Decompression via unilateral biportal endoscopy for severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: A comparative study with decompression via open discectomy

The Method of Portal Making in Lumbar Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Surgery with Different Operative Approaches According to the Constant Anatomical Landmarks of the Lumbar Spine: A Review of the Literature

STUDY DESIGN

Review.

OBJECTIVE

Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy (UBE) is a minimally invasive surgery that is gaining recognition and being employed in clinical practice. Nevertheless, the precise method for determining UBE portals' location varies depending on the originator's preferences or the anatomical structure's proximity to the portal positions. Consequently, the relationship among UBE portals' locations is messy. This study aims to elaborate on the specific portal localization and explore the positional association and commonality among different UBE approaches' portals.

METHODS

The following keywords are used to search in the PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Scopus, CNKI, and Wanfang database: "Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery", "Two portal endoscopic spinal surgery", "Percutaneous biportal endoscopic decompression", "Unilateral biportal endoscopy", "Irrigation endoscopic discectomy", "UBE" and "BESS".

RESULTS

After screening, 29 pieces of literature are included. The study summarizes different UBE approach portal localizations, categorized by fusion or non-fusion surgery and pathological classification. The study presents an inaugural method for categorizing the lumber into four surgical intervals based on bone landmarks and assigns different UBE approaches to the appropriate intervals based on their characteristics, making the selection of UBE surgical approaches' portal locations more flexible. Additionally, the study provides an overview of the indications, complications, and distinct benefits associated with each interval, further refining the novel UBE portal interval localization method.

CONCLUSION

The study clarifies the interrelationship and commonality between the portals of different UBE approaches and proposes a new UBE portal interval localization method to enhance surgeons' understanding and proficiency in UBE procedures.

Efficacy of PE-PLIF with a novel ULBD approach for lumbar degeneration diseases: a large-channel endoscopic retrospective study

PURPOSE

This study aims to assess the effectiveness of Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PE-PLIF) combined with a novel Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression (ULBD) approach using a large-channel endoscope in treating Lumbar Degenerative Diseases (LDD).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis evaluates 41 LDD patients treated with PE-PLIF and ULBD from January 2021 to June 2023. A novel ULBD approach, called 'Non-touch Over-Top' technique, was utilized in this study. We compared preoperative and postoperative metrics such as demographic data, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, surgical details, and radiographic changes.

RESULTS

The average follow-up duration was 14.41 ± 2.86 months. Notable improvements were observed postoperatively in VAS scores for back and leg pain (from 5.56 ± 0.20 and 6.95 ± 0.24 to 0.20 ± 0.06 and 0.12 ± 0.05), ODI (from 58.68 ± 0.80% to 8.10 ± 0.49%), and JOA scores (from 9.37 ± 0.37 to 25.07 ± 0.38). Radiographic measurements showed significant improvements in lumbar and segmental lordosis angles, disc height, and spinal canal area. A high fusion rate (97.56% at 6 months, 100% at 12 months) and a low cage subsidence rate (2.44%) were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

PE-PLIF combined with the novel ULBD technique via a large-channel endoscope offers significant short-term benefits for LDD management. The procedure effectively expands spinal canal volume, decompresses nerve structures, improves lumbar alignment, and stabilizes the spine. Notably, it improves patients' quality of life and minimizes complications, highlighting its potential as a promising LDD treatment option.

Ultrasonic bone curette-assisted unilateral approach for bilateral decompression with MIS-TLIF for severe lumbar spinal stenosis

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of bilateral decompression with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) assisted by an ultrasonic bone curette (UBC) for treating severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) and traditional tool laminectomy decompression MIS-TLIF for treating severe DLSS.

METHODS

The clinical data of 128 patients with single-segment severe DLSS who were admitted between January 2017 and December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 67 patients were treated with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF using an ultrasonic bone curette (UBC group), whereas 61 patients were treated with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF using traditional tools (traditional group, control). A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate back and lower limb pain before the operation,immediate postoperative, and one week, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after the operation. Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Zurich claudication score (ZCQ) were employed to evaluate the improvement in low back and lower limb function. At the last follow-up, the Bridwell bone graft fusion standard was utilized to evaluate bone graft fusion.

RESULTS

The decompression time of laminectomy was significantly shorter in the UBC group than in the traditional group (control group), and the intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume were significantly less in those in the control group (P < 0.05). The VAS, ODI, and ZCQ scores of the two groups after the operation were significantly improved compared to those before the operation (P < 0.05). The UBC group had better VAS back scores than the control group immediate postoperative and one week after the operation(P < 0.05). The UBC group had better VAS lower limb scores than the control group immediate postoperative (P < 0.05).The incidence of perioperative complications, hospitalization time, dural sac cross-sectional area (CSA), and dural sac CSA improvement rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05). VAS and ODI scores did not differ significantly between the two groups before,three, six months, one year, and two years after surgery (P > 0.05). The ZCQ scores did not differ significantly between the two groups before the operation at one week, six months, one year, and two years after the operation (P > 0.05). According to the Bridwell bone graft fusion standard, bone graft fusion did not occur significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05) at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

