Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression for degenerative lumbar canal stenosis

Unilateral biportal endoscopic surgical decompression for symptomatic ossification of the ligamentum flavum - Is it enough to improve the clinical outcome? A case-control study

Purpose

Open decompression is currently the standard surgical procedure for symptomatic OLF. As the minimal invasive method gains popularity, UBE is considered a reliable technique with less complication. However, the outcome is still in question. This study aimed to evaluate and compare UBE versus open surgery in symptomatic OLF cases.

Methods

We evaluated 35 patients with single- or two-level thoracic OLF, underwent decompression by open or UBE. Surgery duration, estimated blood loss, and LOS were recorded as intraoperative parameters. Minimum follow-up was 1 year to evaluate clinical parameters based on the mJOA score, Frankel grade, and recovery rate (RR).

Results

The UBE procedure showed significant superiority with faster surgery (62.5 min vs. 180 min; p < 0.001), less blood loss (50 mL vs. 250 mL; p < 0.001), and shorter LOS (4 days vs. 6 days; p < 0,001). UBE patients showed notable clinical improvement on the mJOA score at 1 year (8.2 ± 0.18 vs. 6.8 ± 0.24; p = 0.015). Frankel grade improvements seen in both groups with 51.4% of subjects having at least a 1-point upgrade. RR in 1 year resulted in significant recovery in UBE group (RR-UBE 43.2 ± 17 vs. RR-open 26.3 ± 15.3; p < 0.05). No neurological deterioration or significant complication occurred after either procedure.

Conclusion

The UBE technique allows faster decompression with less blood loss and shorter LOS compared to open surgery. It was found to be a reliable treatment option in treating OLF with favorable clinical outcomes and improved patient neurological status.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Insights into Spinal Glomangioma of a Unique Intradural, Extramedullary Presentation-Systematic Review

Contemporary literature lacks examples of intradural, extramedullary spinal glomangiomas. Moreover, glomus tumors in general are exceedingly rare among benign spinal tumors and are mostly located within epidural space or within intervertebral foramen, and only a few cases have been documented to date. This report provides a detailed analysis of the clinical presentation, imaging characteristics, surgical intervention, and pathological findings of a 45-year-old patient experiencing progressive locomotor deterioration. The tumor was surgically excised, and subsequent histological examination identified it as a representative of glomus tumors-a glomangioma. Notably, this represents a unique case as it was the first example of such a tumor being discovered intradurally. Radical surgical excision remains the modality of choice in most benign spinal tumors of this localization. Although the malignant transformation of glomus tumors within the spine has not been documented thus far, cases have arisen in other areas. Consequently, we will investigate potential oncological treatments for cases with malignant potential and highlight advancements in surgical techniques for benign intradural spinal tumors.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Evolution, Current Trends, and Latest Advances of Endoscopic Spine Surgery

Background: The aging of the population in developing and developed countries has led to a significant increase in the health burden of spinal diseases. These elderly patients often have a number of medical comorbidities due to aging. The need for minimally invasive techniques to address spinal disorders in this elderly population group cannot be stressed enough. Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has several proven benefits, such as minimal muscle trauma, minimal bony resection, lesser postoperative pain, decreased infection rate, and shorter hospital stay. Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature was performed using PubMed. Results: Over the past 40 years, constant efforts have been made to develop newer techniques of spine surgery. Endoscopic spine surgery is one such subset of MISS, which has all the benefits of modern MISS. Endoscopic spine surgery was initially limited only to the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. With improvements in optics, endoscopes, endoscopic drills and shavers, and irrigation pumps, there has been a paradigm shift. Endoscopic spine surgery can now be performed with high magnification, thus allowing its application not only to lumbar spinal stenosis but also to spinal fusion surgeries and cervical and thoracic pathology as well. There has been increasing evidence in support of these newer techniques of spine surgery. Conclusions: For this report, we studied the currently available literature and outlined the historical evolution of endoscopic spine surgery, the various endoscopic systems and techniques available, and the current applications of endoscopic techniques as an alternative to traditional spinal surgery.

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.

Systemic Inflammatory Markers and Clinical Outcomes of Open versus Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to preliminarily assess the change in perioperative systemic inflammatory markers and clinical outcomes between open TLIF and BE-TLIF procedures.

Patients and Methods

In total, 38 patients who underwent single-level lumbar fusion surgery (L4-5 or L5-S1) were retrospectively reviewed. 19 patients were treated by the BE-TLIF technique, while the other patients were managed using open TLIF. The perioperative serum C-reactive protein (CRP), neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lymphocyte/monocyte ratio (LMR), and platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR) of the two groups were compared to determine if there was a statistical difference. Meanwhile, clinical evaluations were conducted to assess various factors including operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), drainage catheter stay, length of hospitalization, visual analogue scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores.

Results

The perioperative analysis revealed that BE-TLIF cases experienced a longer operative duration than open TLIF cases (open TLIF: 138.63 ± 31.59 min, BE-TLIF: 204.58 ± 49.37 min, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, the EBL showed an increased trend in the BE-TLIF group (260.7 ± 211.9 mL) in comparison with the open TLIF group (200.9 ± 211.9 mL) (p =0.485). In terms of systemic inflammatory markers, the mean postoperative CRP, NLR, LMR, and PLR were lower in the BE-TLIF group than in the open TLIF group, although these differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The VAS and ODI scores in both groups were significantly improved after surgery (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

There was no significant difference found between BE-TLIF and open TLIF in terms of systemic inflammatory markers, and clinical outcomes. Overall, BE-TLIF can be considered a viable choice for lumbar canal decompression and interbody fusion for less invasion. It is worth noting that BE-TLIF does have a longer operation time, indicating that there is still potential for further improvement in this technique.

