Clinical results of percutaneous biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion with application of enhanced recovery after surgery

Is Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery Superior to Endoscopic Spine Surgery in Postoperative Radiologic Outcomes of Lumbar Spine Degenerative Disease? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

 Minimally invasive spinal surgery (ESS) are both well-established surgical techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis; however, there is limited literature comparing the efficacy of the two techniques with respect to radiologic decompression data.

METHODS

 In this review, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases were systematically searched from inception until July 2022 for studies that reported the radiologic outcomes of endoscopic and minimally invasive approaches for decompressive spinal surgery, namely, the spinal canal area, neural foraminal area, and neural foraminal heights.

RESULTS

 Of the 378 articles initially retrieved using MeSH and keyword search, 9 studies reporting preoperative and postoperative spinal areas and foraminal areas and heights were finally included in our review. Of the total 581 patients, 391 (67.30%) underwent MISS and 190 (32.70%) underwent ESS. The weighted mean difference between the spinal canal diameter in pre- and postoperative conditions was 56.64 ± 7.11 and 79.52 ± 21.31 mm2 in the MISS and ESS groups, respectively. ESS was also associated with a higher mean difference in the foraminal area postoperatively (72 ± 1 vs. 35.81 ± 11.3 mm2 in the MISS and ESS groups, respectively), but it was comparable to MISS in terms of the foraminal height (0.32 ± 0.037 vs. 0.29 ± 0.03 cm in the MISS and endoscopic groups, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

 Compared with MISS, ESS was associated with improved radiologic parameters, including spinal canal area and neural foraminal area in the lumbar spinal segments. Both techniques led to the same endpoint of neural decompression when starting with a more severe compression. However, the present data do not allow the correlation of the radiographic results with the related clinical outcomes.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparison of the clinical outcomes of VBE-TLIF versus MIS-TLIF for single-level degenerative lumbar diseases

OBJECTIVE

This research aims to compare the clinical outcomes of VBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF for the treatment of patients with single-level degenerative lumbar diseases.

METHODS

Ninety patients were enrolled in this study. The estimated blood loss, operation time, postoperative hospitalization days, time to functional exercise, amount of surgical drain and inflammatory index were recorded. The visual analog scale, Oswestry dysfunction index and modified MacNab criteria were used to assessed the patient's back and leg pain, functional status and clinical satisfaction rates.

RESULTS

The average operation time of the VBE-TLIF group was longer than that of the MIS-TLIF group. The time for functional exercise, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss and amount of surgical drain in the VBE-TLIF group were relative shorter than those in the MIS-TLIF group. Additionally, the levels of CRP, neutrophil, IL-6 and CPK in the VBE-TLIF group were significantly lower than those in the MIS-TLIF group at postoperative days 1 and 3, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients undergoing VBE-TLIF had significantly lower back VAS scores than those in the MIS-TLIF group on postoperative days 1 and 3 (P < 0.001). No significant differences were found in the clinical satisfaction rates (95.83 vs. 95.24%, P = 0.458) or interbody fusion rate (97.92 vs. 95.24%, P = 0.730) between these two surgical procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Both VBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF are safe and effective surgical procedures for patients with lumbar diseases, but VBE-TLIF technique is a preferred surgical procedure with merits of reduced surgical trauma and quicker recovery.

Advances and Challenges of Endoscopic Spine Surgery

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Application of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in Patients with Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures Undergoing Percutaneous Kyphoplasty

BACKGROUND

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program helps patients recover faster and better, postoperatively. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the clinical effectiveness of the ERAS program after percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.

METHODS

We enrolled patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture who had undergone PKP between January 2019 and June 2021 and divided them into the control group (CG; n = 296), without the ERAS program, and the intervention group (IG; n = 306), with the ERAS program. The visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Barthel Index scores of the 2 groups were compared on admission and 2 days and 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Perioperative evaluation parameters included the mean surgery time, length of stay (LOS), and hospitalization expenses. In addition, postoperative complications were compared.

RESULTS

Regarding perioperative parameters, LOS and hospitalization expenses were significantly better in IG than in CG (P < 0.001), but the mean surgery time did not differ significantly (P > 0.05). The VAS, Barthel Index, and ODI scores were significantly better in IG than in CG at 2 days and 1 month postoperatively (P < 0.001). None of the clinical effectiveness parameters (VAS, Barthel Index, and ODI scores) differed between IG and CG at 6 or 12 months postoperatively. In addition, 141 patients in CG and 56 patients in IG experienced postoperative complications, including pressure ulcers, deep vein thrombosis, nausea and vomiting, and refracture (P = 0.970, P = 0.036, P < 0.001, P = 0.002 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing PKP, the ERAS program is a reliable and effective perioperative management method that can effectively reduce LOS, postoperative pain, and economic burden and promote recovery of patients.

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

STUDY DESIGN

network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

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

METHOD

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

RESULT

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

CONCLUSION

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

Challenging issues of implementing enhanced recovery after surgery programs in South Korea

This review discusses the challenges of implementing enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs in South Korea. ERAS is a patient-centered perioperative care approach that aims to improve postoperative recovery by minimizing surgical stress and complications. While ERAS has demonstrated significant benefits, its successful implementation faces various barriers such as a lack of manpower and policy support, poor communication and collaboration among perioperative members, resistance to shifting away from outdated practices, and patient-specific risk factors. This review emphasizes the importance of understanding these factors to tailor effective strategies for successful ERAS implementation in South Korea's unique healthcare setting. In this review, we aim to shed light on the current status of ERAS in South Korea and identify key barriers. We hope to encourage Korean anesthesiologists to take a leading role in adopting the ERAS program as the standard for perioperative care. Ultimately, our goal is to improve the surgical outcomes of patients using this proactive approach.

