Endoscopic decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical assessment and management of lumbar spinal stenosis: clinical dilemmas and considerations for surgical referral

Lumbar spinal stenosis is the leading indication for spine surgery in older adults. Surgery is recommended in clinical guidelines if non-surgical treatments have been provided with insufficient benefit. The difficulty for clinicians is that the current number of randomised controlled trials is low, which creates uncertainty about which treatments to provide. For non-surgical clinicians this paucity of data leads to a clinical dilemma of whether to continue managing the patient or refer to a spine surgeon. This Viewpoint aims to provide an update on the assessment of lumbar spinal stenosis, treatment recommendations, indications for referral to a spine surgeon, and current clinical dilemmas facing non-surgical clinicians and spinal surgeons.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Does obesity and varying body mass index affect the clinical outcomes and safety of biportal endoscopic lumbar decompression? A comparative cohort study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic spine surgery has recently grown in popularity due to the potential benefits of reduced pain and faster recovery time as compared to open surgery. Biportal spinal endoscopy has been successfully applied to lumbar disc herniations and lumbar spinal stenosis. Obesity is associated with increased risk of complications in spine surgery. Few prior studies have investigated the impact of obesity and associated medical comorbidities with biportal spinal endoscopy.

METHODS

This study was a prospectively collected, retrospectively analyzed comparative cohort design. Patients were divided into cohorts of normal body weight (Bone Mass Index (BMI)18.0-24.9), overweight (BMI 25.0-29.9) and obese (BMI > 30.0) as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO). Patients underwent biportal spinal endoscopy by a single surgeon at a single institution for treatment of lumbar disc herniations and lumbar spinal stenosis. Demographic data, surgical complications, and patient-reported outcomes were analyzed. Statistics were calculated amongst treatment groups using analysis of variance and chi square where appropriate. Statistical significance was determined as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients were followed. 26 (30.1%) were normal BMI, 35 (41.7%) were overweight and 23 (27.4%) were obese. Patients with increasing BMI had correspondingly greater American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) scores. There were no significant differences in VAS Back, VAS Leg, and ODI scores, or postoperative complications among the cohorts. There were no cases of surgical site infections in the cohort. All cohorts demonstrated significant improvement up to 1 year postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that obesity is not a risk factor for increased perioperative complications with biportal spinal endoscopy and has similar clinical outcomes and safety profile as compared to patients with normal BMI. Biportal spinal endoscopy is a promising alternative to traditional techniques to treat common lumbar pathology.

Full-endoscopic versus microscopic spinal decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review & meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis is routinely treated with spinal decompression surgery, with an increasing trend towards minimally invasive techniques. Endoscopic decompression has emerged as a technique which minimizes approach-related morbidity while achieving similar clinical outcomes to conventional open or microscopic approaches.

PURPOSE

To assess the safety and efficacy of endoscopic versus microscopic decompression for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic review on randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing endoscopic versus microscopic decompression was conducted, in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Treatment effects were computed using pairwise random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-bias and ROBINS-I tools for randomized and nonrandomized trials respectively. Quality of the overall body of evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

A total of 19 primary references comprising 1,997 patients and 2,132 spinal levels were included. Endoscopic decompression was associated with significantly reduced intraoperative blood-loss (weighted mean differences [WMD]=-33.29 mL, 95% CI:-51.80 to -14.78, p=.0032), shorter duration of hospital stay (WMD=-1.79 days, 95% CI: -2.63 to 0.95, p=.001), rates of incidental durotomy (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.91, p=.0184) and surgical site infections (RR=0.23, 95% CI: 0.10 to-0.51, p=.001), and a nonsignificant trend towards less back pain, leg pain, and better functional outcomes compared to its microscopic counterpart up to 2-year follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic and microscopic decompression are safe and effective techniques for treatment of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. Prospective studies of larger power considering medium to long-term outcomes and rates of iatrogenic instability are warranted to compare potential alignment changes and destabilization from either techniques.

Microendoscopic Tailored Spine Decompression as a Less-Invasive, Stability-Preserving Surgical Option to Instrumented Correction in Complex Spine Deformities: A Preliminary Multicenter Experience

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to explore the effectiveness of a less-invasive posterior spine decompression in complex deformities. We studied the potential advantages of the microendoscopic approach, supplemented by the piezoelectric technique, to decompress both sides of the vertebral canal from a one-sided approach to preserve spine stability, ensuring adequate neural decompression.

