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

Comparing the efficacy and safety of biportal endoscopic discectomy with microscopic discectomy for lumbar herniated intervertebral disc: a multicentre, prospective, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of biportal endoscopic discectomy (BED) with microdiscectomy (MD) in patients with a single-level lumbar disc herniation, and to determine whether BED gives similar clinical outcomes to MD but with potential additional benefits.

Methods

Included in this multicentre, prospective, assessor-blind, randomized controlled trial were patients with a single-level lumbar disc herniation requiring surgical intervention. These were recruited from six hospitals between 13 July 2021 and 16 September 2022, and followed up for 12 months. The interventions were either BED (n = 50) or MD (n = 50). The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 12 months postoperatively.

Results

In total, 100 patients were randomized into the BED and MD groups based on computer-generated allocation. The analysis included 41 and 46 patients from the MD and BED groups, respectively. At 12 months, the mean ODI scores were comparable between the BED (10.92; SD 12.93) and MD (10.32; SD 12.55) groups (mean difference 0.61 (95% CI -4.47 to 5.68); p = 0.816). No serious adverse event was seen in either group. Compared to the MD group, the BED group showed slightly lower surgical site pain at 24 (p = 0.004) and 48 hours postoperatively (p = 0.014), lower serum creatine phosphokinase (CPK) (p = 0.003), better scar quality at three (p = 0.002) and six months (p = 0.007), and a significantly lower rate of wound dehiscence (p = 0.018).

Conclusion

BED is as effective as MD in treating single-level lumbar disc herniation but has distinct advantages in terms of postoperative wound complications. Additionally, BED may offer potential benefits in terms of early postoperative surgical site pain, scar aesthetics, and muscle preservation as indicated by CPK levels. These findings suggest that BED is a safe and effective alternative to MD, offering the benefits of minimal invasiveness while maintaining clinical efficacy.

Enhancing endoscopic spine surgery with intraoperative augmented reality: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Augmented reality (AR) has been recently implemented in spine surgery with current applications to visualize computer navigation while performing spinal instrumentation. Endoscopic spine surgery relies on high-definition video to perform the procedures. The combination of AR and endoscopic spine surgery can now be utilized to simultaneously display the endoscopic video and important clinical information to the surgeon during the procedure.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

The patient is an 84-year-old male with low back pain and bilateral lower extremity pain and tingling that radiated to the posterior lower legs with the left side worse than the right. He had difficulty with walking long distances. He completed physical therapy with some improvement of his symptoms and gabapentin provided some relief. Physical examination was normal with no neurological deficits. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the lumbar spine demonstrated severe L4-5 stenosis. The patient elected to proceed with a biportal endoscopic L4-5 unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression (ULBD). The surgery was performed using Apple Vision Pro headset with the endoscopic video displayed within the headset simultaneously with the electronic medical record (EMR) and MRI images. The surgeon visualized the endoscopic video in a larger window as compared to the operating room monitor without perceptible lag or interruption. The procedure was completed without difficulty or complication. The patient was discharged on the same day and experienced significant clinical improvement over three months.

DISCUSSION

AR technology was successfully utilized for the first time to complete an endoscopic ULBD for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. The technology can provide useful clinical information such as the EMR and MRI images simultaneously with the endoscopic video. The large display can be positioned in front of the surgeon to optimize neck position and ergonomics. Novice learners and patients interested in endoscopic spine surgery can remotely experience the surgery since the surgery can be recorded from the surgeon's perspective for educational purposes. Current AR headsets are relatively large and bulky, however, which may cause discomfort from the headset's weight if used for long periods of time.

CONCLUSION

AR technology can be effectively utilized in endoscopic spine surgery with several benefits to the surgeon. The technology can be used as an educational aid for surgeons learning the technique. As headsets become smaller, lighter, and more powerful, AR may become an important surgical tool, especially in endoscopic spine surgery.

Managing water dynamics for optimal outcomes in unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery: preliminary results in a new operative channel

BACKGROUND

In recent years, unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) surgery has become one of the most popular minimally invasive spine surgeries. Unlike traditional open surgery, UBE surgery is performed in isotonic saline solution. Therefore, comprehending the water dynamics involved in UBE surgery is crucial.

METHODS

This prospective study involved 29 patients with single-level lumbar instability or degenerative disk disease who underwent UBE surgery between April 2021 and March 2022. Water flow pressure was measured using a disposable pressure transducer. Multifidus muscle MRI images were analyzed by ImageJ software at intervertebral disc levels. Perioperative blood loss was estimated by the Gross formula. The obtained data were then analyzed with independent t tests, chi-squared tests, and Pearson's correlation.