How I do it? Uniportal full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with a complete reduction for L5 isthmic grade 2 spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (endo-TLIF) with bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation is an emerging option for low-grade spondylolisthesis. However, uniportal full endo-TLIF with a complete reduction for high-grade spondylolisthesis is challenging.

METHODS

We attempted uniportal endo-TLIF for L5 isthmic grade 2 spondylolisthesis with a complete reduction, and have described the procedures, with a discussion of the indications, limitations, potential complications, and ways to avoid complications.

CONCLUSION

We had successfully completed a perfect reduction of L5 isthmic grade 2 spondylolisthesis via uniportal endo-TLIF with bilateral pedicle screw fixation. Uniportal endo-TLIF is suitable for isthmic grade 2 spondylolisthesis.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Cauda Equina Syndrome Caused by Intradural Bone Graft Materials After Endoscopic Lumbar Fusion

A 53-year-old man presented to the emergency department with severe lower back pain, saddle anesthesia, and urinary dysfunction. He had undergone endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for highly migrated lumbar disk herniation and lumbar instability 10 days ago. Emergency computed tomography showed that the bone graft materials had migrated to the sacral canal, and a mass with low intensity was seen located at the end of the dural cavity on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. It was suspected that the bone graft materials had migrated into the dural cavity at the operative level and fallen into the end of the dural cavity due to gravity, causing acute cauda equina syndrome (CES). After emergency durotomy, the bone graft materials were completely removed. At the 18-month follow-up, the patient recovered without further complications. This procedure resulted in a rare case of CES caused by intradural bone graft after endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion. Spine surgeons should be aware of this rare but potentially dangerous complication, especially in water-based endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion. This case report shows that early recognition and prompt treatment can significantly improve the symptoms of CES, including saddle numbness and bladder dysfunction. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(6):e384-e386.].

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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

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

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Unilateral biportal endoscopic technique combined with percutaneous transpedicular screw fixation for thoracolumbar burst fractures with neurological symptoms: technical note and preliminary report

BACKGROUND

Previous studies on thoracolumbar fractures with neurological symptoms have focused on how to achieve satisfactory fracture reduction, adequate nerve decompression, and stable spinal alignment. With the development of the minimally invasive spine surgery technique, achieving satisfactory treatment results and reducing iatrogenic trauma at the same time has become a new goal of spinal surgery. This research used percutaneous transpedicular screw distraction to partially reduce the fractured vertebrae, followed by completing nerve decompression and reducing residual displacement bone fragments with the assistance of the unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) technique to achieve full protection of bone-ligament tissue and obtain good clinical efficacy.

METHODS

Guide wires were safely inserted into the fractured vertebra and adjacent upper and lower vertebra under the surveillance of anteroposterior and lateral X-ray fluoroscopy. Transpedicular screws were implanted via guide wires on the side with mild neurological deficits or bone fragment compression (the opposite side of the endoscopic operation). A titanium rod was installed and moderately distracted to reduce the fractured vertebra. Then, under the guidance of the endoscopic view, the laminectomy and ligamentum flavum resection were completed according to the position of the protruding bone fragment into the spinal canal, and the compressed dural sac or nerve root was fully exposed and decompressed. An L-shaped replacer was used to reduce residual bone fragments. The ipsilateral transpedicular screws and rod were installed and adjusted to match the contralateral side. The drainage tube was indwelled, and the incision was closed. The preoperative and postoperative images of the patients were evaluated, and the recovery of neurological symptoms was observed.

RESULTS

Surgery was successfully completed on all six patients, and no intraoperative conversion to open surgery was performed. Postoperative images showed good reduction of the protruding bone fragment and good placement of all screws. At the last follow-up, the neurological symptoms of all patients returned to normal.

CONCLUSION

The UBE technique combined with percutaneous transpedicular screw fixation in the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures with neurological symptoms can effectively achieve the reduction of displaced bone fragments, improve damaged nerve function, stabilize spinal alignment, and protect the integrity of bone-ligament tissue.

Minimally invasive endoscopy in spine surgery: where are we now?

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is a minimally invasive surgical technique that offers comparable efficacy and safety with less collateral damage compared to conventional surgery. To achieve clinical success, it is imperative to stay abreast of technological advancements, modern surgical instruments and technique, and updated evidence.

PURPOSES

To provide a comprehensive review and updates of ESS including the nomenclature, technical evolution, bibliometric analysis of evidence, recent changes in the spine communities, the prevailing of biportal endoscopy, and the future of endoscopic spine surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature on ESS for the mentioned topics from January 1989 to November 2022. Three major electronic databases were searched, including MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase. Covidence Systematic Review was used to organize the eligible records. Two independent reviewers screened the articles for relevance.

RESULTS

In total, 312 articles were finally included for review. We found various use of nomenclatures in the field of ESS publication. To address this issue, we proposed the use of distinct terms to describe the biportal and uniportal techniques, as well as their specific approaches. In the realm of technical advancement, ESS has rapidly evolved from addressing disc herniation and spinal stenosis to encompassing endoscopic fusion, along with technological innovations such as navigation, robotics, and augmented reality. According to bibliometric analysis, China, South Korea, and the USA have accounted for almost three-quarters of total publications. The studies of the biportal endoscopy are becoming increasingly popular in South Korea where the top ten most-cited articles have been published. The biportal endoscopy technique is relatively simple to adopt, as it relies on a more familiar approach, requires less expensive instruments, has a shorter learning curve, and is also well-suited for interbody fusion. The uniportal approach provided the smallest area of soft tissue dissection. While robotics and augmented reality in ESS are not widely embraced, the use of navigation in ESS is expected to become more streamlined, particularly with the emergence of recent electromagnetic-based navigation technologies.