Imaging anatomy study related to unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar spine surgery

PURPOSE

To provide lumbar spine anatomical parameters relevant to the UBE technique and explore their intraoperative application.

METHODS

CT imaging data processed by Mimics for parametric measurements, including laminar abduction angle (LAA), laminar slope angle (LSA), minimum laminar height (MLH), distance between the inferior margin of the lamina and attachment of the ligamentum flavum onto the cephalad lamina (DLL), distance between the initial point and the middle of the articular process (DIA), and distance from the inferior margin of the lamina to the inferior border of the vertebral body (DLV), and were manually measured.

RESULTS

LAA and DIA gradually increase from L1 to L5. At L1, the DIA is approximately the length of 2 drill bits with a diameter of 3 mm (male: 7.77 ± 1.39 mm, female: 7.22 ± 1.09 mm), while at L5, it can reach the length of 4-5 drill bits (male: 14.96 ± 2.24 mm, female: 13.67 ± 2.33 mm). MLH, DLL, and DLV reach their maximum values at the L3 and decrease toward the cranial and caudal ends. The DLL is smallest at L5 (male: 9.58 ± 1.90 mm, female: 9.38 ± 2.14 mm), equivalent to the length of 3 drill bits, while the DLL at L3 is the length of 4-5 drill bits (male: 14.17 ± 2.13 mm, female: 14.01 ± 2.07 mm).

CONCLUSION

Referring to the drill diameter during surgery can mark the extent of laminotomy. The characteristics of vertebral plate angles at different lumbar levels can provide references for preoperative incision design.

One-hole split endoscope versus unilateral biportal endoscopy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective propensity score study

BACKGROUND

The one-hole split endoscopy (OSE) was first proposed and clinically applied in China in 2019. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of one-hole split endoscopy (OSE) and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) for treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

One hundred sixty patients with LSS who met the inclusion from November 2020 to August 2022 were analyzed and divided into OSE and UBE groups. The propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to adjust the imbalanced confounding variables between the two groups. After matching, surgical outcomes were recorded, and clinical data, including functional scores and imaging findings, were compared. Functional scores included the visual analog scale of leg pain (VAS-LP) and back pain (VAS-BP), the Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Imaging data included dural sac cross-sectional area (DCSA), lumbar range of motion (ROM), and sagittal translation (ST).

RESULTS

After PSM, 104 LSS patients were included in the study, and all covariates were well-balanced between the two groups. Among the matched patients, the OSE showed advantages over the UBE regarding operative time (62.42 ± 4.86 vs. 68.96 ± 4.56) and incision length (2.30 ± 0.14 vs. 2.70 ± 0.15) (P < 0.001). However, differences between the two groups in intraoperative blood loss, hospital length of stay, and complication rates were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference regarding VAS-BP, VAS-LP, JOA, and ODI between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, all clinical and functional scores significantly improved postoperatively (P < 0.05). Postoperative DCSA of both groups was significantly found to be improved (P < 0.05), ROM and ST remained within the normal range, and no cases of lumbar instability were recorded. According to the modified MacNab criteria, the excellent and good rates in the OSE and UBE groups were 94.23% and 90.38%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.713).

CONCLUSION

OSE is an alternative technique to UBE for the treatment of LSS, with similar satisfactory clinical outcomes, shorter operative time, and smaller incision length. Further studies are needed for long-term efficacy.

Treatment Concept and Technical Considerations of Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Decompression is a major component of surgical procedures for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). In addition to sufficient decompression to guarantee the relief of neurological pain, compensating surgical instability after wider laminectomy and foraminotomy and instrumentation with caging and fusion with grafting are performed to secure or restore the foraminal dimension and correct coronal/sagittal imbalance for longer survival of the adjacent segment. Endoscopic spinal surgery (ESS) has been developed under the flag of successful decompression while preserving structural integrity as much as possible with the help of magnification and illumination. ESS provides a technical possibility and feasibility for solving LSS by decompression alone. Recently, many endoscopic trials have been conducted to overcome conventional surgical treatment that requires wider dissection, escape inevitable complications from surgical damage, and compensate for the fusion technique. However, biportal ESS has some technical limitations, including clinical difficulties in accessibility for more moderate to severe stenosis and challenges for complicated conditions with segmental ventral slip, isthmic defect, stenosis combined with foraminal stenosis or foraminal disk rupture, or degenerative segmental scoliosis with disk height collapsing and endplate fatigue fracture. Because decompression alone is a skill for eliminating pathologies, there is no function of preserving degenerative structure or stopping the recurrence of disk degeneration or subsidence. This review of clinical reports investigated the possibility of biportal ESS for treating degenerative lumbar disorders by sufficient decompression and adequate elimination of various pathologies and decreasing technical complications. The results of this study may help develop better innovative spinal surgical techniques in the near future.

Outcomes of FETD versus UBE in the treatment of L5S1 foraminal stenosis: A comparative study

Background

The L5S1 level exhibits unique anatomical features compared with other levels. This makes minimally invasive surgery for L5S1 foraminal stenosis (FS) challenging. This study compared the surgical outcomes of full endoscopic transforaminal decompression (FETD) and unilateral biportal endoscopy with the far-lateral approach (UBEFLA) in patients with L5S1FS.