METHODS

A series of 32 patients who underwent a tailored stability-preserving microendoscopic decompression for lumbar spine degenerative disease was retrospectively analyzed. The patients underwent selective bilateral decompression via a monolateral approach, without the skeletonization of the opposite side. For omo- and the contralateral decompression, we used a microscopic endoscopy-assisted approach, with the assistance of piezosurgery, to work safely near the exposed dura mater. Piezoelectric osteotomy is extremely effective in bone removal while sparing soft tissues.

RESULTS

In all patients, adequate decompression was achieved with a high rate of spine stability preservation. The approach was essential in minimizing the opening, therefore reducing the risk of spine instability. Piezoelectric osteotomy was useful to safely perform the undercutting of the base of the spinous process for better contralateral vision and decompression without damaging the exposed dura. In all patients, a various degree of neurologic improvement was observed, with no immediate spine decompensation.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected cases, the tailored microendoscopic monolateral approach for bilateral spine decompression with the assistance of piezosurgery is adequate and safe and shows excellent results in terms of spine decompression and stability preservation.

Efficacy of endoscopic decompression surgery for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis

Background

The overall aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of endoscopic decompression for outcomes in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort, single-institution study of n = 139 patients from 2019 to 2022 who underwent endoscopic decompression for LSS. The primary outcome was improvement of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) between baseline and 12-month follow-up.

Results

In the present sample (n = 139) the average age was 57.6 years (SD = 17.4, with even distribution of men (49%) vs. women (51%). In patients with LSS, lumbar disc herniation was the most common diagnosis in 49 patients followed by lumbar radiculopathy in 25 patients. Lumbar radicular pain was the 3rd most common diagnosis in 21 patients with all other diagnosis listed in Table S1. There was a significant improvement (i.e., decrease) in ODI following endoscopic decompression (mean change: -8.3, 95% CI: -9.4, -7.2, P < 0.001, Fig. 1). Prior lumbar spine surgery (P = 0.048), BMI (P = 0.053), and age (P = 0.022) were associated with changes in ODI. Nearly half (47%) of the sample had prior lumbar spine surgery. Those with prior lumbar spine surgery (-7.5, 95% CI: -8.3, -6.6) showed less improvement than those without prior lumbar spine surgery (-9.1, 95% CI: -10.9, -7.2, Fig. 2). For BMI, 23% had normal BMI while 24% were overweight and 53% were obese. Patients with normal BMI (-10.3, 95% CI: -13.4, -7.2) showed greater improvements compared to overweight (-7.9, 95% CI: -9.4, -6.4) and obese (-7.6, 95% CI: -9.0, -6.3, Fig. 3) patients. Patients under 40 years old (-10.2, 95% CI: -13.6, -6.8) showed greater improvements in ODI compared to those 40 years and older (-7.8, 95% CI: -8.6, -6.8, Fig. 4).

Conclusions

In patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, endoscopic decompression was associated with reduced disability. Patients with no prior lumbar spine surgery, normal BMI, and who were under 40 years old showed greater improvements.

Midterm Outcomes of Muscle-Preserving Posterior Lumbar Decompression via Sagittal Splitting of the Spinous Process: Minimum 5-Year Follow-up

Background

To overcome several disadvantages of conventional laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS), several types of minimally invasive surgery have been developed. The purpose of the present study was to report the clinical and radiological mid-term outcomes of spinous process-splitting decompression (SPSD) for DLSS.

Methods

Seventy-three consecutive patients underwent SPSD between September 2014 and March 2016. Of these, 42 (70 segments) who had at least 5 years of follow-up were analyzed retrospectively. The visual analog scale for back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index, and walking distance without resting were scored to assess clinical outcomes at the preoperative and final follow-up. A subgroup analysis was performed according to the union status of the split spinous processes (SPs). For radiological outcomes, slip in the neutral position as a static parameter, anterior flexion-neutral translation, and posterior extension-neutral translation as a dynamic parameter were measured before and at the final follow-up after surgery. Spinopelvic parameters were also measured. Reoperation rate at the index levels was investigated, and predictive risk factors for reoperation were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression. Survival analysis was performed with reoperation as the endpoint to estimate the longevity of the SPSD for DLSS.