RESULTS

Height and weight were risk factors for increased water flow pressure during UBE surgery (r = 0.424, P = 0.022, r = 0.384, P = 0.040). The phenomenon of low water flow pressure led to escalations in perioperative total blood loss, hematocrit loss and hemoglobin loss (r = -0.369, P = 0.049, r = -0.424, P = 0.022, r = -0.405, P = 0.029). An excessive water flow pressure can worsen postoperative multifidus swelling and elevate the patient's leg pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score at 1 week (r = 0.442, P = 0.016, r = 0.394, P = 0.034).

REGISTRATION

Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, registration number ChiCTR2300078497, date of registration: 11/12/2023.

CONCLUSION

Both low and high water flow pressures can have deleterious effects. The water flow pressure should be controlled within a reasonable range during UBE surgery.

Clinical efficacy of AUSS/UNSES-TLIF in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the clinical efficacy and advantages of Arthroscopic-assisted Uni-portal Spinal Surgery (AUSS)-Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

This study included 71 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent surgical treatment at the Department of Spine Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Medical University, between January 2022 and December 2023. Among these, 34 patients underwent AUSS-TLIF surgery, and 37 patients underwent minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF) surgery. Preoperative and postoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, intervertebral disc height, anterior-posterior diameter of the canal (APDC), surgical-related parameters (such as operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative C-reactive protein levels, and length of hospital stay), and surgical outcomes were compared and analyzed between the AUSS-TLIF and MIS-TLIF groups.

RESULTS

All 71 patients were followed up. There were no significant differences in preoperative VAS scores or ODI index between the AUSS-TLIF and MIS-TLIF groups (P > 0.05). Three days postoperatively, both groups showed significant reductions in back and leg symptoms, with VAS scores significantly lower than preoperatively (P < 0.05). However, the AUSS-TLIF group had lower VAS scores at 3 days and 3 months postoperatively compared to the MIS-TLIF group, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). At 12 months postoperatively, there was no significant difference in VAS scores between the two groups (P > 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvement in lumbar function at 3 and 12 months postoperatively, with ODI scores significantly lower than preoperatively (P < 0.05). However, the AUSS-TLIF group had a significantly lower ODI score at 3 months postoperatively compared to the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.05), with no significant difference at 12 months (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in preoperative intervertebral disc height or APDC between the two groups (P > 0.05). CT scans at 12 months postoperatively showed a significant increase in intervertebral disc height and APDC in both groups compared to preoperative values (P < 0.05), with no significant difference between the groups (P > 0.05). The AUSS-TLIF group had lower surgical blood loss, postoperative drainage, and postoperative inflammatory markers compared to the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.05), but the AUSS-TLIF group had a significantly longer operative time compared to the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Both AUSS-TLIF and MIS-TLIF achieve good clinical outcomes, but AUSS-TLIF, as an endoscopic surgery with an open surgical concept, offers advantages including greater flexibility, smaller trauma, less blood loss, shorter operative time, and shorter hospital stay. It provides a better perioperative experience for patients.

Biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using a large polyetheretherketone cage: preliminary results

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to introduce biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (BELIF) using a large polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage, describe the surgical technique, and evaluate its clinical and radiological outcomes.

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

Biportal endoscopic techniques have emerged as a promising approach in spine surgery, and BELIF is reported to have good surgical outcomes. The use of large PEEK cage in lumbar interbody fusion has gained attention owing to their potential biomechanical advantages. Despite the potential benefits of BELIF with large PEEK cages, studies on its effectiveness and safety are lacking.

METHODS

Twelve consecutive patients underwent single-level BELIF for lumbar degenerative disease. The technique involves two small portals, one each for endoscopy and instruments. A large PEEK cage was inserted through a posterolateral approach. Clinical outcomes, including a Visual Analog Scale for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index, and the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, were assessed preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Fusion status was evaluated using computed tomography (CT) at 12 months.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 69.1±7.2 years, with operations predominantly at the L4-5 level (83%). The mean operation time was 149.7±37.4 minutes, and the average surgical drainage was 201.4±59.7 mL. All clinical outcome measures showed significant improvement at 12 months (p<0.05). Fusion was achieved in 83.3% of patients. Cage subsidence (>1 mm) occurred in one patient (8.3%). Complications included one case each of incidental durotomy, wrong-site surgery, and wound dehiscence and three cases of asymptomatic hematoma.

CONCLUSIONS

BELIF using a large PEEK cage demonstrated promising clinical outcomes and fusion rates. The technique offers enhanced visualization and enables direct neural decompression while minimizing tissue trauma. The use of a large PEEK cage may contribute to improved stability and reduced subsidence risk.

Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes of Single-level Decompression by Unilateral Endoscopic Biportal Technique in Degenerative Spinal Stenosis: Over 5-year Follow-up

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective.