Methods

In this retrospective study, 49 patients with L5S1FS were divided into two groups. Of these, 24 patients underwent FETD, 25 patients underwent UBEFLA. The study assessed demographic data, leg pain visual analog scale (VAS) score, back pain VAS score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), modified MacNab outcome scale, and radiographic parameters including postoperative lateral facet preservation (POLFP).

Results

The Mann-Whitney U test revealed that the UBEFLA group exhibited a higher VAS score for back pain at one week after the operation, whereas the FETD group exhibited a higher leg pain VAS score 6 weeks after the operation. All four undesired MacNab outcomes in the FETD group were attributed to residual leg pain, whereas all five undesired MacNab outcomes in the UBEFLA group were due to recurrent symptoms. Radiographically, the FETD group exhibited greater POLFP.

Conclusions

When L5S1FS is performed, there may be challenges in adequately clearing the foraminal space in FETD. On the other hand, UBEFLA allowed for a more comprehensive clearance. However, this advantage of UBEFLA was associated with spinal instability as a future outcome.

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.

[Comparison of effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic and uniportal interlaminar endoscopic decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis]

Objective

To compare the effectiveness between unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression (ULBD) with unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and uniportal interlaminar endoscopy (UIE) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Methods

A clinical data of 52 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, who met the selection criteria and treated with ULBD between March 2021 and November 2022, was retrospectively analyzed. The patients were allocated into UBE group (23 cases) and UIE group (29 cases) according to the surgical methods. There was no significant difference ( P>0.05) in age, gender, body mass index, surgical segment, type of lumbar stenosis, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), disc height, and dural sac area between the two groups. Perioperative indexes (incision length, operation time, hospital stay, and surgical complications), clinical indicators (VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, and ODI before operation and at 3 days, 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months after operation), and imaging indicators (disc height and dural sac area before operation and at 1, 12 months after operation, and dural sac expansion area) were recorded and compared between the two group.

Results

All operations in both groups were successfully completed. Compared with the UIE group, the UBE group had shorter operation time and longer incision length, with significant differences ( P<0.05). But there was no significant difference in hospital stay and incidence of complications between the two groups ( P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12-20 months (mean, 14 months). The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain and ODI after operation significantly improved when compared with preoperative values ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in the above indicators between different time points after operation ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups at different time points ( P>0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference in disc height between the two groups at different time points after operation ( P>0.05). However, the dural sac area and dural sac expansion area were significantly larger in the UBE group than in the UIE group ( P<0.05).

Conclusion

ULBD with UBE and UIE can achieve satisfactory effectiveness in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. But the former has more thorough decompression and better dural sac expansion than the latter.

[Comparison of effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for degree degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis]

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) in the treatment of degreeⅠdegenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).

Methods

A clinical data of 58 patients with degreeⅠDLS who met the selection criteria between October 2021 and October 2022 was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 28 cases were treated with unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression (decompression group) and 30 cases with ULIF (ULIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05) in the gender, age, lesion segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), disk height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), and other baseline data. The operation time, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative ambulation time, VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, ODI, laboratory examination indexes (CRP, ESR), and imaging parameters (DH, SL) were compared between the two groups.

Results

Compared with the ULIF group, the decompression group had shorter operation time, less postoperative drainage, and earlier ambulation ( P<0.05). All incisions healed by first intention, and no complication such as nerve root injury, epidural hematoma, or infection occurred. All patients were followed up 12 months. Laboratory tests showed that ESR and CRP at 3 days after operation in decompression group were not significantly different from those before operation ( P>0.05), while the above indexes in ULIF group significantly increased at 3 days after operation compared to preoperative values ( P<0.05). There were significant differences in the changes of ESR and CRP before and after operation between the two groups ( P<0.05). Except that the VAS score of low back pain at 3 days after operation was not significantly different from that before operation in decompression group ( P>0.05), there were significant differences in VAS score of low back pain and VAS score of leg pain between the two groups at other time points ( P<0.05). The VAS score of low back pain in ULIF group was significantly higher than that in decompression group at 3 days after operation ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back pain and VAS score of leg pain between the two groups at other time points ( P>0.05). The ODI of the two groups significantly improved after operation ( P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between 3 days and 6 months after operation ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups at the two time points after operation ( P<0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference in DH and SL between pre-operation and 12 months after operation in decompression group ( P>0.05). However, the above two indexes in ULIF group were significantly higher than those before operation ( P<0.05). There were significant differences in the changes of DH and SL before and after operation between the two groups ( P<0.05).

Conclusion

Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression can achieve good effectiveness in the treatment of degree Ⅰ DLS. Compared with ULIF, it can shorten operation time, reduce postoperative drainage volume, promote early ambulation, reduce inflammatory reaction, and accelerate postoperative recovery. ULIF has more advantages in restoring intervertebral DH and SL.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy for migrated lumbar disc herniation at lower lumbar spine: a retrospective controlled study

BACKGROUND

Both Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy (UBED) and Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy (PEID) have resulted in favorable clinical outcomes in the management of LDH. The aim of this study is to comprehensively compare the efficacy of UBED and PEID in treating migrated LDH in the lower lumbar spine, with a specific focus on high-grade migrated LDH.

METHODS

96 patients who underwent UBED (31 cases) and PEID (65 cases) procedures were enrolled in the study. All patients received a minimum follow-up period of 6 months. Clinical outcomes of the patients were assessed with incision length, operation time, total hemoglobin loss, hospital stay, intraoperative fluoroscopy times, visual analogue scale (VAS) for lower back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), modified MacNab criteria, complications, area of lamina loss and increased intervertebral height.