Results

All clinical outcomes improved significantly at the final follow-up compared to those at the initial visit (p < 0.05). The clinical outcomes did not differ according to the union status of the split SP. There were no cases of definite segmental instability and no significant changes in the static or dynamic parameters after surgery. Sacral slope and lumbar lordosis increased, and pelvic tilt decreased significantly at the follow-up (p < 0.05), despite no significant change in the sagittal vertical axis. The mean longevity of the procedure before the reoperation was 82.9 months. Five patients (11.9%) underwent reoperation at a mean of 52.2 months after the SPSD. There were no significant risk factors for reoperation; however, the preoperative severity of foraminal stenosis had an odds ratio of 7.556 (p = 0.064).

Conclusions

SPSD for DLSS showed favorable clinical and radiological outcomes at the mid-term follow-up. SPSD could be a good surgical option for treating DLSS.

Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy With Bilateral Decompression Surgery in Severe Lumbar Stenosis Under Electrophysiological Monitoring-Focused on Full-Visualized Trephine/Osteotome

OBJECTIVE

Although endoscopic drill has the advantages in manipulation and hemostasis, whose low efficiency and blurred vision reduce the efficacy of lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD). The present study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of full-visualized trephine/osteotome in the LE-ULBD surgery for severe lumbar stenosis.

METHODS

Fifty-seven severe lumbar stenosis patients who underwent LE-ULBD between January 2020 to January 2023 were enrolled, who were divided into drill and visualized trephine groups. The medical records including demographics, operative duration, intraoperative electrophysiological findings, postoperative hospital stay or hospital stay, postoperative outcomes and complications were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 57 patients included 15 in drill and 42 in trephine group were enrolled in the study. There was significant difference in the pre- and postoperative visual analogue scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores in both groups (p < 0.05). The mean operative duration in the trephine group (101.05 ± 12.18 minutes) was shorter than that in the drill group (134.67 ± 9.68 minutes) (p < 0.05). There was no statistical difference between the 2 groups in electrophysiological monitoring, posthospital stays, postoperative outcomes and complications. Abnormal free-electromyography (EMG) were recorded in 2 (13.3%) and 5 patients (11.9%) in the drill and trephine group. Intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential changes occurred in 3 (20%) and 3 patients (7.1%) in the drill and trephine group and all patients recovered immediately when surgery ended. No serious complications and recurrence occurred in all the patients.

CONCLUSION

Full-visualized trephine/osteotome has been approved to be convenient, safe and efficient in our study, which combined with translaminar inside-out technique and EMG monitoring especially free-EMG may offer a new choice in LE-ULBD surgery for lumbar stenosis patients.

Full-endoscopic bilateral over-the-top decompression in lumbar central stenosis: surgical technique and outcomes

Decompression of spinal stenosis represents one of the most commonly performed procedures in spine surgery. With constantly increasing patient age and changing demographics, reducing the invasiveness of surgical procedures has become increasingly important. Over the past decades, microsurgical decompression has been established as a gold standard technique for the surgical treatment of spinal stenosis. In comparison with open techniques or surgeries that were performed with loop lenses, which required larger skin incisions, and which consecutively raised the access-related collateral damage, the microscope served to significantly reduce the invasiveness of the decompression interventions. Advantages included smaller skin incisions, reduced collateral tissue damage, less blood loss, lower infection rates and wound healing problems, shorter hospital stay, and multiple others, as widely known across various MIS techniques. For the same reasons as outlined above, the introduction of full-endoscopic surgical techniques aims to further reduce the invasiveness of surgical interventions. The present manuscript provides a delineation of the surgical technique of LE-ULBD (Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression), gives an overview on the current state of literature, and aims to put this surgery into context with other currently available decompression techniques.

Coaxial radiography guided puncture technique for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy: A randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

The coaxial radiography-guided puncture technique (CR-PT) is a novel technique for endoscopic lumbar discectomy. As the X-ray beam and the puncturing needle are maintained in a parallel and coaxial direction, the X-ray beam can be used to guide the trajectory angle, facilitating the choice of the puncture site and providing real-time guidance. This puncture technique offers numerous advantages over the conventional anterior-posterior and lateral radiography-guided puncture technique (AP-PT), especially in cases of herniated lumbar discs with a hypertrophied transverse process or articular process, high iliac crest, and narrowed intervertebral foramen.