OBJECTIVE

To report radiologic and clinical outcomes of single-level unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) decompression over 5 years for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) without instability.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

UBE decompression has recently been introduced as a surgical treatment for LSS without instability. UBE has been shown in studies to have advantages in the prevention of infection and early rehabilitation. However, there is no long-term follow-up study.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-seven patients who underwent UBE decompression for single-level LSS with at least 5 years of follow-up were analyzed. Clinical outcomes including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual analog system (VAS), modified MacNab criteria, time to ambulation, operative time, and length of hospital stay were investigated. The radiologic outcome was assessed by dynamic plain radiographs.

RESULTS

ODI improved from 63.2±10.7 before surgery to 18.8±9.2 after 5 years of follow-up (P<0.001). Leg VAS decreased from 7.3±0.7 before surgery to 1.75±0.5 at the last follow-up (P<0.001). Per modified Macnab criteria, only 9.4% (12/127) showed poor clinical results. There were no infections, but there were 4 cases (3%) of dura tear and 1 case (0.07%) of transient palsy. Intervertebral angle showed significant change from preoperative to final follow-up, 6.3 ±3.2-5.2 ±3.5 degrees. (P=0.012). The intervertebral distance also showed a significant difference from 10.5±2.3 mm before surgery to 9.1±2.2 mm after surgery. (P=0.005). No significant changes in dynamic stability occurred. Among 127 patients, revision surgery was performed in 9 cases (7%).

CONCLUSIONS

UBE decompression of LSS without instability demonstrated good clinical outcomes over 5 years and did not show significant segmental instability after surgery. Although revision surgery was performed after UBE decompression, there were no severe complications, and revision rates were similar to other techniques. UBE is considered to be an alternative technique to microscopic and traditional decompression in LSS.

Correlation Between Clinical Improvement and Dural Sac Cross-Sectional Area Expansion in Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

To correlate the changes in the dural area on MRI and clinical outcome after unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) decompression.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Clinical outcomes after UBE decompression have been published for up to 2 years for patients with isolated spinal stenosis at 1 level. Serial dural expansion after UBE decompression has not been published as well as correlation to clinical outcomes.

METHOD

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical and radiologic outcomes of 86 patients who underwent UBE decompression for spinal stenosis. Preoperative and postoperative visual analog score (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were analyzed, and MRI was used for radiologic evaluation before surgery, 3 days after surgery, and 2 years after surgery. The correlation of dural spinal area CSA (preoperative-final) and difference of clinical outcome (preoperative-final) were analyzed.

RESULT

None of the 86 patients had permanent neurological complications. Back VAS, leg VAS, and ODI showed improvement in symptoms postoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. The postoperative CSA of the dural sac on MRI was statistically significantly increased after surgery at all time points. VAS leg was moderately correlated with change in CSA, while ODI and VAS back were weakly correlated. Correlations were all statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

UBE decompression showed good clinical outcomes similar to previous studies, and the CSA of ​​the dural sac on MRI significantly increased in the late postoperative phase compared with the early postoperative phase. This technique is viable option to achieve radiographic dural expansion and improvement in clinical outcomes in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. However, there is at best only a moderate correlation with change in CSA and clinical outcomes.

Learning curve insights in Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) spinal procedures: proficiency cutoffs and the impact on efficiency and complications

OBJECTIVE

This study systematically assesses the learning curve of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) techniques across various spinal surgeries, focusing on its influence on operative efficiency and complication rates to guide optimized training and practice.

METHODS

Systematic searches in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library identified studies on UBE learning curves for patients aged 18 or older, comparing early and mastery phases. Two reviewers independently extracted data on surgery type, operative time, and complications. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We performed subgroup analyses based on different UBE surgery types, examining variations in operative time and complication rates across each procedure.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies, including 1217 patients, were included, focusing on lumbar spine surgeries. The average learning curve cutoff for UBE procedures was 32.18 cases, with the mastery phase reducing operative time by an average of 48.14 min (95% CI 35.80, 60.47; p < 0.001), although high heterogeneity observed. In the mastery phase, single-group analysis of 707 patients showed a mean operative time of 92.38 min (95% CI 77.35, 107.41). Complication analysis across 12 studies (1182 patients) revealed a significantly lower rate in the mastery phase (odds ratio, OR = 0.29; p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses revealed significant reductions in both operative time and complications for UBE-LIF and UBE-LD/ULBD during the mastery phase, while no significant changes were observed for UBE-PCF. Additionally, specific complications, such as dural tears and incomplete decompression, were significantly reduced in the mastery phase.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review confirms a learning curve in UBE surgery, with improvements in operative time and complications. Procedure-specific cutoff points provide guidance for training and future research.

Comparison of clinical efficacy of posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy versus unilateral biportal endoscopy key-hole techniques for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: a retrospective study with 2 years

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical efficacy of posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy (PECD) with unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) key-hole techniques for treating cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR).