RESULTS

The VAS scores for lower back and leg pain and ODI significantly decreased in both groups after the operation. Preoperatively, at 1 day, 1 month, and 6 months after the procedure, the VAS and ODI scores exhibited no significant differences between the two groups. There was no significant difference in terms of modified MacNab criteria, area of lamina loss, and increased intervertebral height. The UBED group had a longer incision length, operation time and postoperative hospital stay, and fewer intraoperative fluoroscopy times than to the PEID group. Complications were noted in both groups throughout the follow-up period, but there was no significant difference in the rate of complications. Moreover, there were no notable differences in clinical outcomes between the two groups in the high-grade migrated LDH.

CONCLUSIONS

Both UBED and PEID could achieve favorable clinical outcomes for treating migrated LDH at the lower lumbar spine. Despite the longer operative time and postoperative hospital stay associated with the UBED group, UBED remains safe and innovative for treating migrated LDH at the lower lumbar spine.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

"Early Efficacy and Safety of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Minimal Invasive in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases"

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the early clinical efficacy and radiologic outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Along with the continuous development of endoscopic technology, the early safety and effectiveness of ULIF technology are still unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 61 patients who underwent fusion surgery through ULIF or MIS-TLIF in 2021. Twenty-nine patients underwent ULIF (group A), and 32 underwent MIS-TLIF (group B). Fusion rate, bone graft volume, hidden blood loss (HBL), C-reactive protein level, operative time, Oswestry Disability Index , Visual Analog Scale score, and MacNab criteria were assessed in both groups.

RESULTS

The Visual Analog Scale score for back pain in the early postoperative period was significantly lower in group A than in group B ( P <0.05). All other clinical scores showed improvement, with no significant difference between the 2 groups ( P >0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative C-reactive protein levels and fusion rates between the 2 groups ( P >0.05). However, HBL was higher and operative time was longer in group A than in group B ( P <0.05). Most importantly, there were no statistically significant differences between groups A and B in fusion rate, length of stay and bone graft volume ( P >0.05). No serious surgical complications occurred in our study.

CONCLUSIONS

ULIF is a new option for lumbar fusion. Despite the drawbacks of longer operation time and higher HBL, ULIF may be a viable alternative to MIS-TLIF as technology advances.

Early efficacy of postoperative rehabilitation training for lumbar disc herniation

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the early clinical efficacy of rehabilitation training after unilateral biportal endoscopy for lumbar disc herniation and to analyze the prognostic factors.

METHODS

A total of 100 patients with lumbar disc herniation who underwent unilateral biportal endoscopy at The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University from January 2019 to January 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The control group was given a standard home-based exercise program, while the intervention group was given a substituted rehabilitation training opposed to a standard home-based exercise program. The early postoperative pain relief and quality of life values were compared between the two groups, and the independent risk factors affecting the prognosis of patients were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in sex, age, smoking, drinking, BMI, course of disease, type of disc herniation, preoperative VAS, ODI or SF-36 between the two groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in preoperative and postoperative VAS and ODI scores at 3 months between the two groups (P > 0.05), yet there were significant differences in postoperative VAS and ODI at 12 months (P < 0.05). The SF-36 score of the intervention group was lower than that of the control group at 12 months, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The excellent rate of the Macnab standard modification used in the intervention group was 88.00% at 12 months, and that in the control group was 62.00%. The difference between the two groups was considered to indicate a statistically significant (P < 0.05). The results of logistic multivariate regression model analysis showed that rehabilitation training (95% CI: 1.360-12.122, P = 0.012), the type of intervertebral disc (95% CI: 0.010-0.676, P = 0.020), and age (95% CI: 1.056-8.244, P = 0.039) were independent risk factors affecting the prognosis of patients.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative rehabilitation training can effectively relieve pain and improve quality of life; thus, it is highly recommended in the clinic. Postoperative rehabilitation training, intervertebral disc type and age are independent risk factors for the postoperative prognosis of lumbar intervertebral disc herniation.

Pin-assisted retraction technique in unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) discectomy is a reliable endoscopic technique in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. However, UBE discectomy involves a single-handed manipulation, which may compromise the utility of the procedure. The present study was performed to examine the efficacy and safety of a novel pin-assisted retraction technique.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective cohort study involved 57 consecutive patients who underwent UBE lumbar discectomy from July 2021 to May 2022. The patients were randomly divided into the pin-assisted UBE discectomy group (P-UBE group) and the traditional UBE discectomy group (T-UBE group). The patients' perioperative data, clinical outcomes, and radiologic outcomes were collected and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, endoscopic irrigation volume, and overall complication rate were significantly lower in the P-UBE group than in the T-UBE group. There were no significant differences in the clinical outcome data between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

P-UBE discectomy may have superior safety and efficacy over the traditional technique, and it has the potential to serve as an optional method in UBE lumbar surgery.

Comparison of the results of open PLIF versus UBE PLIF in lumbar spinal stenosis: postoperative adjacent segment instability is lesser in UBE

OBJECTIVE

To compare the difference in efficacy between open PLIF and UBE for lumbar spinal stenosis and the effect on postoperative adjacent segment instability.

METHOD

The clinical data of 37 patients with PLIF and 32 patients with UBE for lumbar spinal stenosis were retrospectively analyzed to compare the differences in perioperative conditions and short- and medium-term outcomes.