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we provide a comprehensive overview of the evolution of ESS, as well as an updated summary of current trends in the field, including the biportal and uniportal approaches. Additionally, we summarize the nomenclature used in ESS, present a bibliometric analysis of the field, and discuss future directions for the advancement of the field.

Enhanced recovery after surgery pathway with modified biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a large cage. Comparative study with minimally invasive microscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

PURPOSE

Studies about the clinical efficacy of endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway are insufficient. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate clinical usefulness of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using an ERAS compared with microscopic TLIF.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data were retrospectively analyzed. Patients who received modified biportal endoscopic TLIF with ERAS were grouped into an endoscopic TLIF group. Those who received microscopic TLIF without ERAS were grouped into a microscopic TLIF group. Clinical and radiologic parameters were compared between two groups. Fusion rate was evaluated using sagittal reconstruction images of postoperative computed tomographic (CT) scan.

RESULTS

There were 32 patients in the endoscopic TLIF group with ERAS and 41 patients in the microscopic TLIF group without ERAS. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back pain preoperatively at day one and day two were significantly (p < 0.05) higher in the non-ERAS microscopic TLIF group than in the ERAS endoscopic TLIF group. Preoperative Oswestry Disability Index were significantly improved at the last follow-up in both groups. The fusion rate at postoperative one year was 87.5% in the endoscopic TLIF group and 85.4% in the microscopic TLIF group.

CONCLUSION

Biportal endoscopic TLIF with ERAS pathway may have good aspect to accelerate recovery after surgery. There was no inferiority of fusion rate of endoscopic TLIF comparing to microscopic TLIF. Biportal endoscopic TLIF using a large cage with ERAS pathway may be a good alternative treatment for lumbar degenerative disease.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Retrospective Case Control Study: Clinical and Computer Tomographic Fusion and Subsidence Evaluation for Single Level Uniportal Endoscopic Posterolateral Approach Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Microscopic Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective comparative study.

OBJECTIVE

Assessment of difference in clinical and computer tomographic outcomes between the 2 cohorts.

METHODS

Computer tomographic evaluation by Bridwell's grade, Kim's stage, Kim's subsidence grade and clinical evaluation by VAS, ODI and McNab's criteria on both cohorts.

RESULTS

33 levels of Endo-TLIF and 22 levels of TLIF were included, with a mean follow up of 14.3 (10-24) and 22.9 (13-30) months respectively. Both Endo-TLIF and TLIF achieved significant improvement of pain and ODI at post-operative 4 week, 3 months and at final follow up with VAS 4.39 ± 0.92, 5.27 ± 1.16 and 5.73 ± 1.21in Endo-TLIF and 4.55 ± 1.16, 5.05 ± 1.11 and 5.50 ± 1.20 in TLIF respectively and ODI at post-operative 1 week, 3 months and final follow up were 43.15 ± 6.57, 49.27 ± 8.24 and 51.73 ± 9.09 in Endo-TLIF and 41.73 ± 7.98, 46.18± 8.46 and 49.09 ± 8.98 in TLIF respectively, P < 0.05. Compared to TLIF, Endo-TLIF achieved better VAS with 0.727 ± 0.235 at 3 months and 0.727 ± 0.252 at final follow up and better ODI with 3.88 ± 1.50 at 3months and 3.42 ± 1.63 at final follow up, P < 0.05. At 6 months radiological evaluation comparison of the Endo-TLIF and TLIF showed significant with more favorable fusion rate in Endo-TLIF of -0.61 ± 0.12 at 6 months and -0.49 ± 0.12 at 1 year in Bridwell's grading and 0.70 ± 0.15 at 6 months and 0.56 ± 0.14 at 1 year in Kim's stage.There is less subsidence of 0.606 ± 0.18 at 6 months and -0.561 ± 0.20 at 1 year of Kim's subsidence grade, P < 0.05.

CONCLUSION

Application of single level uniportal endoscopic posterolateral lumbar interbody fusion achieved better clinical outcomes and fusion rate with less subsidence than microscopic minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in mid-term evaluation for our cohorts of patients.

Fast-track protocols for patients undergoing spine surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Fast-track is an evidence-based multidisciplinary strategy for pre-, intra-, and postoperative management of patients during major surgery. To date, fast-track has not been recognized or accepted in all surgical areas, particularly in orthopedic spine surgery where it still represents a relatively new paradigm.

PURPOSE

The aim of this review was provided an evidenced-based assessment of specific interventions, measurement, and associated outcomes linked to enhanced recovery pathways in spine surgery field.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review in three databases from February 2012 to August 2022 to assess the pre-, intra-, and postoperative key elements and the clinical evidence of fast-track protocols as well as specific interventions and associated outcomes, in patients undergoing to spine surgery.

