Biportal endoscopic versus microscopic lumbar decompressive laminectomy in patients with spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial

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.

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.

Short-term lumbar disc and lumbar stability changes of one-hole split endoscope technique treatment of spinal stenosis

OBJECTIVE

Investigating the early biomechanical effects of the one-hole split endoscope (OSE) technique on lumbar spine after decompression surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 66 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) who underwent OSE technique surgery at the affiliated hospital of Binzhou Medical University from September 2021 to September 2022. The patients had complete postoperative follow-up records. The mean age was (51.73 ± 12.42) years, including 33 males and 33 females. The preoperative and postoperative imaging data were analyzed, including disc height (DH), foraminal height (FH), lumbar lordosis angle (LLA), changes in disc angle, anterior-posterior translation distance, and lumbar intervertebral disc Pfirrmann grading. The visual analogue scale (VAS) was applied to evaluate the severity of preoperative, postoperative day 1, postoperative 3 months, and final follow-up for back and leg pain. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was applied to assess the functionality at all the listed time points. The modified MacNab criteria were applied to evaluate the clinical efficacy at the final follow-up.

RESULTS

In 66 patients, there were statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in DH and FH at the affected segments compared to preoperative values, whereas no significant differences (p > 0.05) were found in DH and FH at the adjacent upper segments compared to preoperative values. There was no statistically significant difference in the LLA compared to preoperative values (p > 0.05). Both the affected segments and adjacent upper segments showed statistically significant differences in Pfirrmann grading compared to preoperative values (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the changes in disc angle or anterior-posterior translation distance in the affected or adjacent segments compared to preoperative values (p > 0.05). The VAS scores for back and leg pain, as well as the ODI, significantly improved at all postoperative time points compared to preoperative values. Among the comparisons at different time points, the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The clinical efficacy was evaluated at the final follow-up using the modified MacNab criteria, with 51 cases rated as excellent, 8 cases as good, and 7 cases as fair, resulting in an excellent-good rate of 89.39%.

CONCLUSIONS

The OSE technique, as a surgical option for decompression in the treatment of LSS, has no significant impact on lumbar spine stability in the early postoperative period. However, it does have some effects on the lumbar intervertebral discs, which may lead to a certain degree of degeneration.

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.

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.

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.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) with microdiscectomy (MD) for treating lumbar disk herniation (LDH).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Web of Science databases from database inception to April 2023 to identify studies comparing UBED and MD for treating LDH. This study evaluated the visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Macnab scores, operation time, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, and complications, estimated blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and Macnab scores at various pre- and post-surgery stages. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 9 distinct studies with a total of 1001 patients. The VAS scores for low back pain showed no significant differences between the groups at postoperative 1-3 months (P = 0.09) and final follow-up (P = 0.13); however, the UBED group had lower VAS scores at postoperative 1-3 days (P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in leg pain VAS scores at baseline (P = 0.05), postoperative 1-3 days (P = 0.24), postoperative 1-3 months (P = 0.78), or at the final follow-up (P = 0.43). ODI comparisons revealed no significant differences preoperatively (P = 0.83), at postoperative 1 week (P = 0.47), or postoperative 1-3 months (P = 0.13), and the UBED group demonstrated better ODI at the final follow-up (P = 0.03). The UBED group also exhibited a shorter mean operative time (P = 0.03), significantly shorter hospital stay (P < 0.00001), and less estimated blood loss (P = 0.0002). Complications and modified MacNab scores showed no significant differences between the groups (P = 0.56 and P = 0.05, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The evidence revealed no significant differences in efficacy between UBED and MD for LDH treatment. However, UBED may offer potential benefits such as shorter hospital stays, lower estimated blood loss, and comparable complication rates.

Awake Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression Under Local Anesthesia for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in the Elderly: A Feasibility Study with Technique Note

Purpose

Here, we introduce a novel strategy of awake unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) decompression, which applies conscious sedation combined with stepwise local anesthesia (LA) as an alternative to general anesthesia (GA). The study aims to evaluate the feasibility of awake UBE decompression for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) in elderly patients.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective study included 31 consecutive patients who received awake UBE decompression for DLSS in our institution from January 2021 to March 2022. Clinical results were evaluated using patient-reported outcomes measures (PROM) including visual analog scale for leg pain (VAS-LP), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria. The anesthesia effectiveness and intraoperative experience were evaluated by intraoperative VAS and satisfaction rating system.

Results

UBE decompression was successfully performed in all patients under LA combined with conscious sedation. 26 (83.9%) patients rated the intraoperative experience as satisfactory (excellent or good) and 5 (16.1%) as fair. The mean intraoperative VAS was 3.41±1.26. The VAS and ODI at each follow-up stage after surgery were significantly improved compared to preoperative scores (p < 0.01). At the last follow-up, 28 patients (90.3%) classified the surgical outcome as good or excellent, and 3 (9.7%) as fair. There were no serious complications or adverse reactions observed in the study.

Conclusion

Our preliminary results suggest that awake UBE decompression is a feasible and promising alternative for elderly patients with DLSS.

Global Trends and Hotspots of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Bibliometric Analysis

Objective

The popularity of minimally invasive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has been steadily increasing worldwide. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to identify global trends and hotspots in the research related to this surgical approach.

Methods

Select articles related to the field that were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) between January 1, 1993 and December 31, 2022. Visualization of networks and in-depth bibliometric analyses, including the number of publications, countries/regions, institutions, journals, authors, keywords, and references, were conducted using VOSviewer and CiteSpace software.

Results

A total of 1197 papers were identified over a three-decade period, with the highest production year being 2022, which saw 171 papers published. The most prolific countries/regions were the United States (279) and Harvard Medical School (59). Among journals, Spine (3289 citations) was the most cited, while World Neurosurgery (98 publications) had the highest number of publications. Lewandrowski, Kai-Uwe (29 publications) wrote the most articles, and Ahn, Y (239 citations) ranked first among cited authors. The most frequently used keyword was "discectomy", but recent years have shown a strong emergence of keywords such as "microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy", "foraminotomy" and "classification".

Conclusion

The United States and China have emerged as leaders in the field of minimally invasive surgery for LSS. Endoscopic spinal surgery is recognized as a critical approach, with ongoing research focused on indications, potential complications, minimally invasive anatomical approaches, and outcomes. Furthermore, there is a strong emphasis on optimizing the surgical process, which has become a trending and hot spot in current research. The improvement of surgical techniques is at the forefront of advancements in this field.

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.

A case report: Unilateral biportal endoscopic revision for adjacent segmental disease: Case presentations and literature review

RATIONALE

Biportal endoscopic revision surgery for adjacent segmental disease (ASD) after lumbar arthrodesis is seldomly reported. Herein, we present 3 cases of ASD with radiculopathy wherein satisfactory results were obtained using unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) decompression.