RESULTS

All 69 patients completed the surgery successfully. The operating time, number of intraoperative fluoroscopies and hospital days were higher in the UBE group than in the open PLIF group. Intraoperative bleeding and postoperative drainage were lower than in the open PLIF group (P < 0.05). The visual analogue scale (VAS) of low back pain was lower in the UBE group than in the open PLIF group at 1 month and 3 months postoperatively (P < 0.05), and there were no statistically significant VAS scores for low back pain in the two groups at 1 day and 6 months postoperatively (P > 0.05). Leg pain VAS scores were lower in the UBE group than in the open PLIF group at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.05), and leg pain VAS scores were not statistically significant in both groups at 1 day postoperatively (P > 0.05). The ODI index was lower in the UBE group than in the open PLIF group at 1 day and 1 month postoperatively (P < 0.05) and was not statistically significant in the two groups at 3 months and 6 months postoperatively (P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in postoperative interbody height, sagittal diameter of the spinal canal, efficacy of modified MacNab and interbody fusion (P > 0.05). The open PLIF group was more prone to postoperative adjacent vertebral instability than the UBE group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

With appropriate indications, the open PLIF group and the UBE group had similar short- and medium-term clinical outcomes for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, but patients in the UBE group had better symptomatic improvement than the open PLIF group at 3 months postoperatively, and the effect on postoperative adjacent vertebral instability was smaller in the endoscopic group than in the open PLIF group.

[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.

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

The incidence of lumbar spinal stenosis is increasing annually, and with an ever-aging population and longer life expectancies, this trend will further continue. It is hoped that a more effective treatment can be found so that the patients can be relieved of their pain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery (UBE) and microscopic decompression surgery (MD) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. A literature search of related studies published until April 2022 was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and other databases. After filtering of references, 12 eligible studies were identified that compared UBE with MD as a treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Data were extracted and analysed using R. A total of 12 articles (four randomized controlled and eight cohort studies) were included, with a total of 1,067 patients: 250 men and 249 women in the UBE group and 290 men and 278 women in the MD group. The meta-analysis showed that the mean intraoperative blood loss in the UBE group [standardized mean difference (SMD)=-2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-3.97, -0.23), P=0.03] was lower than that in the MD group. The postoperative Visual analogue scale (VAS) score for back pain [SMD=-0.52, 95% CI (-0.76, -0.27), P<0.01], leg pain [SMD=-0.30, 95% CI (-0.51, -0.08), P<0.01], postoperative Oswestry disability index [(ODI); SMD=-0.25, 95% CI (-0.48, -0.03), P=0.03], and postoperative C-reactive protein [(CRP); odds ratio (OR)=-0.92, 95% CI (-1.80, 0.03), P=0.04] were lower than those in the MD group. Complications (OR=0.60, 95% CI (0.37, 0.98), P=0.04) and hospital stay (SMD=-1.84, 95% CI (-2.85, 0.83), P <0.01] were also lesser in the UBE group than in the MD group. UBE was preferable to that in the MD group according to the modified MacNab score [OR=2.28, 95% CI (1.28, 4.06), P<0.01]. No significant differences were observed in the operation times between the groups. UBE surgery was found to be a better option for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis than MD surgery.

Enhancing endoscopic foraminal decompression in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: the potential influence of lateral recess isthmic spur and our case series of an innovative craniocaudal interlaminar approach via unilateral biportal endoscopic spinal surgery

BACKGROUND

The NASS guideline cannot recommend any of the surgical treatment options toward adult isthmic spondylolisthesis (AIS) since 2014. After the introduction of endoscopic decompression, instead of treating the spondylolysis itself, treatment can specifically target the refractory radicular pain developed during the degeneration progress without devastating the peripheral soft tissue. However, we noticed that endoscopic transforaminal decompression seems to be less effective in AIS compared to other types of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Thus, we came up with a novel craniocaudal interlaminar approach, utilizing the proximal adjacent interlaminar space to perform bilateral decompression and observed the pathoanatomy of pars defect directly and tried to identify the cause of decompression failure.

METHODS

From January 2022 to June 2022, 13 patients with AIS underwent endoscopic decompression via the endoscopic craniocaudal interlaminar approach and were followed up for at least 6 months. Visual Analogue Scale, Oswestry Disability Index and MacNab scores were recorded to monitor patients' clinical recovery. All endoscopic procedures were recorded and reviewed to illustrate the pathoanatomy.

RESULTS

Four patients required minor revision via the same technique. One of them required it due to incomplete isthmic spur resection, two due to neglected disc protrusion, and the other due to root subpedicular kinking in higher grade anterolisthesis. All patients' clinical condition improved significantly subsequently. After reviewing the endoscopic video, we have observed that the hook-like, ragged spur originating from the isthmic defect extends beyond the region around the foramen. Instead, it extends proximally into the adjacent lateral recess, resulting in impingement along the fracture edge above the index foramen and, in some cases, even in the extraforaminal area.

CONCLUSIONS

The broad spanning isthmic spur extending to the proximal adjacent lateral recess might be the reason why the transforaminal approach yielded less satisfactory results due to the incomplete decompression result from approach related restriction. Our study demonstrated an optimistic outcome by applying decompression from the upper level. Therefore, we propose that the craniocaudal interlaminar approach might be a better route for decompression in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis.

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

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

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.