RESULTS

We included 57 full-text articles of which most were retrospective. Most common fast-track elements included patient's education, multimodal analgesia, thrombo- and antibiotic prophylaxis, tranexamic acid use, urinary catheter and drainage removal within 24 hours after surgery, and early mobilization and nutrition. All studies demonstrated that these interventions were able to reduce patients' length of stay (LOS) and opioid use. Comparative studies between fast-track and non-fast-track protocols also showed improved pain scores without increasing complication or readmission rates, thus improving patient's satisfaction and functional recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the review results, fast-track seems to be a successful tool to reduce LOS, accelerate return of function, minimize postoperative pain, and save costs in spine surgery. However, current studies are mainly on degenerative spine diseases and largely restricted to retrospective studies with non-randomized data, thus multicenter randomized trials comparing fast-track outcomes and implementation are mandatory to confirm its benefit in spine surgery.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Systematic trial registration

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

[Early effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy combined with annulus fibrosus suture in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the early effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) combined with annulus fibrosus suture in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

METHODS

The clinical data of 19 patients with LDH treated with UBED and annulus fibrosus suture between October 2020 and October 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 12 males and 7 females with an average age of 39.1 years (range, 26-59 years). The operative segment was L _{4, 5} in 13 cases, and L ₅, S ₁ in 6 cases. The mean disease duration was 6.7 months (range, 3-15 months). Preoperative neurological examination showed that muscle strength, sensation, and tendon reflex weakened or disappeared in varying degrees. Single annulus fibrosus suture (14 cases) or anchor assisted annulus fibrosus suture (5 cases) was selected according to the location of annulus fibrosus tears. Visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to assess the low back and leg pain before operation and at 3 days, 3 months, and 6 months after operation. Oswestry disability index (ODI) was used to evaluate the function recovery of lumbar spine before operation and at 3 days, 3 months, and 6 months after operation. At 3 days and 3 months after operation, MRI was used to examine the removal of nucleus pulposus and decompression of nerve root. MacNab criteria was used to evaluate the effectiveness at 6 months after operation and the recovery of nerve root function was recorded.

RESULTS

All operations were successfully completed with a mean operation time of 52.7 minutes (range, 40-75 minutes). There was no complication such as nerve injury, spinal cord hypertension syndrome, or dural sac tear during operation, and no complication such as infection, aggravation of nerve damage, or cerebrospinal fluid leakage after operation. All the patients were followed up 6-10 months (mean, 8.2 months). Postoperative MRI showed that the herniated disc was completely removed and nerve roots were fully decompressed. During the follow-up, there was no recurrence of disc herniation. The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain and ODI at each time point after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation, and those at 6 months after operation further improved than those at 3 days and 3 months after operation, all showing significant differences ( P<0.05). At 6 months after operation, MacNab standard was used to evaluate the effectiveness, and the results were excellent in 14 cases, good in 4 cases, and fair in 1 case, with an excellent and good rate of 94.7%. Neurological examination showed that the sensation and muscle strength of the affected nerve root innervated area recovered significantly when compared with those before operation ( P<0.05); the recovery of tendon reflex was not obvious, showing no significant difference when compared with that before operation ( P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

UBED combined with annulus fibrosus suture is a safe and effective technique for LDH and early effectiveness is satisfactory.

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Mapping knowledge structure and themes trends in unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery: A bibliometric analysis

Background

The numerous benefits of unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spine surgery have attracted the attention of many researchers, and a considerable number of relevant clinical studies have been published. However, global research trends in the field of UBE have received little attention. The purpose of this study was to apply bibliometric method to analyze the UBE-related publications to obtain an overview of the research trends in the field of UBE, as well as research hotspots and trends.

Methods

Web of Science database was searched for articles published until January 31, 2022. CiteSpace was used to analyze the data, which provided graphical knowledge maps. The following factors were applied to all literature: number of publications, distribution, h-index, institutions, journals, authors, and keywords.

Results

Seventy-three articles were identified. Since 2019, there has been a significant increase in the number of UBE-related publications. The country with the largest number of articles was South Korea (72.6%), followed by China (9.6%), Japan (4.1%), and Egypt (4.1%). South Korea had the highest h-index (16), followed by China (2), Japan (1), and Egypt (1). Leon Wiltse Memorial Hospital was the organization that produced the most papers (12 publications). Heo DH was the most productive author (16 papers) and was the most cited author (35 times). World Neurosurgery published the most papers on UBE (23.3%). The main research hotspots were spinal diseases, decompression, complications, learning curve, and interbody fusion. In addition, the recent concerns were “learning curve,” “interbody fusion,” “management,” and “dural tear.”

Conclusions

The quantity of publications on UBE research will increase, and South Korea being the major contributor and most prominent country in this field. The findings of our study will provide researchers with practical information on the field of UBE, and identification of mainstream research directions and recent hotspots.

Lumbar interbody fusion with bilateral cages using a biportal endoscopic technique with a third portal

BACKGROUND

Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) with one cage results in fewer definitive fusions (Park et al. in Neurosurg Rev 42(3):753-761, 2019). We succeeded in inserting bilateral cages during ULIF.

METHOD

We attempted posterior ULIF for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with bilateral recess stenosis. With the help of a third portal, ULIF with bilateral cage insertion was performed under general anaesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

We successfully performed ULIF with bilateral cages with the help of a third portal. This procedure may be an alternative for treating lumbar stenosis with instability.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) improves return of physiological function in frail patients undergoing one- to two-level TLIFs: an observational retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol is a multimodal approach which has been shown to facilitate recovery of physiological function, and reduce early post-operative pain, complications, and length of stay (LOS) in open one- to two-level TLIF. The benefit of ERAS in specifically frail patients undergoing TLIF has not been demonstrated. Frailty is clinically defined as a syndrome of physiological decline that can predispose patients undergoing surgery to poor outcomes.