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed for patients with CSR treated by PECD (n = 40) and UBE (n = 30). Patients background, operative data, and radiographic measurements were obtained. The visual analog scale (VAS) and neck disability index (NDI) were recorded preoperatively and 3 months and 2 years postoperatively, and modified Macnab criteria was recorded at 2 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

The background data of the two treatment groups were similar. There was no significant difference in hospitalization or fluoroscopy times (P > 0.05), whereas, the UBE group had shorter operative time and longer incision length than those of the PECD group (p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference in the postoperative cervical sagittal vertical axis compared to preoperative measurement (PECD: p = 0.009; UBE: p = 0.010). The VAS and NDI significantly improved in each time period in both groups (p < 0.001). The excellent/good rates were 87.5% in the PECD group and 90.0% in the UBE group. One case of postoperative nerve root irritation symptoms occurred in the PECD group and one case of mild spinal cord injury occurred in the UBE group.

CONCLUSION

UBE, as well as PECD, was recommended as an option for CSR because of easy operation, minimal invasiveness, high safety profiles, and satisfactory clinical efficacy.

Biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy surgery in patients with cauda equina syndrome caused by lumbar herniated intervertebral disc: a retrospective multi-center cohort study

BACKGROUND

Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a severe neurological condition caused by significant compression of the cauda equina nerve roots. This study evaluates the efficacy of biportal endoscopic (BE) lumbar discectomy in treating CES caused by lumbar herniated intervertebral discs.

METHODS

This retrospective case series includes 32 CES patients treated with BE lumbar discectomy from March 2017 to July 2022. Patient demographics, surgical details, and outcomes were analyzed. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EQ-5D scores at baseline, and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

The mean age was 44.44 ± 13.70 years. The average duration from symptom onset to surgery was 44.81 ± 32.69 h. Significant improvements at 12 months were observed in VAS for back pain (5.00 ± 2.82 to 1.28 ± 1.63, p < 0.01) and leg pain (7.44 ± 1.79 to 1.16 ± 1.55, p < 0.01), ODI (58.25 ± 20.15 to 10.13 ± 14.54, p < 0.01), and EQ-5D (0.414 ± 0.175 to 0.859 ± 0.163, p < 0.01). Bladder and bowel symptom recovery rates were 86.7% and 85.0%, respectively. Mean operation time was 42.50 ± 17.91 min, with a hospital stay of 3.34 ± 2.59 days. Complications included incidental durotomy (6.3%) and facet joint injury (6.3%).

CONCLUSION

Biportal endoscopic spine surgery is a feasible and effective option for CES, providing significant decompression with minimal tissue damage and a low complication rate.

Effect of Different Interventions on Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Evaluation and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the preferred option for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) when conservative methods cannot meet the needs. Recent advancements in surgical techniques have brought various new methods for treating LSS.

METHODS

Four databases, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, were searched, covering the period from the establishment of the databases until May 2024. Randomized controlled trials were carried out to treat LSS using different surgical approaches. The outcome measures included the visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index score, surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay of patients. Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was performed using R software (V4.4) and STATA17.0 software to analyze each surgical approach.

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies involving 4200 patients were included. Nine intervention methods, including laminotomy, decompression, decompression plus fusion, endoscopic decompression, interspinous process spacer device (IPSD), laminectomy, minimally invasive decompression, spinous process osteotomy, and lumbar interbody fusion, were analyzed. Network meta-analysis results indicated that endoscopic decompression (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA = 88.70%) was the most effective in reducing short-term back VAS scores. IPSD (SUCRA = 98.00%) was the most effective in reducing long-term back VAS scores, surgical duration (SUCRA = 95.20%), and intraoperative blood loss (SUCRA = 100.00%). Endoscopic decompression (SUCRA = 83.60%) also showed the most significant effect in reducing hospital stays.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic decompression can effectively improve short-term back VAS scores and reduce hospital stays, while IPSD is effective in reducing long-term back VAS scores with minimal surgical duration and blood loss.

Comparative analysis of clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative

Objective

To study the clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, and to compare perioperative indicators, radiological outcomes, and paraspinal muscle -atrophy resulting from these two different surgical methods.

Background

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is widely acknowledged as an efficacious surgical modality for alleviating low back pain. In recent years, unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) has gained increasing application.