PATIENT CONCERNS

Case 1 was of a 56-year-old male who presented with a chief complaint of Intermittent claudication since 2-year. Case 2 involved a 78-year-old female who was admitted to the hospital with a chief complaint of radiating pain and weakness in the left leg for at least 1 year. Case 3 was a 67-year-old woman who visited our hospital because of radiating leg pain for 5 months. All the cases had a history of L4 to L5 lumbar interbody fusion surgery.

DIAGNOSES

Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging showed the spinal epidural lipomatosis at the L3 to L4 level in case 1, the up-migrated lumbar disc herniation at L3 to L4 level in case 2 and unilateral foraminal stenosis at the L5 to S1 level in case 3.

INTERVENTIONS

Under UBE guidance, the ipsilateral approach was used to treat adjacent lumbar stenosis caused by spinal epidural lipomatosis. The contralateral approach was used to remove the up-migrated herniated disc. The paraspinal approach was applied to decompress the foraminal stenosis.

OUTCOMES

Postoperative parameters were improved clinically, and nerve roots were decompressed radiologically. No complications were developed.

LESSONS

UBE revision surgery showed a favorable clinical and radiological result without complications and may be a safe and effective alternative technique for ASD.

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.

Efficacy of the erector spinae plane block with sedation for unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery and comparison with other anesthetic methods

BACKGROUND

Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a new regional anesthesia. Unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spine surgery, a minimal invasive technique, has been performed under not only general anesthesia (GA) but regional anesthesia including spinal anesthesia (SA). The aims of this study were to evaluate the efficacy of ESPB with sedation for UBE lumbar decompression and compare it with GA and SA.

METHOD

A retrospective age matched case-control study design was performed. Three groups (20 patients in each group) of patients who underwent UBE lumbar decompressions under each anesthetic method (GA, SA, or ESPB) were formed. The total anesthesia time excluding operation time, postoperative analgesia effects, hospital days, and complications related to anesthetic methods were evaluated.

RESULTS

In the ESPB group, all the operations were performed without change of anesthetic methods and without anesthetic complications. But there were no anesthetic effects in the epidural space, which resulted in additional intravenous fentanyl usage. The mean of time from initiation of anesthesia to completion of surgical preparation was 23.3 ± 4.7 min in the ESPB group, which was shorter than 32.3 ± 10.8 min in the GA (p value = 0.001) or 33.3 ± 6.7 min in the SA group (p < 0.001). The proportion of patients requiring first rescue analgesia within 30 min was 30% in the ESPB group, which was lower than 85% in the GA (p < 0.001), but no significant different with 10% in the SA (p = 0.11). The mean of total hospital days in the ESPB was 3.0 ± 0.8, shorter than 3.7 ± 1.8 in the GA (p = 0.02) or 3.8 ± 1.1 in the SA group (p = 0.01). There was no case of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the ESBB even without prophylactic antiemesis.

CONCLUSION

ESPB with sedation is a viable anesthetic option for UBE lumbar decompression.

Biportal endoscopic discectomy versus tubular microscopic discectomy for treating single-level lumbar disc herniation in obese patients: a multicenter, retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

In microscopic lumbar discectomy in obese patients, a correlation is found between the operation time and increase in estimated blood loss according to the increase in body mass index; however, no studies have investigated the outcomes of biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy in obese patients. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of microscopic and endoscopic discectomy in obese patients with lumbar herniated discs.

METHODS

In this multicenter, retrospective study, clinical and radiological data were compared and analyzed in 73 obese patients with a body mass index of > 30 kg/m2 who underwent microscopic or biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Clinical data on the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) scores were measured, and radiological data were obtained using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

RESULTS

This study enrolled 43 patients who underwent microscopic discectomy and 30 who underwent biportal endoscopic discectomy. The VAS, ODI, and EQ-5D scores in both groups improved after surgery compared with those before surgery, although there was no difference between the two groups. Although there was a difference in the incidence of recurrent disc herniation confirmed by MRI after surgery, no difference was found in the number of patients requiring surgery between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In obese patients with lumbar disc herniation that was not improved with conservative treatment, no significant clinical or radiological differences in outcomes were noted between microscopic and biportal endoscopic surgery methods. In contrast, minor complications were less common in the biportal group.

Clinical outcomes of uniportal compared with biportal endoscopic decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) treatment has evolved with the introduction of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques. Endoscopic methods take the concepts applied to MIS a step further, with multiple studies showing that endoscopic techniques have outcomes that are similar to those of more traditional approaches. The aim of this study was to perform an updated meta-analysis and systematic review of studies comparing the outcomes between both available endoscopic techniques (uni and biportal) for the treatment of LSS.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic literature search and compared the randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies of uniportal and biportal endoscopy in the treatment of LSS from several databases. Bias was assessed using quality assessment criteria and funnel plots. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was used to synthesize the metadata. The authors used Review Manager 5.4 to manage the date and perform the review.

RESULTS

After a preliminary selection of 388 studies from electronic databases, the full inclusion criteria were applied; three studies were found to be eligible for inclusion. There were 184 patients from three unique studies. Meta-analysis of visual analog scale score for low back pain and leg pain showed no significant difference at the final follow-up (P = 0.51 and P = 0.66). ODI score after biportal surgery was lower than uniportal surgery [SMD = 0.34, 95% CI (0.04, 0.63), P = 0.02]. The mean operation time was similar in the unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and uniportal groups (P = 0.53). The UBE group was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (P = 0.05). Complications were similar in both groups (P = 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence shows no significant differences in most clinical outcomes between uniportal and biportal surgery. UBE may have a better ODI score at the end of the follow-up compared to uniportal. Further studies are required before drawing a definite conclusion.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO prospective register of systematic reviews: Registration Nº. CRD42022339078, Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/displayrecord.php?ID=CRD42022339078.

Surgeon reported practice patterns related to full endoscopic cervical decompression procedures

BACKGROUND

The microsurgical anterior approach to the cervical spine is commonplace. Fewer surgeons perform posterior cervical microsurgical procedures on a routine basis for lack of indication, more bleeding, persistent postoperative neck pain, and risk of progressive misalignment. In comparison, the endoscopic technique is preferentially performed through the posterior approach. Many spine surgeons and even surgeons versed in lumbar endoscopy are often reluctant to consider endoscopic procedures in the cervical spine. We report the results of a surgeon survey to find out why.