AIM

To confirm whether CR-PT is a superior approach to percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy compared to AP-PT.

METHODS

In this parallel, controlled, randomized clinical trial, herniated lumbar disc patients appointed to receive percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy treatment were recruited from the Pain Management Department of the Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University and Nantong Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Sixty-five participants were enrolled and divided into either a CR-PT group or an AP-PT group. The CR-PT group underwent CR-PT, and the AP-PT group underwent AP-PT. The number of fluoroscopies during puncturing, puncture duration (min), surgery duration (min), VAS score during puncturing, and puncture success rate were recorded.

RESULTS

Sixty-five participants were included, with 31 participants in the CR-PT group and 34 in the AP-PT group. One participant in the AP-PT group dropped out due to unsuccessful puncturing. The number of fluoroscopies [median (P25, P75)] was 12 (11, 14) in the CR-PT group vs 16 (12, 23) in the AP-PT group, while the puncture duration (mean ± SD) was 20.42 ± 5.78 vs 25.06 ± 5.46, respectively. The VAS score was 3 (2, 4) in the CR-PT group vs 3 (3, 4) in the AP-PT group. Further subgroup analysis was performed, considering only the participants with L5/S1 segment herniation: 9 patients underwent CR-PT, and 9 underwent AP-PT. The number of fluoroscopies was 11.56 ± 0.88 vs 25.22 ± 5.33; the puncture duration was 13.89 ± 1.45 vs 28.89 ± 3.76; the surgery duration was 105 (99.5, 120) vs 149 (125, 157.5); and the VAS score was 2.11 ± 0.93 vs 3.89 ± 0.6, respectively. All the above outcomes demonstrated statistical significance (P < 0.05), favoring the CR-PT treatment.

CONCLUSION

CR-PT is a novel and effective technique. As opposed to conventional AP-PT, this technique significantly improves puncture accuracy, shortens puncture time and operation time, and reduces pain intensity during puncturing.

Efficacy of Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy in Elderly Patients Over 65 Years of Age Compared to Young Adults

OBJECTIVE

Spine surgery rates are increasing in the elderly population due to social aging, and it is known that prognoses related to surgery are worse for the elderly compared to younger individuals. However, minimally invasive surgery, such as full endoscopic surgery, is considered safe with low complication rates due to minimal damage to surrounding tissues. In this study, we compared outcomes of transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD) in elderly and younger patients with disc herniation in the lumbosacral region.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 249 patients who underwent TELD at a single center between January 2016 to December 2019, with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. Patients were allocated to 2 groups: a young group aged ≤ 65 years (n = 202) or an elderly group aged > 65 years (n = 47). We evaluated baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, surgery-related outcomes, radiological outcomes, perioperative complications, and adverse events during the 3-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics, including age, general condition based on American Society of Anesthesiologist physical status classification grade, age-Charlson Comorbidity Index, and disc degeneration, were worse in elderly group (p < 0.001). However, except for leg pain at 4 weeks after surgery, overall outcomes, including pain improvement, radiological change, operation time, blood loss, and hospital stay, were not different between the 2 groups. Furthermore, the rates of perioperative complications (9 patients [4.46%] in the young group and 3 patients [6.38%] in the elderly group, p = 0.578) and adverse events over the 3-year follow-up period (32 patients [15.84%] in the young group and 9 patients [19.15%] in the elderly group, p = 0.582) were comparable in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that TELD produces similar outcomes in both elderly and younger patients with a herniated disc in the lumbosacral region. TELD can be considered a safe option for appropriately selected elderly patients.