Methods

We recorded the basic information of patients who underwent single-segment ULIF or TLIF for the first time in our hospital from May 2021 to November 2022, including age, gender, BMI, diagnosis, and surgical segment. Perioperative indicators such as estimated blood loss, operation time, postoperative hospital stay, and complications were observed in both groups. Clinical efficacy was assessed preoperatively and at 1 month, 3 months, and 12 months postoperatively using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the modified Macnab criteria. The displacement of the fusion device was also assessed. x-rays were taken preoperatively, at 3 months postoperatively, and at 12 months postoperatively to observe fusion device displacement and measure the intervertebral disc height of the upper and lower segments. The Cobb angle was used to measure lumbar lordosis and segmental lumbar lordosis. CT scans at 3 months postoperatively were used to observe intervertebral fusion, including bridging trabeculae, endplate cysts, and screw loosening. MRI at 1 year postoperatively was used to manually trace the cross-sectional area of the paraspinal muscles to compare muscle atrophy.

Results

A total of 150 patients were included in the study, with 71 patients in the ULIF group and 79 patients in the TLIF group. No statistically significant disparities were observed between the two groups with respect to age, gender, BMI, diagnosis, and surgical segment. The estimated blood loss in the ULIF group was 108.78 ± 58.3 ml, which was significantly less than that in the TLIF group at 199.44 ± 84.91 ml (p < 0.001). The postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the ULIF group (p = 0.020), although the operation time was longer for ULIF. There were no significant differences in complications between the two groups. Patients in the ULIF group experienced quicker relief from back pain postoperatively, but there were no significant differences between the ULIF and TLIF groups in the VAS, ODI, and satisfaction rates at the final follow-up. At 3 months postoperatively, the ULIF group demonstrated a higher incidence of bridging trabeculae, a lower incidence of endplate cysts, and less fusion device displacement. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the correction of segmental lumbar lordosis (SL) and overall lumbar lordosis (LL). Additionally, the ULIF group showed less muscle damage.

Conclusion

ULIF has the advantages of reducing pain in the short term, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stays. Its more precise handling of the intervertebral space reduces the occurrence of endplate cysts and fusion device displacement, which has certain significance in preventing delayed fusion and nonunion. However, ULIF requires a longer operation time, which increases potential risks for elderly patients or those with poor nutritional status. Although ULIF causes less damage to the bony structure, it has not shown a significant advantage in improving adjacent segment degeneration.

Delta large-channel endoscopy versus unilateral biportal endoscopy decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Delta large-channel endoscopy and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) are prominent minimally invasive techniques for treating lumbar spinal stenosis, known for minimal tissue damage, clear visualization, and quick recovery. However, rigorous controlled research comparing these procedures is scarce, necessitating further investigation into their respective complications and long-term effectiveness. This randomized controlled trial aims to compare their perioperative outcomes, focusing on postoperative recovery and complications over time.

METHODS

In total, 101 participants were randomly assigned to Delta large-channel endoscopy group (n = 50) or UBE group (n = 51). Primary measures were Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores and operation time. Secondary measures included VAS, EQ-5D, JOA scores, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay duration, and costs. Perioperative complications such as dural tears, incision infections, hematomas, thrombosis, and reoperation rates were recorded.

RESULTS

The Delta group consistently showed lower mean ODI scores throughout the follow-up than UBE group, with significant differences at 2 weeks postoperative (P = 0.048), though they were not significant by 1 month (P = 0.124), 2 months (P = 0.821) and 3 months (P = 0.350). Operation times were shorter in the Delta group (P < 0.001). Hospitalization costs and intraoperative blood loss were slightly higher in the UBE group (P < 0.001). No significant differences were noted in the other secondary outcomes at various post-surgery intervals, such as VAS, EQ-5D, JOA scores, hospital stay duration and complications.

CONCLUSION

Both techniques are safe and effective when performed by experienced surgeons. Compared to UBE, Delta large-channel endoscopy can shorten surgery time and reduce blood loss, and more importantly, it promotes faster recovery of lumbar function in the early postoperative period.

RESEARCH REGISTRATION UNIQUE IDENTIFYING NUMBER (UIN)

Name of the registry: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry chictr.org.cn. ( http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx ). Unique Identifying number or registration ID: ChiCTR2300076237. Hyperlink to your specific registration (must be publicly accessible and will be checked): https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=207 ,844.

Age-Related Association Between Unilateral Single-Channel and Double-Channel Surgery and Postoperative Multifidus Muscle Atrophy and Fat Infiltration

BACKGROUND

Unilateral biportal endoscopic laminotomy (UBE) and percutaneous endoscopic laminotomy (PEL) are minimally invasive spinal surgery (MISS) techniques used for unilateral and dual-channel endoscopic laminectomy. However, limited research has been conducted on lumbosacral multifidus muscle injuries in elderly individuals undergoing MISS for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of single-channel and double-channel MISS on the multifidus muscle in elderly patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 107 patients who underwent MISS were stratified into two cohorts: group A (<65 years) and group B (≥65 years). Preoperative imaging data, including magnetic resonance imaging, were gathered to classify the degree of stenosis based on the nerve root compression. The extent of multifidus muscle atrophy and fat infiltration was assessed by calculating the fat-free cross-sectional area (FCSA)/cross-sectional area (CSA) ratio before and after surgery through measurements of CSA and FCSA. Total cross-sectional area/FCSA were calculated using MRI cross-sectional T2WI.