PURPOSE

This study primarily evaluated the benefit of an ERAS protocol in frail patients undergoing one- or two-level open TLIF compared to frail patients without ERAS. Secondarily, we assessed whether outcomes in frail patients with ERAS approximated those seen in nonfrail patients with ERAS.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective consecutive patient cohort with controls propensity-matched for age, body mass index, sex, and smoking status.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Consecutive patients that underwent one- or two-level open TLIF for degenerative disease from August, 2015 to July, 2021 by a single surgeon. ERAS was implemented in December 2018.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measure was return of postoperative physiological function defined as the summation of first day to ambulate, first day to bowel movement, and first day to void. Additional outcome measures included LOS, daily average pain scores, opioid use, discharge disposition, 30-day readmission rate, and reoperation.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of frail patients > 65 years of age undergoing one- to two-level open TLIF post-ERAS were compared to propensity matched frail pre-ERAS patients. Frailty was assessed using the Fried phenotype classification (score >1). Patient demographics, LOS, first-day-to-ambulate (A1), first-day-to-bowel movement (B1), first-day-to-void (V1) were collected. Return of physiological function was defined as A1+B1+V1. Primary analysis was a comparison of frail patients pre-ERAS versus post-ERAS to determine effect of ERAS on return of physiologic function with frailty. Secondary analysis was a comparison of post-ERAS frail versus post-ERAS nonfrail patients to determine if return of physiologic function in frail patients with ERAS approximates that of nonfrail patients.

RESULTS

In the primary analysis, 32 frail patients were included with mean age ± standard deviation of 72.8±4.4 years, mean BMI 28.8±5.5, 65.6% were male, 15 pre-ERAS and 17 post-ERAS. Patient characteristics were similar between groups. After ERAS implementation, return of physiological function improved by a mean 3.2 days overall (post-ERAS 3.4 vs. pre-ERAS 6.7 days) (p<.0001), indicating a positive effect of ERAS in frail patients. Additionally, length of stay improved by 1 day (4.8±1.6 vs. 3.8±1.9 days, p<.0001). Total daily intravenous morphine milligram equivalent (MME) as well as average daily pain scores were similar between groups. Secondarily, 26 nonfrail patients post ERAS were used as a comparison group with the 17 post-ERAS frail cohort. Mean age of this cohort was 73.4±4.6 years, mean BMI 27.4±4.9, and 61.9% were male. Return of physiologic function was similar between cohorts (post-ERAS nonfrail 3.5 vs. post-ERAS frail 3.4 days) (p=.938), indicating the benefit with ERAS in frail patients approximates that of nonfrail patients.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS significantly improves return of physiologic function and length of stay in patients with frailty after one- to two-level TLIF, and approximates improved outcomes seen in non-frail patients.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Key Components, Current Practice and Clinical Outcomes of ERAS Programs in Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery: A Systematic Review

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have led to improvements in outcomes in several surgical fields, through multimodal optimization of patient pathways, reductions in complications, improved patient experiences and reductions in the length of stay. However, their use has not been uniformly recognized in all orthopedic fields, and there is still no consensus on the best implementation process. Here, we evaluated pre-, peri-, and post-operative key elements and clinical evidence of ERAS protocols, measurements, and associated outcomes in patients undergoing different orthopedic surgical procedures. A systematic literature search on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases was conducted to identify clinical studies, from 2012 to 2022. Out of the 1154 studies retrieved, 174 (25 on spine surgery, 4 on thorax surgery, 2 on elbow surgery and 143 on hip and/or knee surgery) were considered eligible for this review. Results showed that ERAS protocols improve the recovery from orthopedic surgery, decreasing the length of hospital stays (LOS) and the readmission rates. Comparative studies between ERAS and non-ERAS protocols also showed improvement in patient pain scores, satisfaction, and range of motion. Although ERAS protocols in orthopedic surgery are safe and effective, future studies focusing on specific ERAS elements, in particular for elbow, thorax and spine, are mandatory to optimize the protocols.

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Repair of Incidental Durotomy Using Sutureless Nonpenetrating Clips via Biportal Endoscopic Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Technical report.

OBJECTIVES

Dural tear is one of the most common complications of endoscopic spine surgery. Although endoscopic dural repair of the durotomy area may be difficult, we successfully repaired the dural tear area using nonpenetrating clips during biportal endoscopic surgery. We introduce the surgical technique of dural repair using nonpenetrating titanium clips in biportal endoscopic spine surgery and report its clinical outcome.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed and analyzed 5 patients who were treated via primary dural repair using nonpenetrating titanium clips during biportal endoscopic lumbar surgery. The 2 methods of dural clipping and repair include 2 or 3 portals. We analyzed radiological parameters such as cerebrospinal fluid collection as well as clinical parameters, including postoperative clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Five patients underwent biportal endoscopic dural repair using nonpenetrating clips. Incidental durotomy was successfully repaired using nonpenetrating titanium clips in all 5 patients. No cerebrospinal fluid collection was detected in the postoperative magnetic resonance images. Clinically, preoperative symptoms improved significantly after surgery (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

We repaired the dural tear area completely using nonpenetrating titanium vascular anastomosis clips in biportal endoscopic lumbar surgery. Dural repair via clipping method may be an effective alternative for incidental durotomy.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective propensity-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol is a multidisciplinary, multimodal approach which has been shown to facilitate recovery of physiological function, and reduce postoperative pain, complication rates, and length of stay without adversely affecting readmission rates. Design and implementation of ERAS protocols in the recent spine surgery literature has primarily focused on patients undergoing minimally invasive lumbar surgery. However, conventional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) remains a common procedure and to date there are no studies assessing an ERAS protocol in this patient population.