Determination of Work Related to Endoscopic Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Background: Effective 1 January 2017, single-level endoscopic lumbar discectomy received a Category I Current Procedural Terminology (CPT®) code 62380. However, no work relative value units (wRVUs) are currently assigned to the procedure. A physician’s payment needs to be updated to commensurate with the work involved in the modern version of the lumbar endoscopic decompression procedure with and without the use of any implants to stabilize the spine. In the United States, the American Medical Association (AMA) and its Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) proposes to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) what wRVUs to assign for any endoscopic lumbar surgery codes. Methods: The authors conducted an independent survey between May and June 2022 which reached 210 spine surgeons using the TypeForm survey platform. The survey link was sent to them via email and social media. Surgeons were asked to assess the endoscopic procedure’s technical and physical effort, risk, and overall intensity without focusing just on the time required to perform the surgery. Respondents were asked to compare the work involved in modern comprehensive endoscopic spine care with other commonly performed lumbar surgeries. For this purpose, respondents were provided with the verbatim descriptions of 12 other existing comparator CPT® codes and associated wRVUs of common spine surgeries, as well as a typical patient vignette describing an endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery scenario. Respondents were then asked to select the comparator CPT® code most reflective of the technical and physical effort, risk, intensity, and time spent on patient care during the pre-operative, peri- and intra-operative, and post-operative periods of a lumbar endoscopic surgery. Results: Of the 30 spine surgeons who completed the survey, 85.8%, 46.6%, and 14.3% valued the appropriate wRVU for the lumbar endoscopic decompression to be over 13, over 15, and over 20, respectively. Most surgeons (78.5%; <50th percentile) did not think they were adequately compensated. Regarding facility reimbursement, 77.3% of surgeons reported that their healthcare facility struggled to cover the cost with the received compensation. The majority (46.5%) said their facility received less than USD 2000, while another 10.7% reported less than USD 1500 and 17.9% reported less than USD 1000. The professional fee received by surgeons was <USD 1000 for 21.4%, <USD 2000 for 17.9%, and <USD 1500 for 10.7%, resulting in a fee less than USD 2000 for 50% of responding surgeons. Most responding surgeons (92.6%) recommended an endoscopic instrumentation carveout to pay for the added cost of the innovation. Discussion and Conclusions: The survey results indicate that most surgeons associate CPT® 62380 with the complexity and intensity of a laminectomy and interbody fusion preparation, considering the work in the epidural space using the contemporary outside-in and interlaminar technique and the work inside the interspace using the inside-out technique. Modern endoscopic spine surgery goes beyond the scope of a simple soft-tissue discectomy. The current iterations of the procedure must be considered to avoid undervaluing its complexity and intensity. Additional undervalued payment scenarios could be created if technological advances continue to replace traditional lumbar spinal fusion protocols with less burdensome, yet no less complex, endoscopic surgeries that necessitate a high surgeon effort in terms of time required to perform the operation and its intensity. These undervalued payment scenarios of physician practices, as well as the facility and malpractice expenses, should be further discussed to arrive at updated CPT® codes reflective of modern comprehensive endoscopic spine care.

Case-matched radiological and clinical outcome evaluation of interlaminar versus microsurgical decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis

PURPOSE

Endoscopic spine surgery is a globally expanding technique advocated as less invasive for spinal stenosis treatment compared to the microsurgical approach. However, evidence on the efficiency of interlaminar full-endoscopic decompression (FED) vs. conventional microsurgical decompression (MSD) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis is still scarce. We conducted a case-matched comparison for treatment success with consideration of clinical, laboratory, and radiologic predictors.

METHODS

We included 88 consecutive patients (FED: 36/88, 40.9%; MSD: 52/88, 59.1%) presenting with lumbar central spinal stenosis. Surgery-related (operation time, complications, length of stay (LOS), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA) score, C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell count, side of approach (unilateral/bilateral), patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry disability index (ODI), numeric rating scale of pain (NRS; leg-, back pain), EuroQol questionnaire (eQ-5D), core outcome measures index (COMI)), and radiological (dural sack cross-sectional area, Schizas score (SC), left and right lateral recess heights, and facet angles, respectively) parameters were extracted at different time points up to 1-year follow-up. The relationship of PROMs was analyzed using Spearman's rank correlation. Surgery-related outcome parameters were correlated with patient-centered and radiological outcomes utilizing a regression model to determine predictors for propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Complication (most often residual sensorimotor deficits and restenosis due to hematoma) rates were higher in the FED (33.3%) than MSD (13.5%) group (p < 0.05), while all complications in the FED group were observed within the first 20 FED patients. Operation time was higher in the FED, whereas LOS was higher in the MSD group. Age, SC, CRP revealed significant associations with PROMs. We did not observe significant differences in the endoscopic vs. microsurgical group in PROMs. The correlation between ODI and COMI was significantly high, and both were inversely correlated with eQ-5D, whereas the correlations of these PROMs with NRS findings were less pronounced.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis was similarly successful as the conventional microsurgical approach. Although FED was associated with higher complication rates in our single-center study experience, the distribution of complications indicated surgical learning curves to be the main factor of these findings. Future long-term prospective studies considering the surgical learning curve are warranted for reliable comparisons of these techniques.