RESULTS

The degree of atrophy and fat infiltration did not change between procedures in group A (P>.05), but changed significantly in group B (P<.05).

CONCLUSION

Unilateral single-channel and double-channel surgery had no significant effect on the degree of multifidus muscle atrophy and fat infiltration in patients younger than 65 years. However, in patients 65 years and older, the degree of multifidus muscle atrophy and fat infiltration significantly increased with the increasing incidence of lateral recess stenosis, which was positively correlated with the duration of surgery. [Orthopedics. 2025;48(1):12-19.].

A Critical Review of Endoscopic Spine Surgery

This is a critical review of the data supporting current endoscopic surgical techniques for the spine, limitations, economic barriers to adoption, and the future of the field. Endoscopic spine approaches can be applied to all levels of the spine, with many robust trials supporting its clinical outcomes. Although financial limitations with starting an endoscopic program can be justified by its cost effectiveness and positive societal impact, challenges facing its widespread adoption are present and more endoscopic spine programs are needed. Technological advancements will further enhance endoscopic techniques as they become an integral part of a spine surgeon's repertoire.

Risk factors for hidden blood loss in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion : a single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Hidden blood loss (HBL) is often ignored unilateral biportal endoscopic interbody fusion surgery (ULIF). We investigated the amount and influencing factors of HBL in ULIF surgery in this study.

METHODS

From October 2020 to November 2023, 100 patients' clinical and radiological data were retrospectively analyzed. Pearson or Spearman correlation and multivariate linear regression were used to identify factors linked to HBL.

RESULTS

The mean hidden blood loss (HBL) was 255.84 ± 290.89 ml, making up 62.48% of total blood loss. Correlation analysis showed HBL positively related to ASA classification (P = 0.009), operation time (P = 0.004), number of operation levels (P = 0.046), and paraspinal muscle thickness (P = 0.043), but negatively related to tranexamic acid use (P = 0.001). A multivariate linear regression analysis showed that HBL was positively associated with ASA classification (P = 0.038) and operation time (P = 0.046), but negatively associated with tranexamic acid use (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing ULIF surgery incurred a great deal of HBL. More importantly, ASA classification, operation time and tranexamic acid use were independent risk factors for HBL.

Safety Profile of Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery Compared to Conventional Microscopic Approach: A Pooled Analysis of 2 Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events.

METHODS

We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20-80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period.

RESULTS

The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%).

CONCLUSION

BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes between biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion

Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery has become increasingly popular, and indications have expanded. Among these, biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) has yielded good results. Herein, we compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of 155 patients treated with BE-TLIF and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for single-level lumbar degenerative diseases. Clinical outcomes included the visual analog scale for the back (VAS-back) and leg (VAS-leg), Oswestry Disability Index, and EuroQol 5-Dimensions. Radiological parameters and fusion rates were evaluated, and postoperative complications were recorded. In this cohort 68 and 87 patients were treated with BE-TLIF and PLIF, respectively. Both groups showed significant improvements in all clinical parameters compared with baseline, but BE-TLIF exhibited a more significant improvement in VAS-back at 1 and 6 months postoperatively. There were no significant differences in the radiological parameters or fusion rates. BE-TLIF had a significantly longer operation time, whereas PLIF exhibited a significantly higher estimated blood loss and surgical drainage, but no significant differences in postoperative complications. Compared to PLIF, BE-TLIF showed similarly good clinical and radiologic outcomes, with better results in terms of early postoperative outcomes. Thus, BE-TLIF is a viable alternative to PLIF with less back pain at 1 and 6 months postoperatively.

Surgical interventions for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review with network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several surgical options for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) are available, but current guidelines do not recommend which one should be prioritized. Although previous network meta-analyses (NMAs) have been performed on this topic, they have major methodological problems and could not provide the convincing evidence and clinical practical information required.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least two surgical interventions were included by searching AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE (inception to August 2023). A frequentist random-effects NMA was performed for physical function and adverse events due to any reason. For physical function, three follow-up time points were included: short-term (< 6 months post-intervention), mid-term (≥ 6 months but < 12 months), and long-term (≥ 12 months). Laminectomy was the reference comparison intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 43 RCTs involving 5017 participants were included in the systematic review and 28 RCTs encompassing 14 types of surgical interventions were included in the NMA. For improving physical function (scale 0-100), endoscopic-assisted laminotomy (mean difference: - 8.61, 95% confidence interval: - 10.52 to - 6.69; moderate-quality evidence), laminectomy combined with Coflex (- 8.41, - 13.21 to - 3.61; moderate quality evidence), and X-stop (- 6.65, - 8.60 to - 4.71; low-quality evidence) had small effects at short-term follow-up; no statistical difference was observed at mid-term follow-up (very low- to low-quality evidence); at long-term follow-up, endoscopic-assisted laminotomy (- 7.02, - 12.95 to - 1.08; very low-quality evidence) and X-stop (- 10.04, - 18.16 to - 1.93; very low-quality evidence) had a small and moderate effect, respectively. Compared with laminectomy, endoscopic-assisted laminotomy was associated with fewer adverse events due to any reason (odds ratio: 0.27, 0.09 to 0.86; low-quality evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