METHODS

A questionnaire of 10 questions was sent to spine surgeons by email and chat groups in social media networks including Facebook, WeChat, WhatsApp, and LinkedIn to collect practice pattern data about microscopic and endoscopic spine surgery in the lumbar and cervical spine. The responses were cross-tabulated by surgeons' demographic data. Pearson Chi-Square measures, Kappa statistics, and linear regression analysis of agreement or disagreement were performed by analyzing the distribution of variances using the statistical package SPSS Version 27.0.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 39.7%, with 50 of the 126 surgeons who started the survey submitting a completed questionnaire. Of the 50 surgeons, 56.2% were orthopedic, and 42% neurological surgeons. Most surgeons worked in private practice (42%). Another 26% were university-employed, 18% were in private practice affiliated with a university, and the remaining 14% were hospital employed. The majority of surgeons (55.1%) were autodidacts. The largest responding surgeon groups were between 35-44 years (38%) and between 45-54 years of age (34%). Half of the responding surgeons were routinely performing endoscopic cervical spine surgery. The other half did not perform it for the main hurdle of fear of complications (50%). Lack of appropriate mentorship was listed as second most reason (25.4%). More concerns for not performing cervical endoscopic approaches were the perception of lack of technology (20.8%) and suitable surgical indication (12.5%). Only 4.2% considered cervical endoscopy too risky. Nearly a third (30.6%) of the spine surgeons treated over 80% of their cervical spine patients with endoscopic surgeries. Most commonly performed were posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy (PECD; 52%), posterior endoscopic cervical foraminotomy (PECF; 48%), anterior endoscopic cervical discectomy (AECD; 32%), cervical endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (CE-ULBD; 30%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Cervical endoscopic spine surgery is gaining traction among spine surgeons. However, by far most surgeons performing cervical endoscopic spine surgery work in private practice and are autodidacts. This lack of a teacher to shorten the learning curve as well as fear of complications are two of the major impediments to the successful implementation of cervical endoscopic procedures.

Clinical outcomes and complications after biportal endoscopic spine surgery: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 3673 cases

PURPOSE

Current literature suggests that biportal spinal endoscopy is safe and effective in treating lumbar spine pathology such as lumbar disc herniation, lumbar stenosis, and degenerative spondylolisthesis. No prior study has investigated the postoperative outcomes or complication profile of the technique as a whole. This study serves as the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of biportal spinal endoscopy in the lumbar spine.

METHODS

A PubMed literature search provided over 100 studies. 42 papers were reviewed and 3673 cases were identified with average follow-up time of 12.5 months. Preoperative diagnoses consisted of acute disc herniation (1098), lumbar stenosis (2432), and degenerative spondylolisthesis (229). Demographics, operative details, complications, and perioperative outcome and satisfaction scores were analyzed.

RESULTS

Average age was 61.32 years, 48% male. 2402 decompressions, 1056 discectomies, and 261 transforaminal lumbar Interbody fusions (TLIFs) were performed. Surgery was performed on 4376 lumbar levels, with L4-5 being most common(61.3%). 290 total complications occurred, 2.23% durotomies, 1.29% inadequate decompressions, 3.79% epidural hematomas, and < 1% transient nerve root injuries, infections, and iatrogenic instability. Significant improvement in VAS-Back, VAS-Leg, ODI, and Macnab Scores were seen across the cohort.

CONCLUSION

Biportal spinal endoscopy is a novel method to address pathology in the lumbar spine with direct visualization through an endoscopic approach. Complications are comparable to previously published rates. Clinical outcomes demonstrate effectiveness. Prospective studies are required to assess the efficacy of the technique as compared to traditional techniques. This study demonstrates that the technique can be successful in the lumbar spine.

Development of an Endoscopic Spine Surgery Program: Overview and Basic Considerations for Implementation

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is an innovative technique allowing for minimally invasive, direct visualization of spinal abnormalities. The growth of ESS in the United States has been stunted by high start-up costs, low reimbursement rates, and the steep learning curve associated with mastering endoscopic techniques. Hergrae, we describe the current state and future direction of ESS and provide key action items for ESS program implementation.

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

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

Uniportal versus biportal endoscopic spine surgery: a comprehensive review

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic spine surgery techniques are minimally invasive alternatives to conventional open surgery for degenerative spinal diseases. Clinical studies and meta-analyses have proven the usefulness of uniportal full-endoscopic spine procedures. However, a steep learning curve is a critical barrier for endoscopic procedures. Recently, biportal endoscopic spine surgeries have been developed to make it easier for spine surgeons to learn and perform. Consequently, the biportal approach has gained popularity among aspiring endoscopic spine surgeons. This review compared the characteristics of uniportal and biportal surgeries to help spine surgeons perform endoscopic procedures more effectively.

AREA COVERED

The review analyzed English-language clinical literature in Core databases and compared uniportal and biportal endoscopic spine surgery techniques. Clinical studies have compared the technical principles of both techniques, and the authors suggested appropriate strategies for learning and practicing endoscopic procedures.

EXPERT OPINION

Uniportal, full-endoscopic spine surgery is a minimally invasive procedure that preserves muscles and uses a keyhole approach under local anesthesia. In contrast, biportal surgery is more familiar to a surgeon and can be performed more widely, although the keyhole approach is limited. Aspiring endoscopic spine surgeons can learn either method according to the surgeon's preference and the clinical situation.

Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Lumbar Disc Herniation

Background

Unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) is a novel minimally invasive technique for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar disc herniations. Uniportal endoscopy was utilized prior to the advent of UBE and has been considered the workhorse of endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) for lumbar discectomy and decompressive laminectomy. However, there are theoretical advantages to UBE compared with traditional uniportal endoscopy, including that the procedure utilizes typical spinal equipment that should be readily available, requires less capital cost and optical instrumentation, and provides greater operative flexibility as a result of utilizing both a working and a viewing portal7,8.

Description

A 0-degree arthroscope is typically utilized for discectomy and lumbar laminectomies. The use of a radiofrequency ablator is critical to help coagulate osseous and muscle bleeders. For irrigation, gravity or a low-pressure pump, typically <40 mm Hg, can be utilized9,10. Further details regarding irrigation pressure are provided in "Important Tips." The use of a standard powered burr is typical to help osseous decompression, and Kerrison ronguers, pituitaries, osteotomes, and probes utilized in open or tubular cases suffice. Two incisions are made approximately 1 cm lateral to the midline. If working from the left side for a right-handed surgeon, the working portal is typically made at the lower laminar margin of the target level. The camera portal is then made typically 2 to 3 cm cephalad. A lateral radiograph is then utilized to confirm the portal placements. From the right side, the working portal is cephalad and the camera portal is caudal. Because of the switch, the portals may be shifted more distally.The first step is creating a working space because there is no true joint space in the spine. With use of radiofrequency ablation, a working space is created in the interlaminar space. Next, with use of a powered burr or a chiseled osteotomy, the base of the cephalad spinous process is thinned until the insertion of the ligamentum flavum is found. Next, the ipsilateral and contralateral laminae are thinned in a similar fashion. Once the osseous elements are removed, the ligamentum flavum is removed en bloc. The traversing nerve roots are checked under direct high-magnification visualization to ensure that they are decompressed. If a discectomy is necessary, standard nerve-root retractors can be utilized to retract the neural elements. With use of a blunt-tip elevator, the anular defect can be incised and the herniated disc can be removed under direct high-power visualization. In addition, a small curet can be utilized to create a defect in the weakened anulus or membrane covering the extruded disc material in order to help deliver the herniated disc material. Epidural veins are coagulated typically with use of a fine-point bipolar radiofrequency device.