A Comparative Analysis of Bi-Portal Endoscopic Spine Surgery and Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression in Multilevel Lumbar Stenosis Patients

The clinical and radiological results before and after surgery were compared and analyzed for patients with multilevel lumbar stenosis who underwent bi-portal endoscopic spine surgery (BESS) and microscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD). We retrospectively identified 47 and 49 patients who underwent BESS and microscopic ULBD, respectively, who were diagnosed with multi-level lumbar stenosis. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analog scale score for both back and leg pain, and medication (pregabalin) use and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores for overall treatment outcomes were used pre-operatively and at the final follow-up. Radiological outcomes were evaluated as the percentage of dura expansion volume, and percentage preservation of both facets and both lateral recess angles. The follow-up period of patients was about 17.04 months in the BESS group and about 16.90 months in the microscopic ULBD group. The back and leg visual analog scale (VAS) scores and average pregabalin use decreased more significantly in the BESS group than in the microscopic ULBD group (each p-value 0.0443, <0.001, 0.0378). All radiological outcomes were significantly higher in the BESS group than in the ULBD group. The change in ODI in two-level spinal stenosis showed a significantly higher value in the BESS group compared to the microscopic ULBD group (p-value 0.0335). Multilevel decompression with the BESS technique in multiple spinal stenosis is an adequate technique as it shows better clinical and radiological results than microscopic ULBD during a short-term follow-up period.

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.

Biportal endoscopic decompression, debridement, and interbody fusion, combined with percutaneous screw fixation for lumbar brucellosis spondylitis

Objective

This study aims to investigate the effectiveness and feasibility of biportal endoscopic decompression, debridement, and interbody fusion, combined with percutaneous screw fixation for lumbar brucellosis spondylitis (LBS).

Methods

The data of 13 patients with LBS were retrospectively analyzed, who underwent biportal endoscopic decompression, debridement, and interbody fusion, combined with percutaneous screw fixation from May 2020 to June 2022. The patients' clinical data, the duration of operation, the estimated blood loss (including postoperative drainage), and complications were recorded. Clinical outcomes include serum agglutination test (SAT) measures Brucella antibody titer, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), the visual analog scale (VAS) scores of low back and leg, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), American Spinal Injury Association neurological classification, and lordotic angle were analyzed. All patients were assessed using the modified Macnab criteria at the final follow-up. The intervertebral bone graft fusion was assessed using the Bridwell grading criteria.

Results

The mean operation duration was 177.31 ± 19.54 min, and the estimated blood loss was 176.15 ± 43.79 ml (including postoperative drainage was 41.15 ± 10.44 ml). The mean follow-up period was 13.92 ± 1.5 months. SAT showed that the antibody titers of 13 patients were normal 3 months after the operation and at the final follow-up. ESR and CRP levels returned to normal by the end of the 3-month follow-up. VAS scores of low back and leg, JOA score, and ODI significantly improved after the operation throughout the follow-up period (P < 0.05). Based on the modified Macnab criteria, 92.3% showed excellent to good outcomes. One patient had only a percutaneous screw internal fixation on the decompression side due to severe osteoporosis. One case suffered a superficial incision infection postoperatively that healed with dressing change and effective antibiotic treatment. Bony fusion was obtained in all patients at the last follow-up, including 12 cases with grade I and 1 case with grade II, with a fusion rate of 92.31%.

Conclusion

Biportal endoscopic decompression, debridement, and interbody fusion, combined with percutaneous screw fixation is an effective, safe, and viable surgical procedure for the treatment of LBS.

Treatment of dural tear with nerve root herniation after unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression using an epidural blood patch: a case report

We present a case of a dural tear associated with nerve root herniation following unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression (UBED) that was successfully treated using a computed tomography-guided epidural blood patch. A 60-year-old man underwent UBED for radicular pain because of spinal stenosis at L4-5. A left partial hemilaminectomy and flavectomy were performed; however, the left dorsolateral side dura mater was torn during the procedure. TachoComb® was applied at the dural tear site, and the pain was relieved following UBED. However, 3 weeks post-UBED, the patient reported severe pain with an electric shock-like sensation in the left buttock and posterior thigh region with no other neurologic symptoms. The pain was aggravated by standing and spinal motion. Follow-up lumbar spinal magnetic resonance imaging was performed. Axial images indicated protrusion of the left S2 nerve root through the left dorsolateral side of the dura mater. The patient was further diagnosed with nerve root herniation following a dura mater tear. A computed tomography-guided epidural blood patch was performed, with successful therapeutic results. The outcome of this study indicates that a small dural tear that occurs during minimally invasive spinal surgery can be efficiently treated using an epidural blood patch prior to open surgery.

"Inside Disc Out" Discectomy for the Treatment of Discogenic Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis under the Intervertebral Foramen Endoscope

OBJECTIVE

Conventional posterior-approach decompression surgeries have a higher risk of nerve root injury and dura laceration. We explore the therapeutic strategy and effect of "inside disc out" discectomy under intervertebral foramen endoscope technique for discogenic lumbar spinal canal stenosis (DLSS) treatment.

METHODS

Twenty-nine patients with DLSS in the responsible segment were treated with "inside disc out" discectomy under intervertebral foramen endoscope technique between October 2017 to October 2019. Lower limb and back pain were recorded before operation, and visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were recorded for lower limb and back pain at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. The postoperative effects were evaluated using the modified MacNab method for all the patients.