PURPOSE

This study presents a single surgeon experience implementing an ERAS protocol in patients undergoing 1- or 2-level open TLIF.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective consecutive patient cohort with controls propensity-matched for age, body mass index, sex, and smoking status.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Consecutive patients that underwent 1- or 2-level open TLIF for degenerative disease from 12/2018 - 02/2021 and controls from 12/2011-12/2017 by a single surgeon. ERAS was implemented in December 2018.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary: length of stay; Secondary: first day to ambulate, first day to bowel movement, first day to void, daily average and maximum pain scores, opioid use, discharge disposition, 30-day readmission rate, and re-operations.

METHODS

Demographic, perioperative, clinical, radiographic data were collected. Multivariate mixed-linear regression models were developed for length of stay, physiological function, pain scales, and opiate use.

RESULTS

There were 114 patients included with 57 in each cohort. After propensity matching, patient characteristics were similar between groups. Operative time decreased significantly after institution of ERAS (170±44 vs. 141±37 minutes, p <.0001) as did length of stay (4.6±1.7 vs. 3.6±1.6 days, p<.0001). First day of ambulation, bowel movement, and bladder voiding improved by 0.8 (p<.0001), 0.7 (p=.008), and 0.8 (p<.0001) days, respectively, in the ERAS cohort. Total daily intravenous morphine milligram equivalent (MME) (8±9 vs. 36±38, p<0.0001) and total 72-hour MME consumption (53±33 vs. 68±48, p<.0001) was significantly lower in the ERAS cohort; however, 72-hour MME consumption was not found to be significantly different in a sensitivity analysis controlling for preoperative MME. Average daily pain scores were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with other studies demonstrating benefit of an ERAS protocol for minimally invasive spine procedures, ERAS was associated with decreased operative time, reduced length of stay, decrease in IV opioid consumption, and improved physiological outcomes for open 1- and 2-level TLIF. ERAS can be a potentially effective strategy for improving patient outcome and efficiency of healthcare resources for common conventional spinal surgeries such as open TLIF.

Clinical Experiences of 3-Dimensional Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery for Lumbar Degenerative Disease

BACKGROUND

The lack of stereoscopic vision in endoscopic spine surgery may lead to a risk of neural or vascular injury during endoscopic surgery. Three-dimensional (3D) endoscopy has not yet been attempted in the field of spinal endoscopic surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To present the technique, clinical efficacy, and safety of the 3D biportal endoscopic approach for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease.

METHODS

We attempted 3D biportal endoscopic surgery for lumbar degenerative disease in a series of patients. Clinical outcomes and complications were evaluated postoperatively using a short questionnaire about 3D biportal endoscopic spine surgery that solicited respondents' opinions on the advantages and disadvantages of 3D biportal endoscopic surgery compared to the conventional 2D biportal endoscopic approach.

RESULTS

We performed 3D biportal endoscopic spine surgery in 38 patients with lumbar degenerative disease. Optimal neural decompression was revealed by postoperative magnetic resonance imaging in all enrolled patients. The 3D endoscopic vision clearly demonstrated the surgical anatomy starting with the exposure of ligamentum flavum, dura, and nerve root, and 3D endoscopy precisely depicted pathologic lesions such as bony osteophytes and ruptured disc herniation. There were no major complications including neural injury or durotomy.

CONCLUSION

The 3D endoscope may be able to distinguish between normal structures and lesions. The stereognosis and depth sensation of 3D biportal endoscopic spinal surgery might have a favorable impact on the safety of patients during endoscopic spine surgery.

Full-Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Epidural Anesthesia: Technical Note and Initial Clinical Experience with One-Year Follow-Up

Objective

The purpose of this study was to introduce and evaluate the early clinical outcomes of the full-endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PLIF) technique with epidural anesthesia (EA) for single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases.

Methods

In this retrospective case series study, we explored the feasibility and effectiveness of the Endo-PLIF with EA for single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases. Between March 2018 and January 2019, a series of 24 patients with single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases underwent Endo-PLIF surgery and were followed up for a minimum of 12 months (15.21±2.27 months). Clinical outcomes including visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and the Short Form-36 health survey questionnaire (SF-36) were evaluated preoperatively, and postoperatively at 3 days and at 3, 6, and 12-months.

Results

All patients underwent successful single-segment Endo-PLIF surgery. The mean operation time was 209.17±39.49 min, and average amount of bleeding was 43.33±14.87 mL. The VAS for lower extremity pain and back pain significantly improved at 3 days, and at 3, 6, 12 months compared with preoperative, respectively. The ODI scores decreased from 42.04±3.96 to 12.75±2.71 (P<0.001) at preoperative and 12 months postoperatively, respectively. The SF-36 Physical Component Scores (PCS) improved from 34.96±4.63 preoperatively to 52.08±6.05 (P<0.001) at 12 months postoperatively. Additionally, the SF-36 Mental Component Scores (MCS) improved from 39.38±5.70 at preoperative to 53.13±5.97 (P<0.001) at 12 months postoperatively. Two patients experienced dysesthesia, and one patient had a wound infection.

Conclusion

Endo-PLIF with EA is a feasible and valuable technique for the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases in selected patients.