Alternatives

Nonoperative treatments include oral anti-inflammatory drugs, physical therapy, and epidural injections; if these fail, alternative surgical treatments include open lumbar laminectomy and/or discectomy, tubular lumbar laminectomy and/or discectomy, and other minimally invasive techniques, such as microendoscopy, uniportal endoscopy, and microscopy-assisted decompression.

Rationale

UBE is a minimally invasive surgical procedure that better preserves osseous and muscular structure compared with open and tubular techniques. Conventional lumbar laminectomy involves dissection and retraction of the multifidus muscle from the spinous process to the facet joint. This exposure can damage the delicate posterior dorsal rami. Long retraction time can also lead to pressure-induced muscle atrophy and potentially increased chronic low back pain. Alternatively, smaller incisions and shorter hospital stays are possible with UBE.Similar to UBE, tubular surgery can minimize soft-tissue damage compared with open techniques; however, in a randomized trial assessing techniques for spinal stenosis surgery, Kang et al. found that UBE and tubular surgery had similarly favorable clinical outcomes at 6 months postoperatively but UBE resulted in decreased operative time, drain output, opiate use, and length of hospital stay5.Furthermore, the use of an endoscope in the biportal technique allows ultra-high magnification of the spinal pathology, decreased capital costs, and the ability to use 2 hands with freedom of movement. UBE provides clear visualization of the neural elements while keeping maximal ergonomic efficiency with the surgeon's head looking straight forward, the shoulders relaxed, and the elbows bent to 90°. Continuous irrigation through the endoscope also helps with bleeding and decreasing the risk of infection.

Expected Outcomes

Long-term outcomes do not differ substantially between discectomies performed with use of the presently described technique and procedures done with more traditional minimally invasive (i.e., tubular) techniques; however, visual analogue scale scores for back pain may be better in the short term, and there is evidence of a shorter hospital stay with UBE2. Complication rates did not differ from other minimally invasive techniques. When comparing UBE and stenosis, Aygun and Abdulshafi found that UBE was associated with decreased hospital stays, operative time, and blood loss and better clinical outcomes up to 2 years postoperatively compared with tubular laminectomy12.

Important Tips

The optimal hydrostatic pressure is 30 to 50 mm Hg. Pressure is determined by the distance between the fluid source and the working space. Because the working space does not change, the height of the bag decides pressure. A simple formula for pressure is calculated by dividing the distance from the working field to the irrigation source by 1.36. A rule of thumb is that if the bag is 50 to 70 cm above the patient's back, the pressure should be adequate. The advantages of using gravity rather than a pressure pump are that excessive fluid solution pressure in the epidural space can cause neurological issues such as nuchal pain, headache, and seizure11. Additionally, if the intertransverse membrane or the lateral margins of the disc are violated, hydroperitoneum can occur unknowingly due to the high-pressure system.Gravity or pump pressure of >40 mm Hg may elevate epidural pressure and mask operative bleeding. When the pump is turned off at the end of the surgical procedure, a postoperative epidural hematoma may occur because the bleeding source may not have been recognized while the pump pressure was on.Excessive pump pressure may lead to an increase in intracranial pressure, causing headache or delayed recovery from general anesthesia with stiff posture and hyperventilation.Make sure fluid is emerging from the working portal and the muscle area is not swelling to prevent soft-tissue fluid extravasation.Epidural veins are coagulated typically with a fine-point bipolar radiofrequency device.Osseous bleeding can be controlled with bone wax or a high-speed burr.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

MRI = magnetic resonance imagingRF = radiofrequencyAP = anteroposterior.

Indications for and Outcomes of Three Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Approaches for the Decompression of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review

Objective: In this systematic review, we summarized the indications for and outcomes of three main unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) approaches for the decompression of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature was performed using Ovid Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid’s Cochrane Library. The following information was collected: surgical data; patients’ scores on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Macnab criteria; and surgical complications. Results: In total, 23 articles comprising 7 retrospective comparative studies, 2 prospective comparative studies, 12 retrospectives case series, and 2 randomized controlled trials were selected for quantitative analysis. The interlaminar approach for central and bilateral lateral recess stenoses, contralateral approach for isolated lateral recess stenosis, and paraspinal approach for foraminal stenosis were used in 16, 2, and 4 studies, respectively. In one study, both interlaminar and contralateral approaches were used. L4-5 was the most common level decompressed using the interlaminar and contralateral approaches, whereas L5-S1 was the most common level decompressed using the paraspinal approach. All three approaches provided favorable clinical outcomes at the final follow-up, with considerable improvements in patients’ VAS scores for leg pain (63.6–73.5%) and ODI scores (67.2–71%). The overall complication rate was <6%. Conclusions: The three approaches of UBE surgery are effective and safe for the decompression of various types of DLSS. In the future, long-term prospective studies and randomized control trials are warranted to explore this new technique further and to compare it with conventional surgical techniques.

Comparison of the Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Full-Endoscopic Laminotomy and Conventional Subtotal Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to compare the short-term clinical and radiological outcomes of full-endoscopic lumbar laminotomy (FEL) with those of subtotal lumbar laminectomy (STL) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

In this prospective randomized trial a total of 52 patients were enrolled from May 2016 to September 2021 after providing written informed consent. The authors investigated 45 patients who were followed up for more than 6 months.

RESULTS

There were significant improvements in visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores after the operation in both groups. The FEL group tended to have significantly shorter hospital stay. Interestingly, a statistically significant increase in postoperative lumbar lordosis and segmental angle was observed in the FEL group and both groups, respectively. Spondylolisthesis was exacerbated or newly developed in five of the 21 patients (24%) in the STL group. In contrast, improvement in spondylolisthesis was observed in two of the 24 patients (8%) in the FEL group. There were no complications that resulted in fatal sequelae and no significant difference in the complication rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical results of FEL were similar to those of STL. In addition, the results of FEL were superior to those of STL in terms of a decrease in the postoperative length of stay and radiologic instability, such as iatrogenic spondylolisthesis. The results of this study indicate that FEL is a comparable surgical method to STL for LSS.

The Use of Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel (UBS) in Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery (UBESS): Technical Notes and Outcomes

STUDY DESIGN

Case Series and Technical Note, Objective: UBS has been extensively used in open surgery. However, the use of UBS during UBESS has not been reported in the literature. The aim of this study was to describe a new spinal surgical technique using an ultrasonic bone scalpel (UBS) during unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery (UBESS) and to report the preliminary results of this technique.