RESULTS

All 29 patients successfully completed the operation. The operation time was 75-120 min, with an average of 90 ± 17 min. Postoperative lumbar CT examinations of all the patients showed full decompression of the spinal cord with no residual pressure. The average follow-up time for all the patients was 13 ± 3.5 months (12-18 months). The VAS score for lower back and lower limb pain was 7.52 ± 1.25 before the operation, and 1.80 ± 0.63, 1.33 ± 0.88, 1.07 ± 0.89, and 0.81 ± 0.51 at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the surgery, respectively. The Oswestry dysfunction index was 59.43 ± 10.04 before surgery and 29.67 ± 10.35, 21.13 ± 9.32, 14.52 ± 5.98, and 9.84 ± 4.68 at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the surgery, respectively. The VAS score and ODI index of low back and lower limb pain at different time points after the surgery were significantly improved compared to those before the surgery (P < 0.01). The effect of the modified MacNab was excellent in 26 patients, good in two patients, and fair in one patient. The excellent and good rates were 91.4%. Among them, one patient had symptoms of hyperesthesia in the anterior aspect of the thigh and decreased quadriceps muscle strength after lumbar 4/5 segment endoscopic surgery. After symptomatic and conservative treatment, the symptoms disappeared 4 weeks postoperatively, and there were no other serious surgical complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Following the "inside disc out" discectomy under intervertebral foramen endoscope protocols, the risk of nerve injury can greatly be reduced, with good postoperative efficacy. Overall, the procedure is safe and feasible for DLSS treatment.

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.

Microscopic Unilateral Approach for Bilateral Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

BACKGROUND

This is a study based on single-surgeon data on spinal stenosis surgery via microscopic approach. The aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of the unilateral approach to bilateral decompression and the usage of Taylor retractors and brain spatula in patients with spinal stenosis.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study on bilateral decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis using a microscopic unilateral approach by a single surgeon, between April 2015 and March 2018. In total, 50 patients were operated due to single level lumbar spinal stenosis. All patients were evaluated by preoperative and postoperative plain radiographs and magnetic resonance (MR) images. Walking distance (WD), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and Odom's criteria were evaluated for follow-up.

RESULTS

One level of the lumbar spine was surgically decompressed in all patients. The median age of patients was 64.6 (51- 82). Of the patients, 72% (36) were women, and 28% (14) were men. Most patients had refractory low back pain (96%) after conservative treatment. The stenotic levels of the cases were as follows: L3-4, 23(46%); L4-5, 24(48%); and L5-S1, 3 (6%). VAS scores decreased in all patients after surgery. According to Odom's criteria, an excellent or good score was found in 43 patients at the 12th follow-up examination. WDs increased up to 1000 meters for 41 patients.

CONCLUSION

The microscopic unilateral approach to bilateral decompression is an effective method for decompression in spinal stenosis. Via this approach, surgical trauma is reduced and surgically induced instability is avoided as much as possible.

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.

Learning Curve and Complications of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy: Cumulative Sum and Risk-Adjusted Cumulative Sum Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the learning curve and complications of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort analysis of 197 consecutive patients who received UBE unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression (UBE-ULBD) or lumbar discectomy (UBE-LD) surgery, including 107 males and 90 females with an average age of 64.83 ± 14.29 years. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) and risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis (RA-CUSUM) were used to evaluate the learning curve, with the occurrence of complications defined as surgical failure, and variables of different phase of the learning curve were compared.

RESULTS

The cutoff point of learning curve of UBE surgery was 54 cases according to CUSUM analysis. The learning curve of UBE-ULBD and UBE-LD were divided into 3 phases. The first cutoff points were 31 and 12 cases, and the second cutoff point were 67 and 32 cases respectively. With the progress of the learning curve, the operation time and postoperative hospital stays decreased. The visual analogue scale and Oswestry Disability Index at the last follow-up were significantly lower than that before surgery. The incidence of surgical failure was 6.11% and began to decrease after the 89th case based on RA-CUSUM analysis. The surgical failure rate decreased from 10.11% to 2.78 after the 89th case with significant different.

CONCLUSION

UBE surgery is effective in the treatment of LDH and LSS with low incidence of complications. But a learning curve of at least 54 cases still required for mastering UBE surgery.

Risk factors for hidden blood loss in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar spine surgery

Background

Unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spine surgery is a minimally invasive procedure for treating lumbar disorders. Hidden blood loss (HBL) is easily ignored by surgeons because blood loss is less visible. However, there are limited studies on HBL in UBE spine surgery. This study aimed to evaluate HBL and its possible risk factors in patients undergoing UBE spine surgery.

Methods

Patients with lumbar disc herniation or lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery between December 2020 and February 2022 at our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Patient demographics, blood loss-related parameters, and surgical and radiological information were also collected. Pearson or Spearman correlation analysis was conducted to determine the association between clinical characteristics and HBL. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to determine the independent risk factors for HBL.

Results

Fifty-two patients (17 males and 35 females) were retrospectively enrolled in this study. The mean total blood loss (TBL) volume was 434 ± 212 ml, and the mean HBL volume was 361 ± 217 ml, accounting for 77.9% of the TBL in patients who underwent UBE surgery. Multivariate linear regression analysis revealed that HBL was positively associated with operation time (P = 0.040) and paraspinal muscle thickness at the target level (P = 0.033).

Conclusions

The amount of HBL in patients undergoing UBE surgery should not be neglected. Operation time and paraspinal muscle thickness at the target level may be independent risk factors for HBL.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression for symptomatic thoracic ossification of the ligamentum flavum: a case control study

PURPOSE

Thoracic ossification of the ligamentum flavum (OLF) is an uncommon disease that mostly occurs in East Asians. Laminectomy is often considered when patients develop neuro-related symptoms but may associate with treatment-related complications. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) decompression treatment in patients with symptomatic OLF.