For adults with degenerative LSS, endoscopic-assisted laminotomy may be the safest and most effective intervention in improving physical function. However, the available data were insufficient to indicate whether the effect was sustainable after 6 months.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42018094180).

Is minimally invasive surgery a game changer in spinal surgery?

Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has revolutionized the treatment of spinal disorders over the past few decades. This review provides an in-depth analysis of MISS techniques, technologies, outcomes, and future directions. The evolution of MISS techniques-including tubular retractor systems, percutaneous pedicle screw fixation, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, lateral lumbar interbody fusion, and endoscopic spine surgery-has expanded the scope of treatable spinal pathologies while minimizing tissue trauma. Technological advancements such as intraoperative navigation, robotics, and augmented reality applications have enhanced precision and capabilities. Clinical evidence supports the efficacy and safety of MISS techniques for various spinal pathologies, demonstrating comparable or superior outcomes to traditional open approaches with reduced tissue trauma, blood loss, and hospital stays. Cost-effectiveness analyses also favor MISS over open techniques. Future directions in MISS include expanding indications, integrating artificial intelligence and machine learning, advancing tissue engineering and biologics, and refining robotic and augmented reality applications. As MISS continues to evolve, it is poised to play an increasingly important role in the treatment of spinal disorders, offering improved patient outcomes with reduced morbidity. However, ongoing rigorous evaluation of new techniques and technologies is crucial to balance potential benefits with associated risks and costs.

Global utilization of biportal spinal endoscopy: Case series on management of lumbar pathology in Soddo, Ethiopia

INTRODUCTION

Biportal spinal endoscopy is a safe and cost-effective methodology for the management of lumbar pathology in rural underserved hospitals that have standard orthopaedic arthroscopic equipment, but lack access to microscopy.

METHODS

This is a case series noting 1-year outcomes from 5 patients managed with biportal spinal endoscopy during an 11-day mission trip to Soddo, Ethiopia in November 2022. Surgical complications, postoperative assessments, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Surgical techniques and equipment utilized were shared with residents and faculty at the hospital.

RESULTS

Five Ethiopian patients (4:1, female:male) with no prior spine surgery history elected to undergo biportal surgery for the diagnoses of lumbar stenosis and disc herniation, averaging 31 years of age with Body-Mass-Indices (BMI) <35. Two patients underwent endoscopic discectomy, and three patients underwent endoscopic unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression (ULBD). There were no complications. No postoperative functional deficits, infections, readmissions, revisions, or wound dehiscences were noted at 12 months follow-up. VAS-back and VAS-leg scores improved to <2/10 for 80 % of patients. All patients returned to work/activities of daily living. No patients required postoperative pain management beyond the 2-week post-operative follow-up.

CONCLUSION

With these five patients, we found that biportal spinal endoscopy can be safely applied in rural hospital settings with limited resources. This supports biportal spinal endoscopy as a viable minimally invasive modality for the management of lumbar pathology. For hospitals with limited resources, but access to arthroscopic equipment, biportal spinal endoscopy is a feasible option.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Complications in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in the Last 10 Years: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) employs small incisions and advanced techniques to minimize tissue damage while achieving similar outcomes to open surgery. MISS offers benefits such as reduced blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and lower costs. This review analyzes complications associated with MISS over the last 10 years, highlighting common issues and the impact of technological advancements.

METHODS

A systematic review following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase via OVID, and Cochrane databases, covering publications from January 2013 to March 2024. Keywords related to MISS and complications were used. Studies on adult patients undergoing MISS with tubular, uniportal, or biportal endoscopy, reporting intraoperative or postoperative complications, were included. Non-English publications, abstracts, and small case series were excluded. Data on MISS approach, patient demographics, and complications were extracted and reviewed by 2 independent researchers.

RESULTS

The search identified 880 studies, with 137 included after screening and exclusions. Key complications in cervical MISS were hematomas, transient nerve root palsy, and dural tears. In thoracic MISS, complications included cerebrospinal fluid leaks and durotomy. In lumbar MISS, common complications were incidental dural injuries, postoperative neuropathic conditions, and disc herniation recurrences. Complications varied by surgical approach.