METHODS

We enrolled patients diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent single-level UBESS. All patients were followed up for more than 12 months. A unilateral laminotomy was performed after bilateral decompression under endoscopy. We used the UBS system after direct visualization of the target for a bone cut. We evaluated the demographic characteristics, diagnosis, operative time, and estimated blood loss of the patients. Clinical outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the modified MacNab criteria, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of twenty patients (five males and fifteen females) were enrolled in this study. The mean follow-up period was 13.2 months (range 12-17 months). The VAS score, ODI, and modified MacNab criteria classification improved after the surgery. A minimal mean blood loss of 22.1 mL was noted during the operation. Only one patient experienced neuropraxia, which resolved within 2 weeks. There was no durotomy, iatrogenic pars fracture, or infection.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, our study represents the first report of the use of UBS during UBESS. Our findings demonstrate that this technique is safe and efficient, with improved clinical outcomes and minimal complications. These preliminary results warrant further investigation through larger clinical studies with longer follow-up periods to confirm the effectiveness of this technique in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Management of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of rehabilitation, surgical, injection, and medication interventions

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has a substantial impact on mobility, autonomy, and quality of life. Previous reviews have demonstrated inconsistent results and/or have not delineated between specific nonsurgical interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of interventions in the management of LSS.

METHODS

Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies, included patients with LSS, assessed the effectiveness of any interventions (rehabilitation, surgical, injection, medication), included at least two intervention groups, and included at least one measure of pain, disability, ambulation assessment, or LSS-specific symptoms. Eighty-five articles met inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were conducted across outcomes. Effect sizes were calculated using Hedge's g and reported descriptively. Formal grading of evidence was conducted.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis comparing rehabilitation to no treatment/placebo demonstrated significant effects on pain favoring rehabilitation (mean difference, MD -1.63; 95% CI: -2.68, -0.57; I² = 71%; p = .002). All other comparisons to no treatment/placebo revealed nonsignificant findings. The level of evidence ranged from very low to high for rehabilitation and medication versus no treatment/placebo for pain, disability, ambulation ability, and LSS symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the findings of this review are inconclusive regarding superiority of interventions, this accentuates the value of multimodal patient-centered care in the management of patients with LSS.

Clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

In recent years, unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) has been more and more favored by spinal surgeons because of its advantages of low trauma, rapid recovery, high fusion rate and fewer complications.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical effects of ULIF with those of conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective case control study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Twenty-seven patients treated by ULIF and thirty-three patients treated by PLIF.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The preoperative baseline and surgical technique-related outcomes (mean operation time, blood loss during operation, postoperative drainage, and postoperative hospital stay) were compared between the two groups. The clinical status of the two groups before and after surgery were also compared: visual analogue scale (VAS) score of the legs and back, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The clinical laboratory indexes of the two groups before and after the operation were compared: C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), creatine phosphokinase (CPK), interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), as well as the incidence of complications, such as dural tear, nerve root injury and infection.

METHODS

Adult patients who underwent L3-S1 single level lumbar interbody fusion were included in the study. They were divided into a PLIF group and a ULIF group according to the type of surgery. This study comprised 60 cases: 27 cases in the ULIF group and thirty-three cases in the PLIF group.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in preoperative baseline between the two groups. The ULIF group experienced less blood loss, postoperative drainage and a shorter postoperative hospital stay than the PLIF group; however the ULIF group required a longer operation time than the PLIF group (p<.05). CRP, ESR, CPK, IL-6, and TNF-α levels of the PLIF group were all significantly higher than those of the ULIF group 5 days after surgery (p<.05). The improvements in the VAS scores for back pain, VAS scores for leg pain and JOA score in the ULIF group were all significantly better than those in the PLIF group at 5 days after surgery (p<.05). There was no significant difference in fusion rate at 6 months between the 2 groups (p>.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that ULIF and PLIF were both effective surgical techniques for lumbar interbody fusion. However, ULIF caused less bleeding, reduced inflammatory reaction, less tissue damage and faster postoperative recovery compared with PLIF. Both long-term follow-up and larger clinical studies are needed to validate the clinical and radiological results of this surgery.

Biportal endoscopic versus microscopic discectomy for lumbar herniated disc: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Biportal endoscopic discectomy has been frequently performed in recent years and has shown acceptable clinical outcomes. However, evidence regarding its efficacy and safety remains limited.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of biportal endoscopic with that of open microscopic discectomy in patients with single-level herniated lumbar discs.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, multicenter, open-label, assessor-blind, non-inferiority controlled trial.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Sixty-four participants suffering from low back and leg pain with a single-level herniated lumbar disc and required discectomy.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes were assessed with the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score for surgical site, low back and lower extremity, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for lumbar disabilities, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions value for quality of life, and painDETECT for neuropathic pain. Surgery-related outcomes such as hospital stay, operation time, and opioid usage were collected. Adverse events occurring during the follow-up period were also noted.

METHODS

All participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo biportal endoscopic (biportal group) or microscopic discectomy (microscopy group). The primary outcome was the difference in ODI scores at 12-months post surgically based on a modified intention-to-treat strategy, with a non-inferiority margin of 12.8 points. The secondary outcomes included PROMs, surgery-related outcomes, and adverse events.

RESULTS

The ODI score at the 12-month follow-up was 11.97 in the microscopy group and 13.89 in the biportal group (mean difference, 1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.50 to 7.34), showing the non-inferiority of biportal group. The results for the secondary outcomes were similar to those for the primary outcome. Creatinine phosphokinase ratios were low in the biportal group. Early surgical site pain was slightly lower in the biportal group (mean difference of VAS pain score at 48-hr, -0.98; 95% CI, -1.77 to -0.19). Adverse events including reoperation showed no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Biportal endoscopic discectomy was non-inferior to microscopic discectomy over a 12 month period. Biportal endoscopic discectomy is suggested to be a relatively safe and effective surgical technique with the slight advantage of reduced muscle damage. However, the clinical implications of surgical site pain should be carefully considered.

Clinical and radiologic outcomes of biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy in obese patients: a retrospective case-control study

BACKGROUND

Obese patients have a higher risk of complications during spinal surgery than non-obese patients. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have examined the differences in clinical and radiological outcomes after biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (BELD) between obese and non-obese patients. The study evaluated the association between obesity and outcomes after BELD in patients with lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study conducted from March 2017 to March 2021 at two hospitals with 360 patients who underwent BELD after showing no improvement with conservative treatment. Clinical and radiologic outcomes were retrospectively analyzed after BELD in the non-obese (body mass index [BMI] < 30 kg/m²) and obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) groups. Demographic data and surgery-related factors were compared between the two groups. Clinical outcomes were followed up for 12 months after surgery and analyzed for differences.