METHODS

From January 2020 to January 2021, patients with spinal cord compression symptoms and imaging-defined single-level thoracic OLF were enrolled in this study and received UBE decompression treatment. Their pre- and postoperative neurological statuses were evaluated by the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for leg pain, and Frankel grade.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients with an average age of 59.4 years were enrolled in the study. The mean operation time was 66.1 ± 15.4 minutes. Patients were followed up for at least one year after receiving the treatment. Our data suggested that their mJOA score (preop 6.2 ± 1.2, 1 year 8.5 ± 0.9; P < 0.001) and VAS score (preop 4.5 ± 2.0, 1 year 0.5 ± 0.9; P < 0.001) were significantly improved compared with that before operation. Cerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred in one patient, head and neck pain occurred in two patients, and hyperalgesia of lower limbs occurred in two patients. All these complications did not cause serious consequences.

CONCLUSION

This primary study indicated that the UBE decompression treatment can achieve satisfactory clinical results in patients with thoracic OLF at single level and provide an alternative treatment option.

Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Vs. Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Background

Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion is a new technology that is mostly used for single-segment and unilateral lumbar spine surgery. The purpose of this study is to introduce percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PE-PLIF) with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) for lumbar spondylolisthesis and evaluate the efficacy by comparing it with open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

Methods

Twenty-eight patients were enrolled in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group and the open PLIF group. The perioperative data of the two groups were compared to evaluate the safety of PE-PLIF with ULBD. The visual analog scale (VAS) back pain, VAS leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores of the two groups preoperatively and postoperatively were compared to evaluate clinical efficacy. Preoperative and postoperative imaging data were collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the operation.

Results

No differences in baseline data were found between the two groups (p > 0.05). The operation time in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group (221.2 ± 32.9 min) was significantly longer than that in the PLIF group (138.4 ± 25.7 min) (p < 0.05), and the estimated blood loss and postoperative hospitalization were lower than those of the PLIF group (p < 0.05). The postoperative VAS and ODI scores were significantly improved in both groups (p < 0.05), but the postoperative VAS back pain score in the PE-PLIF group was significantly lower than that in the PLIF group (p < 0.05). The excellent and good rates in both groups were 96.4% according to MacNab’s criteria. The disc height and cross-sectional area of the spinal canal were significantly improved in the two groups after surgery (p < 0.05), with no difference between the groups (p > 0.05). The fusion rates in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group and the PLIF group were 89.3% and 92.9% (p > 0.05), respectively, the cage subsidence rates were 14.3% and 17.9% (p > 0.05), respectively, and the lumbar spondylolisthesis reduction rates were 92.72 ± 6.39% and 93.54 ± 5.21%, respectively (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

The results from this study indicate that ULBD can be successfully performed during PE-PLIF, and the combined procedure is a safe and reliable treatment method for lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Thermal Dynamics of a Novel Radio-Frequency Device for Endoscopic Spine Surgery: An Experimental Model

STUDY DESIGN

Experimental study.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, the ambient temperature of a radiofrequency (RF) electrode tip was compared and analyzed in terms of products, mode, flow quantity, and flow rate.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Endoscopic spine surgery is a widely used operation for degenerative lumbar stenosis and herniated lumbar disc. To perform endoscopic spine surgery, dedicated instruments like a RF generator and electrode are essential.

METHODS

An evaluation system capable of measuring temperature under equal conditions at a certain distance from the electrode tip was manufactured. The distance between the electrode tip and the temperature sensor was set to 1, 5, and 10 mm. The flow quantities of 0, 50, 100, and 150 mL/min and the flow rates of 0, 0.20, 0.53, and 0.80 m/s were compared and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

The temperatures measured in the experiments conducted on the four combinations of RF device showed similar values, and showed differences according to the characteristics of each mode of the RF. As the distance between the electrode tip and the temperature sensor increased, the temperature decreased, and as flow quantity or flow rate increased, the temperature decreased. The maximum temperatures differed significantly according to flow quantity, between flow quantities of 0 and 100 mL/min (P  = 0.03) and between 0 and 150 mL/min (P ≤ 0.01). The maximum temperatures also differed significantly between the flow rate of 0 m/s, and the flow rates of 0.20, 0.53, and 0.80 m/s, with P ≤ 0.01 in all three comparisons.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study in which we made a customized RF temperature evaluation system and verified the temperature changes in various environments. When irrigation was performed, we could confirm that the maximum temperature was less than 60°C. Irrigation is considered essential in endoscopic spine surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

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.

Decompression Using Minimally Invasive Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Associated with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Review

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), which often occurs concurrently with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), is a common disease in the elderly population, affecting the quality of life of aged people significantly. Notwithstanding the frequently good effect of conservative therapy on LSS, a minority of the patients ultimately require surgery. Surgery for LSS aims to decompress the narrowed spinal canals with preservation of spinal stability. Traditional open surgery, either pure decompression or decompression with fusion, was considered effective for the treatment of LSS with or without DS. However, the long-term clinical outcomes of traditional open surgery are still unclear. Moreover, the disadvantages of conventional open surgery are extensive, examples including tissue injuries or secondary instability, with limited outcomes and significant reoperation rates. With the development and improvement of surgical tools, various minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) methods, including indirect decompression techniques of interspinous process devices (IPDs) and direct decompression techniques such as microscopic spine surgery or endoscopic spine surgery (ESS), have been updated with enhancement. IPDs, such as Superion devices, were reported to behave with comparable physical function, disability, and symptoms outcomes to laminectomy decompression. As an emerging technique of MISS, ESS has beneficial hallmarks including minimal tissue injuries, reduced complication rates, and shortened recovery periods, thus gaining popularity in recent years. ESS can be classified in terms of endoscopic hallmarks and approaches. Predictably, with the continuous development and gradual maturity, MISS is expected to replace traditional open surgery widely in the surgical treatment of LSS associated with DS in the future.