Comparative Effects and Safety of Full-Endoscopic Versus Microscopic Spinal Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Statistical Power Analysis of 6 Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis with statistical power analysis aimed to evaluate the difference between full-endoscopic and microscopic spinal decompression in treating spinal stenosis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the comparison of full-endoscopic versus microscopic spinal decompression in treating lumbar spinal stenosis through February 28, 2022. Two independent investigators selected studies, extracted information, and appraised methodological quality. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 and STATA 14.0, and statistical power analysis was performed using G*Power 3.1.

RESULTS

Six RCTs involving 646 patients met selection criteria. Meta-analysis suggested that, compared with microscopic decompression, full-endoscopic spinal decompression achieved more leg pain improvement (mean difference [MD], -0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.30 to -0.10; p = 0.001), shortened operative time (MD, -12.71; 95% CI, -18.27 to -7.15; p < 0.001), and decreased the incidence of complications (risk ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.82; p = 0.01), which was supported by a statistical power of 98.57%, 99.97%, and 81.88%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Full-endoscopic spinal decompression is a better treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis, showing more effective leg pain improvement, shorter operative time, and fewer complications than microscopic decompression.

Surgeons’ Perspective, Learning Curve, Motivation, and Obstacles of Full-Endoscopic Spine Surgery in Thailand: Results From A Nationwide Survey

Objective

To report a nationwide survey of the endoscopic spine surgeons across Thailand. Furthermore, the survey will be focused on the perspective of experience, learning curve, motivations, and obstacles at the beginning of their practices.

Materials and Methods

The online survey consisting of 16 items was distributed to spine surgeons who are performing endoscopic spine surgery in Thailand via the Google forms web-based questionnaire to investigate participants' demographics, backgrounds, experience in endoscopic spine surgery, motivations, obstacles, and future perspectives. The data was recorded from January 7, 2020 to January 21, 2022. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis.

Results

A total of 42 surveys were submitted by 6 neurosurgeons (14.3%) and 36 orthopedic surgeons (85.7%). From the surgeons' perspective, the average number of cases that should be performed until one feels confident, consistently good outcomes, and has minimal complications was 27.44 ± 32.46 cases. For surgeons who starting the endoscopic spine practice, at least 3 workshop participation is needed. Personal interest (39 selected responses) and trending marketing or business purpose (25 selected responses) were the primary motivators for endoscopic spine surgery implementation. Lack of support (18 selected responses) and afraid of complications (16 selected responses) were pertinent obstacles to endoscopic spine surgery implementation.

Conclusions

The trend of endoscopic spine surgery has continued to grow in Thailand, shown by the rate of implementation of endoscopic spine surgery reported by Thai spine surgeons. The number of appropriate cases until one feels confident was around 28 cases. The primary motivator and obstacles were personal interest and lack of support.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study

Background

Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) is a rapidly growing surgical method that uses arthroscopic system for treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), while percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has been standardized as a representative minimally invasive spine surgical technique for LDH. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between UBE and PELD for treatment of patients with LDH.

Methods

The subjects consisted of 54 patients who underwent UBE (24 cases) and PELD (30 cases) who were followed up for at least 6 months. All patients had lumber disc herniation for 1 level. Outcomes of the patients were assessed with operation time, incision length, hospital stay, total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss (IBL), hidden blood loss (HBL), complications, total hospitalization costs, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria.

Results

The VAS scores and ODI decreased significantly in two groups after operation. Preoperative and 1 day, 1 month, 6 months after operation VAS and ODI scores were not significantly different between the two groups. Compared with PELD group, UBE group was associated with higher TBL, higher IBL, higher HBL, longer operation time, longer hospital stay, longer incision length, and more total hospitalization costs. However, a dural tear occurred in one patient of the UBE group. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications between the two groups.

Conclusions

Application of UBE for treatment of lumbar disc herniation yielded similar clinical outcomes to PELD, including pain control and patient satisfaction. However, UBE was associated with various disadvantages relative to PELD, including increased total, intraoperative and hidden blood loss, longer operation times, longer hospital stays, and more total hospitalization costs.