RESULTS

A total of 211 patients were enrolled in this study, and through case-control matching, the data of 115 patients (29, obese group; 86, non-obese group) were analyzed. The two groups showed no significant differences in Oswestry Disability Index, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), and visual analog scale scores measured immediately after BELD and 12 months after surgery. After surgery, back pain, radiating leg pain, and EQ-5D scores improved. However, there was no significant difference in improvement, residual herniated disc, hematoma, or recurrence between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Obese patients who underwent BELD for lumbar disc herniation showed no significant difference in clinical and radiologic outcomes compared with non-obese patients.

Comparison of the safety and efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a 1-year follow-up

Objectives

To compare the short-term outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (BLIF) and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF).

Methods

Sixty patients diagnosed with L4/5 spinal stenosis who underwent BLIF and ULIF were included (30 in each group). Clinical evaluation was performed preoperatively and postoperatively in the 1st week, 1st month, and 1st year. Factors such as the visual analogue score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), operative time, surgical complications, and radiological outcomes (fusion rate, screw loosening, and cage subsidence) were compared between the two groups.

Results

All patients showed improved mean VAS and ODI at all three postoperative follow-ups, and no statistically significant differences were detected between the BLIF and ULIF groups. The mean operative time in the BLIF group was shorter than that in the ULIF group. Nerve root injury occurred in two patients in the BLIF group, while leakage of cerebrospinal fluid occurred in one patient in the ULIF group. All adverse events were treated adequately prior to discharge. The fusion rates with definite and probable grades were significantly higher in the BLIF group than that in the ULIF group. One case of cage subsidence with no screw loosening occurred in each group.

Conclusion

Both BLIF and ULIF are safe and effective surgical techniques. Compared with ULIF, BLIF has the advantages of shorter operative time and a higher fusion rate. Other merits of BLIF include a wider surgical field, greater maneuverability of instruments, visibility during cage implantation, and transverse orientation of the cage.

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.

Recent Updates on Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: Techniques, Technologies, and Indications

A number of minimally invasive spine surgeries (MISSs) have been developed to address the drawbacks of open spine surgery. Their advantages include small skin incisions, reduction in tissue damage, quick recovery, and short hospital stay. However, the clinical outcomes are comparable to open surgery. There was a cap on the number of indications that could be set for all spinal illnesses. The indications for MISSs have been expanding owing to mechanical and technological advances in medical equipment. Thus, this review presents the various MISSs developed to date, surgical indications, surgical techniques, and their advantages and disadvantages.

Complications of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-analysis of Single-arm Studies

PURPOSE

This article aims to summarize the incidence of these complications through a meta-analysis, analyze the causes of complications and provide clinical promotion and recommendations.

METHODS

Databases and retrieval platform including PubMed, Web of science, Springer link, Cochrane clinical trials, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, Europe PMC, Wiley online, OVID, Clinical trials, CNKI and WanFang, and supplement the literature through Google Scholar, collect all the unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) controlled trials and non-controlled trials of UBE in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). The search time limit is from January 1, 2000 to December 25, 2021. After two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies, meta-analysis was performed using Stata 15.1 software.

RESULTS

Finally, 24 studies were included, including 999 patients. The results of a single-arm rate meta-analysis showed that the overall complication rate of UBE treatment of LSS was 6.27% [95% CI (0.0412, 0.0876)], and the incidence of dural tear was 2.49% [95% CI (0.0133, 0.0390)], the incidence of transient paresthesia was 0.14% [95% CI (0.0000, 0.0072)], the incidence of postoperative spinal epidural hematoma was 0.27% [95% CI (0.0000, 0.0096)], the incidence of postop headache, inadequate decompression, root injury and infection was 0.00%.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence shows that the complication rate of UBE in the treatment of LSS is low, mainly due to dural tears. Limited by the number and quality of included studies, the above conclusions still need to be confirmed by more studies.

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.

A meta-analysis of clinical effects of microscopic unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression (ULBD) versus biportal endoscopic ULBD for lumbar canal stenosis

Osbjective

Several studies have shown that both microscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression (ULBD) and unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) ULBD are effective for treating lumbar canal stenosis (LCS). However, there are different viewpoints as to which surgical technique is superior. Therefore, this meta-analysis investigated the clinical efficacy and side effects of microscopic ULBD and UBE ULBD for treating LCS.

Methods

To identify relevant studies describing the clinical outcomes and complication rates of microscopic ULBD and UBE ULBD for LCS, several databases were systematically searched in the Internet. The visual analog scale score for back and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index were used to assess clinical outcomes. Furthermore, data about perioperative outcomes and complications were documented.

Results

In total, six studies with 450 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The UBE ULBD was found to be superior to microscopic ULBD in terms of efficacy against early postoperative back and leg pain. However, there was no significant difference between the two procedures in terms of final clinical outcomes and complications. In addition, compared with microscopic ULBD, UBE ULBD was associated with a significant reduction in the length of hospital stay and C-reactive protein levels 2 days after surgery.

Conclusion

UBE ULBD and microscopic ULBD for the treatment of LCS were similar in terms of final clinical outcomes and complications. However, UBE ULBD has several advantages over microscopic ULBE, including a shorter hospital stay and faster alleviation of postoperative back and leg pain.

Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy versus Microendoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

In minimally invasive spinal surgery, the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with microendoscopic discectomy (MED) or unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) shows effective results, but which is more effective is controversial. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UBED versus MED in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by a systematic review and meta-analysis, so as to provide reference for the promotion of UBED in clinical practice.

Methods

The multiple databases like PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Databases, Chinese BioMedical Database, and Wanfang Database were used to search for the relevant studies. Review Manager 5.4 was adopted to estimate the effects of the results among selected articles. Odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate the overall pooled effect. Subgroup analysis, forest plots, funnel plots and Egger's test for the articles included were also conducted.

Results

Three randomized clinical trials and seven cohort studies were finally retrieved, these studies included 685 and 829 patients in the UBED and MED groups, respectively. There were no differences in terms of operation time (MD = -0.92, P =0.72), estimated blood loss (MD = -26.31, P =0.08), complications (MD =0.81, P =0.38) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (P >0.05 in four subgroup) between the two groups. The visual analog scale (VAS) score of back pain in the UBED group was better than MED group only at 6 months (MD = -0.23, P =0.006) after operation, the VAS score of leg pain in the UBED group was better than that of MED group at 3 mouths (MD = -0.22, P =0.002) and 6 months (MD = -0.24, P =0.006) after operation, the UBED group had a less postoperative length of stay than the MED group (MD = -1.85, P <0.001). The bias analysis showed that there was no potential publication bias in the included literature.

Conclusion

This study showed that compared with MED, UBED has the advantages of short hospital stay and good short-term curative effect, but there is no significant difference in long-term efficacy and safety, they can be replaced by each other in clinical application.

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.

Clinical effects of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression for lumbar posterior apophyseal ring separation

Objective

The purpose of the study was to investigate the feasibility and effects of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression for lumbar posterior apophyseal ring separation (PARS).