UBC unilateral fenestration bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF in treating severe DLSS can achieve clinical efficacy as traditional tool unilateral fenestration bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF and reduce intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage. It can also shorten the operation time, effectively reduce the work intensity of the operator, and reduce the degree of low back pain during short-term follow-ups. Therefore, this is a safe and effective surgical method.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Clinical effects of arthroscopic-assisted uni-portal spinal surgery and unilateral bi-portal endoscopy on unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical effectiveness of Arthroscopic-assisted Uni-portal Spinal Surgery (AUSS) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

A total of 475 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis from January 2019 to January 2023 were included in this study. Among them, 240 patients were treated with AUSS (AUSS group); the other 235 patients were treated with unilateral bi-portal endoscopy treatment (UBE group). The differences in surgery-related clinical indicators, pain degree before and after surgery, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), CT imaging parameters of spinal stenosis, and clinical efficacy were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Patients in the AUSS group had a shorter operative time than those in the UBE group, and the length of incision and surgical bleeding were less than those in the UBE group, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). Before operation, there was no significant difference in the VAS score of low back pain and leg pain between the two groups (P > 0. 05). After operation, patients in both groups showed a significant reduction in low back and leg pain, and their VAS scores were significantly lower than before the operation (P < 0.05). Three months after surgery, the results of CT re-examination in both groups showed that the spinal stenosis of the patients was well improved, and the measurements of lumbar spinal interspace APDC, CAC, ICA, CAD and LAC were significantly higher than those before surgery (P < 0. 05). Besides, the lumbar function of patients improved significantly in both groups, and ODI measurements were significantly lower than those before surgery (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Both AUSS and UBE with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression can achieve good clinical results in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, but the former has the advantages of simpler operation, shorter operation time, shorter incision length, and less surgical blood loss.

Biomechanical Study of Minimally Invasive Nonfusion Surgery for Treatment of Disc Herniation Associated with Adjacent Segment Disease: A Finite Element Analysis

OBJECTIVE

We explored the biomechanical changes of 2 conventional minimally invasive nonfusion surgical methods for treating disc herniation in adjacent segment disease using 3-dimensional finite element analysis.

METHODS

A model comprising L3 to the sacrum was validated and used to establish an L4-L5 fusion model, and an adjacent segment disease (ASD) model was developed by modifying the material properties of the intervertebral discs. The ASD model was used to simulate 2 conventional minimally invasive nonfusion surgical methods, which resulted in the creation of 2 postoperative models (M1 and M2). The range of motion and the equivalent stress for each model were recorded under 6 different working conditions. The data are descriptive and were analyzed comparatively under a normal load.

RESULTS

Compared with the ASD group, the range of motion of the adjacent segment in the M1 and M2 groups remained unaffected. However, significant Von-Mises stress changes were found in the annulus fibrosus and nucleus pulposus (NP), especially during extension, ipsilateral bending, and rotation. Stress in the NP also shifted toward the surgical incision in the annulus fibrosus during these movements. The maximum Von-Mises stress in the NP of the cephalic segment increased more than did that of the caudal segment.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimal nonfusion surgery for ASD might not affect adjacent segment stability significantly. Nonetheless, it can lead to segmental degeneration deterioration and postoperative recurrence. The cephalic segment is affected more than the caudal segment. Therefore, consideration of disc degeneration and appropriate selection of surgical methods for ASD are crucial.

Comparative efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy and micro-endoscopic discectomy in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Given the inconclusive literature on operative time, pain relief, functional outcomes, and complications, this meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy (UBE) and Micro-Endoscopic Discectomy (MED) in treating Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (DLSS).

METHODS

A thorough literature search was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and based on the PICO framework. The study interrogated four primary databases-PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library-on August 16, 2023, without time restrictions. The search employed a strategic selection of keywords and was devoid of language barriers. Studies were included based on strict criteria, such as the diagnosis, surgical intervention types, and specific outcome measures. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and statistical analysis was executed through Stata version 17.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis incorporated 9 articles out of an initial yield of 1,136 potential studies. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in surgical duration, but no statistically significant difference was identified (MD = - 2.11, P = 0.56). For VAS scores assessing lumbar and leg pain, UBE was statistically superior to MED (MD = - 0.18, P = 0.013; MD = - 0.15, P = 0.006, respectively). ODI scores demonstrated no significant difference between the two surgical methods (MD = - 0.57, P = 0.26). UBE had a lower incidence of complications compared to those receiving MED (OR = 0.54, P = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

UBE and MED exhibited comparable surgical durations and disability outcomes as measured by ODI. However, UBE demonstrated superior efficacy in alleviating lumbar and leg pain based on VAS scores. The findings present an intricate evaluation of the two surgical interventions for DLSS, lending valuable insights for clinical decision-making.