Benefits of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program (ERAS) in Short-segment Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal, evidence-based approach to perioperative care that aims to reduce physiological and psychological stress, improve the quality of rehabilitation and speed up the recovery of patients. Our study aims to investigate the benefits of perioperative use of ERAS for short-segment posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

METHODS

We selected two 1-year periods: the first from before the establishment of the multidisciplinary ERAS team in January 2017 (pre-ERAS year 2016) and the second period when ERAS was applied widely in our hospital (ERAS year 2019). Data were collected from the electronic medical records of patients who had undergone short-level PLIF during these 2 periods. The primary outcomes were postoperative complications, length of hospital stay (LOS) and off-bed time.

RESULTS

A total of 207 patients were included; 95 patients in the pre-ERAS group were compared with 112 patients in the ERAS group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in baseline demographic. Patients in the ERAS group had significantly shorter LOS, bed-off time and earlier drainage tube and catheter removal time. The rate of postoperative complications differed significantly between the pre-ERAS and ERAS groups. Patients in the ERAS group had significantly less intraoperative blood loss, financial cost and opioid consumption than patients in the pre-ERAS group. The VAS and ODI scores, similar at baseline, were significantly lower in the ERAS group at postoperative day 3 (POD 3).

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of our ERAS protocol for patients undergoing short-level posterior lumbar fusion are evident in terms of reduced hospital stay and time to get out of bed, reduced incidence of postoperative complications, intraoperative blood loss, opioid use and hospital costs, and improved early postoperative pain and dysfunction.

Endo-TLIF versus MIS-TLIF in 1-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis: A prospective randomized pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the curative efficacy by comparing perioperative characteristics and 1.5-year observational outcomes in 1-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis between traditional minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and optimized Endoscopic TLIF techniques.

METHODS

The study was a single-center, randomized controlled trial comparing two different treatment approaches for 1-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis. 102 patients treated by MIS-TLIF (48 cases) or Endo-TLIF (54 cases) were included from March 2018 to April 2019. Perioperative parameters and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Degree of slip were measured, and fusion rates were determined at 18 months after surgery.

RESULTS

The Endo-TLIF group had similar return to work time and rate. Blood loss, left bed time, analgesic ratio were significantly less in Endo-TLIF group. The Endo-TLIF group had a significantly longer operative time. Significant postoperative reduction in %slip was showed in both groups. The VAS and ODI improved significantly in both groups after surgery. Significant decreases in low-back pain in Endo-TLIF group were found at postoperative day 1 and 3 months. The fusion rate in the two groups was similar.

CONCLUSION

Endo-TLIF surgery with a C-shaped working tube and a visualization system may be regarded as an efficient alternative surgery for 1-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis. It is a safe and minimally invasive way to perform this surgery and has shown satisfactory clinical outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR1800015197, 13 March 2018.

TRIAL REGISTRY

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. Registered 13 March 2018. http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=25865.

Full-Endoscopic Oblique Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Technical Note With 1-Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLLIF) is a minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion procedure using a bullet-shaped polyetheretherketone (PEEK) nonexpandable fusion cage modified to diminish risk to the exiting nerve root during posterolateral implantation through the Kambin safe zone under fluoroscopic guidance. The objective of this study was to present feasibility of this procedure and 1-year clinical outcome data.

METHODS

The authors present a prospective cohort study of 20 patients who underwent fluoroscopy-guided and full-endoscopic OLLIF in 22 segments allowing protection of the exiting nerve root from January 2018 to March 2019. The foraminoplasty, discectomy, endplate preparation, placement of bone graft and insertion of the fusion cage was done under continuous full-endoscopic visualization. The OLLIF fusion was backed up with bilateral percutaneous posterior supplemental pedicle screw fixation. Primary clinical outcome measures were the visual analog scale (VAS) of low back and leg pain, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 1 week, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after the operation. At final follow-up, the Macnab score was also evaluated. Secondary outcome measures were computed tomography (CT) assessment fusion using the Mannion classification of spinal fusion and adverse events related to the device as well as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment of nerve root decompression.

RESULTS

All patients had significant relief of low back pain and leg pain, by VAS and ODI scores that improved significantly (P < .01). There were no complications. Postoperative lumbar MRI of all patients showed sufficient direct nerve decompression. At 1-year follow-up, excellent Macnab outcomes were obtained 13 patients, good in six, and fair in one. Impaired sensation and muscle strength of the involved nerve root significantly recovered in all but 2 patients (P < .05). According to the Mannion CT-based classification of spinal fusion, CT showed complete interbody fusion achieved in all 22 segments.

CONCLUSIONS

Full-endoscopic OLLIF is a safe, effective, minimally invasive, economical, practical, and widely applicable minimally invasive interbody fusion technique in the lumbar spine.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Current state of benefits of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in spinal surgeries: A systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Recent years have been characterized by a great technological and clinical development in spine surgery. In particular, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs, started to gain interest also in this surgical field. Here we tried to analyse the current state of art of ERAS technique in spine surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A systematic review of the literature has been performed in order to find all the possible inclusions. Using the PRISMA guidelines, a search of the PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Reviews, Embase, Medline databases was conducted to identify all full-text articles in the English-language literature describing the use of ERAS programs or techniques for spine surgery in adult patients.

RESULTS

Out of the 827 studies found, only 21 met the inclusion criteria has been retained to be included in the present study. The most frequently benefits of ERAS protocols were shorter hospitalisations (n=15), and decreased complication rates (n=8) lower postoperative pain scores (n=4). These benefits were seen in the 3 main categories considered: lumbar spine surgeries, surgeries for correction of scoliosis or deformity, and surgeries of the cervical spine.