Methods

Patients with lumbar PARS who received unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression from June 2020 to September 2021 were analyzed, including 11 females and 15 males. The clinical symptoms were consistent with the imaging findings. Operation time, length of postoperative hospital stay and complications were recorded, and the clinical efficacy was evaluated by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and modified Macnab scale at preoperative, postoperative 1, 3, 6 months and the last follow-up.

Results

Preoperative VAS scores of low back pain were (5.04 ± 1.37) and respectively decreased to (2.81 ± 0.75), (2.35 ± 0.98), (1.65 ± 0.69) and (1.15 ± 0.68) at postoperative 1, 3, 6 months and at the last follow-up, and the difference was statistically significant (F = 127.317, P = 0.000). Preoperative VAS scores of lower limb pain were (6.92 ± 1.38) and respectively decreased to (2.88 ± 1.07), (2.54 ± 1.03), (1.81 ± 0.80) and (1.00 ± 0.69) at postoperative 1, 3, 6 months and at the last follow-up, and the difference was statistically significant (F = 285.289, P = 0.000). Preoperative ODI scores were (60.47 ± 8.89) and respectively decreased to (34.72 ± 4.13), (25.80 ± 3.65), (17.71 ± 3.41) and (5.65 ± 2.22) at postoperative 1, 3, 6 months and at the last follow-up, and the difference was statistically significant (F = 725.255, P = 0.000). According to the modified Macnab criteria, the final outcome was excellent in 22 cases, good in 3 cases, fair in 1 cases. 26 patients could return to work or normal activities within 3 weeks.

Conclusions

Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression has the advantages of clear and wide field of vision, large operating space, relatively simple need of surgical instrument and convenient and flexible operation procedure. It can achieve excellent clinical results with favorable efficacy and safety and may become a new minimally invasive endoscopic treatment for lumbar PARS.

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.

Case Report: Five-Level Unilateral Laminectomy Bilateral Decompression (ULBD) by Two-Stage Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy (UBE)

Introduction

Unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) is a relatively new yet common minimally invasive procedure in spine surgery, capable of achieving adequate decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis through unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression (ULBD). Neither additional fusion nor rigid fixation is required, as UBE-ULBD rarely causes iatrogenic lumbar instability. However, to our knowledge, five-level ULBD via two-stage UBE without lumbar fusion has been yet to be reported in the treatment of multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis.

Case description

We present a case of an 80-year-old female patient who developed progressive paralysis of the lower extremities. Radiographic examinations showed multilevel degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis and extensive compression of the dural sac and nerve roots from L1-2 to L5-S1. The patient underwent five-level ULBD through two-stage UBE without lumbar fusion or fixation. One week after the final procedure, the patient could ambulate with walking aids and braces. Moreover, no back pain or limited lumbar motion was observed at the 6-month follow-up.

Conclusion

Multilevel ULBD through UBE may provide elderly patients with an alternative, minimally invasive procedure for treating spinal stenosis. This procedure could be achieved by staging surgeries. In this case, we reported complaints of little back pain, despite not needing to perform lumbar fusion or fixation.

The Learning Curve of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) Spinal Surgery by CUSUM Analysis

Objective

To assess the learning curve of the unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) technique for the treatment of single-level lumbar disc herniation by cumulative summation (CUSUM) method analysis.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted to assess 97 patients' general condition, operation time, complications, and curative effect of single segmental UBE surgery performed by a spinal surgeon in his early stage of this technique. The learning curve of operation time was studied using a CUSUM method, and the cut-off point of the learning curve was obtained.

Results

The operation time was 30 – 241(97.9 ± 34.7) min. The visual analog scale score of lower limb pain decreased from 5.75 ± 0.81 before the operation to 0.39 ± 0.28 at the last follow-up (P &lt; 0.05). The Oswestry disability index score decreased from 66.48 ± 4.43 before the operation to 14.57 ± 3.99 at the last follow-up (P &lt; 0.05). The CUSUM assessment of operation time revealed the learning curve was the highest in 24 cases. In the learning stage (1–24 cases), the operation time was 120.3 ± 43.8 min. In the skilled stage (25–97 cases), the operation time was 90.5 ± 27.8 min.

Conclusions

About 24 cases of single segmental UBE operation are needed to master the UBE technique.

Comparison of Microscopic Decompression and Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery in the Treatment of Lumbar Canal Stenosis and Herniated Disc: A One-year Follow-up

Backgrounds. Microscopic decompression (MD) has been widely used as an alternative to open decompression. Lately, biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) - a new approach in minimal-invasive spinal surgery – has also been used with good results.  Although both groups can achieve adequate lumbar decompression, there is still a lack of evidence regarding their comparison. We aim to compare the outcomes of both techniques in a one-year follow-up. Methods. This is a retrospective study in 100 consecutive patients with symptomatic lumbar spine compression due to herniated nucleus pulposus (HNP) and lumbar canal stenosis (LCS) that was treated by either BESS or MD. Clinical evaluations using Visual Analog Score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and SF-36 questionnaire were obtained. Objective data such as surgery duration, amount of postoperative drain production, and hospital length of stay were collected. Complications were noted throughout the follow-up time. Results. The BESS group had a significantly lesser surgical duration, drain production, and length of stay. At one year follow-up, both groups achieved significant improvement in VAS, ODI, and SF-36 compared to the preoperative condition. Complications were not observed in the BESS group. Conclusions. Both procedures were comparably effective to treat lumbar stenosis. Although this study shows superiority with BESS technique in immediate and long-term follow-up, the final choice may depend on the surgeon's preference

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

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar stenosis treatment has evolved with the introduction of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques. Endoscopic methods take the concepts applied to MIS a step further, with multiple studies showing that endoscopic techniques have outcomes that are similar to those of more traditional approaches. The aim of this study was to perform an updated meta-analysis and systematic review of studies comparing the outcomes between endoscopic (uni- and biportal) and microscopic techniques for the treatment of lumbar stenosis.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was performed using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid Embase, and PubMed databases from their dates of inception to December 14, 2020. All identified articles were then systematically screened against the following inclusion criteria: 1) studies comparing endoscopic (either uniportal or biportal) with minimally invasive approaches, 2) patient age ≥ 18 years, and 3) diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Bias was assessed using quality assessment criteria and funnel plots. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was used to synthesize the metadata.

