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

Evaluation of the learning curve and complications in unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: cumulative sum analysis and risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the learning curve and complications in unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) using the Cumulative Sum (CUSUM) analysis and Risk-adjusted Cumulative Sum (RA-CUSUM) analysis.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed 184 consecutive patients who received ULIF in our hospital, including 104 males and 80 females. CUSUM analysis and RA-CUSUM analysis were used to evaluate the learning curve of ULIF based on the operation time and surgical failure rate, respectively. All postoperative complications were defined as surgical failure. Variables of different phases were compared based on the learning curve.

RESULTS

The CUSUM analysis showed the cutoff point for ULIF was 29 cases, and the RA-CUSUM analysis showed the cutoff point for ULIF was 41 cases. Operating time and hospital stay were significantly decreased as the learning curve progressed (P < 0.05). Visual analogue score (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at the last follow-up were significantly lower than preoperatively. At the last follow-up, a total of 171 patients reached intervertebral fusion, with a fusion rate of 92.9% (171/184). A total of eleven complications were observed, and RA-CUSUM analysis showed that the incidence of complications in the early phase was 17.07% and in the late phase was 2.6%, with a significant difference (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

ULIF is an effective minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgical technique. But a learning curve of at least 29 cases will be required to master ULIF, while 41 cases will be required to achieve a stable surgical success rate.

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.

Clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion and modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease

BACKGROUND

To compare the early clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PE-PLIF) and modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MPLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease (LDD).

METHODS

A total of 37 patients who underwent PE-PLIF and 58 patients who underwent MPLIF from March 2019 to January 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, post-operative hospitalization time, and post-operative bedrest time were recorded. The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of leg pain and low back pain, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were evaluated and compared before the operation, 3 days after the operation, 1 week after the operation, 1 month after the operation, 6 months after the operation and at the last follow-up. The modified MacNab's criteria were applied at the last follow-up. The fusion rate and surgical-related complications during follow-up were recorded.

RESULTS

The average operation time in the PE-PLIF group was highly significant longer than that in the MPLIF group (P < 0.01). The intraoperative blood loss, post-operative hospitalization time, and post-operative bedrest time were significantly less in the PE-PLIF group than those in the MPLIF group (P < 0.01). There were highly significant differences in VAS scores of leg pain, VAS scores of low back pain, JOA scores, ODI scores at the last follow-up compared with those before the operation in the two groups (P < 0.01). Three days after the operation and 1 week after the operation, the VAS scores for low back pain and ODI were highly significant less in the PE-PLIF group than that in the MPLIF group (P < 0.01). Three days after the operation, the JOA scores were highly significant higher in the PE-PLIF group than that in the MPLIF group (P < 0.01). All patients showed intervertebral fusion at 6 months after the operation. Two patients (5.4%) in the PE-PLIF group experienced complications.

CONCLUSION

Both PE-PLIF and MPLIF surgery were clinically effective and safe for patients with single-segment LDD. PE-PLIF surgery is a promising technique that can be used as an alternative treatment for single-segment LDD.