CONCLUSION

There are an arising amount of data showing that the use of ERAS programs could be helpful in reducing the days of hospitalizations and the number of complications for certain spinal procedures and in a highly selected group of patients. Despite the large interest on the topic; there is an important lack of high level of scientific evidences. Because of that, there is the need to encourage the design and creation of new randomized clinical trials that will validate the present findings.

Modified far lateral endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a biportal endoscopic approach: technical report and preliminary results

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has the disadvantage of the small cage size and by consequence risk for cage subsidence. We succeeded to insert a large oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) cage during biportal endoscopic TLIF.

METHODS

Unilateral total facetectomy was performed to expose the exiting and traversing nerve roots. The distance between the exiting and traversing nerve roots was measured before OLIF cage insertion. We inserted an OLIF cage instead of a TLIF cage.

CONCLUSION

We successfully performed modified far lateral biportal endoscopic TLIF using large OLIF cages. Modified far lateral biportal endoscopic TLIF is usually suitable for the L4-5 and L5-S1 levels.

How I do it? Extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion assisted with biportal endoscopic technique

BACKGROUND

The biportal endoscope-assisted unilateral foraminal approach is an option for various foraminal pathologies. Lumbar interbody fusion is the standard treatment for foraminal stenosis because both direct and indirect neural decompressions can be obtained.

METHOD

We used the biportal endoscopic technique for extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-EFLIF) and have described the steps, with discussion regarding the indications, advantages, possible complications, and ways to overcome complications.

CONCLUSION

BE-EFLIF achieves direct neural decompression of lateral spinal canal under endoscopic visualization. It achieves indirect neural decompression using a large footprint lordotic interbody cage, while preserving the lumbar posterior arch as much as possible.

Learning Curve and Clinical Outcome of Biportal Endoscopic-Assisted Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Interbody fusion is a common surgical technique for diseases of the lumbar spine. Biportal endoscopic-assisted lumbar interbody fusion (BE-LIF) is a novel minimally invasive technique that has a long learning curve, which can be a barrier for surgeons. Therefore, we analyzed the learning curve in terms of operative time and evaluated the outcomes of BE-LIF. A retrospective study of fifty-seven consecutive patients who underwent BE-LIF for degenerative lumbar disease by a single surgeon from January 2017 to December 2018 was performed. Fifty patients underwent a single-level procedure, and 7 underwent surgery at two levels. The mean follow-up period was 24 months (range, 14-38). Total operative time, postoperative drainage volume, time to ambulation, and complications were analyzed. Clinical outcome was measured using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score for back and leg pain, and modified Macnab criteria. The learning curve was evaluated by a nonparametric regression locally weighted scatterplot smoothing curve. Cases before the stable point on the curve were designated as group A, and those after the stable point were designated group B. Operative time decreased as the number of cases increased. A stable point was noticed on the 400th day and the 34th case after the first BE-LIF was performed. All cases showed improved ODI and VAS scores at the final follow-up. Overall mean operative time was 171.74 ± 35.1 min. Mean operative time was significantly lower in group B (139.7 ± 11.6 min) compared to group A (193.4 ± 28.3 min). Time to ambulation was significantly lower in group B compared to group A. VAS and ODI scores did not differ between the two groups. BE-LIF is an effective minimally invasive technique for lumbar degenerative disease. In our case series, this technique required approximately 34 cases to reach an adequate performance level.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical utility of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery pathways in adult spine surgery

OBJECTIVE

Spine surgery has been identified as a significant source of healthcare expenditures in the United States. Prolonged hospitalization has been cited as one source of increased spending, and there has been drive from providers and payors alike to decrease inpatient stays. One strategy currently being explored is the use of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols. Here, the authors review the literature on adult spine ERAS protocols, focusing on clinical benefits and cost reductions. They also conducted a quantitative meta-analysis examining the following: 1) length of stay (LOS), 2) complication rate, 3) wound infection rate, 4) 30-day readmission rate, and 5) 30-day reoperation rate.

METHODS

Using the PRISMA guidelines, a search of the PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Reviews, Embase, CINAHL, and OVID Medline databases was conducted to identify all full-text articles in the English-language literature describing ERAS protocol implementation for adult spine surgery. A quantitative meta-analysis using random-effects modeling was performed for the identified clinical outcomes using studies that directly compared ERAS protocols with conventional care.

RESULTS

Of 950 articles reviewed, 34 were included in the qualitative analysis and 20 were included in the quantitative analysis. The most common protocol types were general spine surgery protocols and protocols for lumbar spine surgery patients. The most frequently cited benefits of ERAS protocols were shorter LOS (n = 12), lower postoperative pain scores (n = 6), and decreased complication rates (n = 4). The meta-analysis demonstrated shorter LOS for the general spine surgery (mean difference -1.22 days [95% CI -1.98 to -0.47]) and lumbar spine ERAS protocols (-1.53 days [95% CI -2.89 to -0.16]). Neither general nor lumbar spine protocols led to a significant difference in complication rates. Insufficient data existed to perform a meta-analysis of the differences in costs or postoperative narcotic use.

CONCLUSIONS

Present data suggest that ERAS protocol implementation may reduce hospitalization time among adult spine surgery patients and may lead to reductions in complication rates when applied to specific populations. To generate high-quality evidence capable of supporting practice guidelines, though, additional controlled trials are necessary to validate these early findings in larger populations.