CONCLUSION

MISS offers reduced anatomical disruption compared to open surgery, potentially decreasing nerve injury risk. However, complications such as nerve injuries, durotomies, and hardware misplacement still occur. Intraoperative neuromonitoring and advanced technologies like navigation can help mitigate these risks. Despite variability in complication rates, MISS remains a safe, effective alternative with ongoing advancements enhancing its outcomes.

Prospective comparative analysis of three types of decompressive surgery for lumbar central stenosis: conventional, full-endoscopic, and biportal endoscopic laminectomy

Conventional open laminectomy has long been considered one of the important surgical options for lumbar central stenosis owing to its positive outcomes. However, newer approaches have emerged as alternatives, including full-endoscopic and biportal endoscopic laminectomy. Therefore, a comparison of the outcomes that are associated with each of these surgical methods is warranted. This prospective multicenter trial, initiated in February 2019, compared the outcomes of three lumbar central stenosis surgical approaches: open laminectomy (OPEN), uniportal endoscopy (UNIPORT), and biportal endoscopy (BIPORT). Among 115 participants from seven centers, one-year follow-ups assessed laboratory, radiological, and clinical outcomes. Despite all groups showing adequate decompression and clinical improvement, the OPEN group exhibited less improvement in Visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain scores (p < 0.05) and significant postoperative increases in most laboratory markers. Furthermore, the OPEN group experienced a significant decrease in multifidus muscle cross-sectional area compared to endoscopic groups (p < 0.001). Each surgical techniques produced similar clinical outcomes and dural space expansion. However, endoscopic surgery was associated with better muscle preservation and better relief of back pain. Endoscopic surgery is a reasonable alternative to conventional laminectomy for treating lumbar central stenosis.This trial was registered on CRIS (Clinical Research Information Service, KCT0004355).

Endoscopic Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease: A Narrative Review of Full-Endoscopic and Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND

Degenerative lumbar spine disease is the leading cause of disability and work absenteeism worldwide. Lumbar microdiscectomy became the standard treatment for herniated discs and stenotic disease. With the evolution of different techniques, endoscopic spinal surgery emerged to minimize the surgical footprint while providing at least non-inferior results. Currently, two different types of endoscopic spine procedures are dominating the surgical scenario: "Full-Endoscopic" (FE) and Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic" (UBE) Spine Surgery. The aim of this study is to describe and analyze their indications, their technical characteristicswithitsadvantagesanddisadvantagesofbothtechniquesandtheirfuture trends.

METHODS

We performed a narrative review of the most relevant articles published up to August 2023 through a Pub Med search. The search terms " FE Spine Surgery" and " UBE Spine Surgery" were used. The articles selected, were independently reviewed by 3 authors and 55 full text articles were reviewed.

RESULTS

The FE and UBE Spine Surgery techniques were described. The FE technique is performed with a monoportal access under constant saline irrigation. The FE comprises the transforaminal and the interlaminar approaches, and the indication depends from the pathology to treat, and still remains controversial. UBE can approach also the spine from a posterior, postero lateral,and para spinal route. It uses two different ports addressed to a target with continuous irrigation. The process of establishing these two portals is called triangulation.

CONCLUSIONS

FE and UBE spine surgery have demonstrated outcomes comparable to open surgery, minimizing complications and surgical footprint.

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.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Effect of Lumbar Discectomy or Lumbar Decompression on Axial Back Pain: Results of a Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis evaluated the impact of lumbar disk herniation and lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) on axial back pain and the extent of improvement of axial and radicular pain following lumbar decompression and discectomy surgery in patients with low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

A systematic search for published literature between January 2012 and January 2023 was made on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane library database on 31st January 2023. Original articles that included patients with lumbar disc herniation or LSS who underwent lumbar discectomy or lumbar decompression respectively were included in the study.

RESULTS

A total of 71 studies including 16,770 patients with LBP undergoing lumbar discectomy or decompression surgery were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled standard mean difference between postoperative and preoperative: Visual Analog Scale scores for leg pain was -5.14 with 95% confidence interval (CI): -6.59 to -3.69 (P-value = 0) and for back pain was -2.90 with 95% CI: -3.79 to -2.01 (P value = 0), Numerical pain Rating Scale for leg pain was -1.64 with 95% CI: -1.97 to -1.30 (P-value<0.01) and for back pain was -1.58 with 95% CI: -1.84 to -1.32 (P-value <0.01), Oswerty Disability Index score was -4.76 with 95% CI: -6.22 to -3.29 (P-value = 0) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score was 3.45 with 95% CI: 0.02 to 6.88 (P value 0) at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis provides evidence that lumbar discectomy and decompression are effective in improving axial LBP in patients with lumbar disk herniation and LSS.

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.

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.

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.

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.