RESULTS

From a total of 470 studies, 14 underwent full-text assessment. Of these 14 studies, 13 comparative studies were included for quantitative analysis, totaling 1406 procedures satisfying all criteria for selection. Regarding postoperative back pain, 9 studies showed that endoscopic methods resulted in significantly lower pain scores compared with MIS (mean difference [MD] -1.0, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.4, p < 0.01). The length of stay data were reported by 7 studies, with endoscopic methods associated with a significantly shorter length of stay versus the MIS technique (MD -2.1 days, 95% CI -2.7 to -1.4, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference with respect to leg visual analog scale scores, Oswestry Disability Index scores, blood loss, surgical time, and complications, and there were not any significant quality or bias concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Both endoscopic and MIS techniques are safe and effective methods for treating patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis. Patients who undergo endoscopic surgery seem to report less postoperative low-back pain and significantly reduced hospital stay with a trend toward less perioperative blood loss. Future large prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm the findings in this study.

Comparing the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive biportal endoscopic spine surgery versus conventional microscopic discectomy in single-level lumbar herniated intervertebral disc (ENDO-BH Trial): a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled equivalence trial study protocol

Background

Biportal endoscopic surgery has recently been performed in lumbar discectomy, with advantages over conventional surgery, such as less skin scarring and muscle damage. However, the clinical results have not been established. Although previous studies reported no difference between the biportal endoscopic and microscopic discectomy clinical results, the evidence was weak. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the biportal endoscopic discectomy versus the microscopic discectomy.

Methods

This prospective multicenter randomized controlled equivalence trial is designed to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of patients who underwent lumbar discectomy using biportal endoscopy or microscopy. We will include 100 participants (50 per group) with a lumbar herniated disc. The primary outcome will be the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score 12 months after surgery based on a modified intention-to-treat strategy. The secondary outcomes will include the visual analog scale score for low back and lower extremity radiating pain, the ODI score, the Euro-Qol-5-Dimensions score, surgery satisfaction, walking time, postoperative return to daily life period, postoperative surgical scar, and surgery-related variables, such as postoperative drainage, operation time, admission duration, postoperative creatine kinase, and implementation status of conversion to open surgery. Radiographic outcomes will also be analyzed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) and simple radiographs. Safety will be assessed by evaluating all adverse and severe adverse events and surgery-related effects. The participants will be assessed by a blinded assessor before surgery (baseline) and 2 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.

Discussion

This trial will be the first prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to analyze the efficacy and safety of biportal endoscopic discectomy in lumbar herniated disc.

This trial is designed for evaluating the equivalence of the results between biportal endoscopic and microscopic discectomy including adequate sample size, blinded analyses, and prospective registration to reduce bias. This trial will provide enough data on the effectiveness and safety of biportal endoscopic surgery and will be an important study that allows clear conclusions.

Trial registration

Clinical Research Information Service (cris.nih.go.kr.) (KCT0006191). Registered on 27 March 2021

Minimally invasive bilateral decompressive lumbar laminectomy with unilateral approach: patient series

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive bilateral decompressive lumbar laminectomy with a unilateral approach is a less destructive procedure compared to the traditional open bilateral laminectomy. The objective of this study is to report the authors’ experience with this technique. The first 26 cases performed using the unilateral approach for bilateral decompression are described. Baseline characteristics, operative time, blood loss, and intraoperative complications were collected retrospectively. No specific surgical equipment is needed for this technique.

OBSERVATIONS

Twenty-six patients and a total of 40 lumbar levels were treated. Mean operative time was 82 minutes per level and mean estimated blood loss was 40.4 mL per level. Mean length of hospitalization was 1.65 days. Cerebrospinal fluid leak occurred in 1 of 26 (3.85%) cases.

LESSONS

Although improved stabilization needs to be proven in future long-term studies to clearly show a decrease in need for fusion, the initial experience with a unilateral approach is positive and continued use in minimally invasive spine surgery seems promising.

Artificial Intelligence Algorithm-Based Lumbar and Spinal MRI for Evaluation of Efficacy of Chinkuei Shin Chewan Decoction on Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

The study aimed to explore the application value of lumbar Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) images processed by artificial intelligence algorithms in evaluating the efficacy of chinkuei shin chewan decoction (a traditional Chinese medicine to nourish the kidney) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Specifically, 110 LSS patients admitted to the hospital were selected as the research subjects. They were randomly divided into the control group (n = 55) and experimental group (n = 55) according to different treatment methods. The control group was treated with traditional medicine, and the experimental group additionally took chinkuei shin chewan decoction on its basis. Based on the traditional U-net algorithm, a U-net registration algorithm based on artificial intelligence was designed by introducing the information entropy theory, and the algorithm was applied to the lumbar MRI image evaluation of LSS patients. Compared with the traditional U-net algorithm, the artificial intelligence-based U-net registration algorithm had a decreased noise level (P < 0.05), the Jaccard (J) value (0.84) and the Dice value (0.93) increased significantly versus the traditional algorithm (J = 0.63, Dice = 0.81), and the characteristics of the image were more accurate. Before treatment, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores of the experimental group and the control group were 44.32 ± 6.45 and 43.32 ± 5.45, respectively. After treatment, the ODI scores of the two groups were 10.21 ± 5.05 and 17.09 ± 5.23, respectively. Both showed significant improvement, while the improvement of the experimental group was more obvious than that of the control group (P < 0.05). The overall effective rates of the two groups of patients were 96.44% and 82.47%, respectively, and the experimental group was significantly higher than the control group (P < 0.05). Under the U-net registration algorithm based on artificial intelligence, the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar MRI in the experimental group was 94.45%, significantly higher than 67.5% before the introduction of the algorithm (P < 0.05). In conclusion, chinkuei shin chewan decoction are effective for the treatment of LSS, and lumbar MRI based on the artificial intelligence U-net registration algorithm can evaluate the efficacy of LSS well and is worthy of promotion.

THE MICROSCOPIC AND ENDOSCOPIC TECHNIQUES IN LUMBAR DISCECTOMY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

ABSTRACT Objectives: To compare microdiscectomy (MD) and endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (EID) as methods for the surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation, describing their efficiency in reducing hospitalization time, pain, and neurological deficit, and comparing the findings and the quality of studies that used the microscopic and endoscopic techniques. Methods: A systematic literature review that used the PRISMA protocol as a methodology. The search was conducted in the PUBMED/MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library databases, using publications from the last 5 years in Portuguese and English. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria and validating the qualified studies via STROBE and CONSORT, there were a total of 16 studies for data compilation. Results: A sample of 1004 patients who underwent lumbar discectomy was obtained, 62% of whom were male, and 493 of whom underwent EID (49%) and 511 MD (51%). The mean patient age was 38.7 years and the predominant vertebral level operated was L5-S1 (64.8%). The EID had shorter surgical time (66.38 min) and hospitalization time (3.3 days), in addition to greater variation in the VAS LLLL score (5.38), while the MD presented greater variation in the VAS LUMBAR score (3.14). Conclusion: EID demonstrated efficacy like that of MD, given the similarity in the results obtained, in addition to non-inferiority in the reduction of pain and neurological deficit, and superiority in surgical and hospitalization times. Level of Evidence I; Systematic review .