Comparison of Minimal Invasive Versus Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-level Lumbar Disease

[Prospective comparative study of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis]

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Methods

Between November 2019 and May 2023, a total of 81 patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis who met the selection criteria were enrolled. They were randomly divided into UBE-TLIF group (39 cases) and Endo-TLIF group (42 cases). There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups ( P>0.05), including gender, age, body mass index, surgical segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and serum markers including creatine kinase (CK) and C reactive protein (CRP). Total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss, hidden blood loss (HBL), postoperative drainage volume, and operation time were recorded and compared between the two groups. Serum markers (CK, CRP) levels were compared between the two groups at 1 day before operation and 1, 3, and 5 days after operation. Furthermore, the VAS scores for low back and leg pain, and ODI at 1 day before operation and 1 day, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation, and intervertebral fusion rate at 12 months after operation were compared between the two groups.

Results

All surgeries were completed successfully without occurrence of incision infection, vascular or nerve injury, epidural hematoma, dural tear, or postoperative paraplegia. The operation time in UBE-TLIF group was significantly shorter than that in Endo-TLIF group, but the intraoperative blood loss, TBL, and HBL in UBE-TLIF group were significantly more than those in Endo-TLIF group ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative drainage volume between the two groups ( P>0.05). The levels of CK at 1 day and 3 days after operation and CRP at 1, 3, and 5 days after operation in UBE-TLIF group were slightly higher than those in the Endo-TLIF group ( P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in the levels of CK and CPR between the two groups at other time points ( P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12 months. VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI at each time point after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation in the two groups ( P<0.05); there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI between the two groups at each time point after operation ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the intervertebral fusion rate between the two groups at 12 months after operation ( P>0.05).

Conclusion

UBE-TLIF and Endo-TLIF are both effective methods for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, compared to Endo-TLIF, UBE-TLIF requires further improvement in minimally invasive techniques to reduce tissue trauma and blood loss.

Systemic Inflammatory Markers and Clinical Outcomes of Open versus Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to preliminarily assess the change in perioperative systemic inflammatory markers and clinical outcomes between open TLIF and BE-TLIF procedures.

Patients and Methods

In total, 38 patients who underwent single-level lumbar fusion surgery (L4-5 or L5-S1) were retrospectively reviewed. 19 patients were treated by the BE-TLIF technique, while the other patients were managed using open TLIF. The perioperative serum C-reactive protein (CRP), neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lymphocyte/monocyte ratio (LMR), and platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR) of the two groups were compared to determine if there was a statistical difference. Meanwhile, clinical evaluations were conducted to assess various factors including operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), drainage catheter stay, length of hospitalization, visual analogue scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores.

Results

The perioperative analysis revealed that BE-TLIF cases experienced a longer operative duration than open TLIF cases (open TLIF: 138.63 ± 31.59 min, BE-TLIF: 204.58 ± 49.37 min, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, the EBL showed an increased trend in the BE-TLIF group (260.7 ± 211.9 mL) in comparison with the open TLIF group (200.9 ± 211.9 mL) (p =0.485). In terms of systemic inflammatory markers, the mean postoperative CRP, NLR, LMR, and PLR were lower in the BE-TLIF group than in the open TLIF group, although these differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The VAS and ODI scores in both groups were significantly improved after surgery (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

There was no significant difference found between BE-TLIF and open TLIF in terms of systemic inflammatory markers, and clinical outcomes. Overall, BE-TLIF can be considered a viable choice for lumbar canal decompression and interbody fusion for less invasion. It is worth noting that BE-TLIF does have a longer operation time, indicating that there is still potential for further improvement in this technique.

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.

A Comparison of 2 Cage Sizes in Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the fusion and subsidence rate and clinical outcomes when using different-sized static PEEK cages in BE-TLIF.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Biportal endoscopic techniques for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) have been shown to have similar clinical and fusion outcomes with faster clinical recovery in comparison to tubular surgery. Subsidence of the interbody, however, could be a complication.

METHODS

Patients who underwent 1 or 2 level BE-TLIF for degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis between January 2019 and January 2022 were included. A 32×10 mm cage (group A) and a 40×15 mm cage (group B) were compared. The visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg symptoms, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were collected. Plain radiographs and computed tomography assessed fusion and subsidence at a minimum of 12 months.

RESULTS

Of the 69 enrolled patients, 39 group A patients (51 levels) and 30 group B patients (32 levels) were compared. The operation time per level was 123 ± 15.8 and 138 ± 10.5 minutes per fusion level in groups A and B, respectively (P < 0.05). ODI improved from 64.8 ± 6.2 to 15.7 ± 7.1 in group A and from 65.3 ± 5.6 to 15.1 ± 6.3 in group B at the final follow-up (P < 0.05). VAS leg and back score improvement between the groups did not differ; however, the 3-month postoperative VAS back improvement was significantly higher in group B. The final fusion rate at the final follow-up did not significantly differ; however, the fusion ratio at 1 year was higher in group B (P < 0.05). Subsidence occurred in 5 cases (9.8%) in group A and none in group B (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

BE-TLIF using a larger cage can be performed safely with similar patient-reported outcome measures with a faster fusion rate with less subsidence risk.

LEVEL OF STUDY

III.

Pushing the Limits of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery-From Preoperative to Intraoperative to Postoperative Management

The introduction of minimally invasive surgery ushered in a new era of spine surgery by minimizing the undue iatrogenic injury, recovery time, and blood loss, among other complications, of traditional open procedures. Over time, technological advancements have further refined the care of the operative minimally invasive spine patient. Moreover, pre-, and postoperative care have also undergone significant change by way of artificial intelligence risk stratification, advanced imaging for surgical planning and patient selection, postoperative recovery pathways, and digital health solutions. Despite these advancements, challenges persist necessitating ongoing research and collaboration to further optimize patient care in minimally invasive spine surgery.

[Comparison of effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic and uniportal interlaminar endoscopic decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis]

Objective

To compare the effectiveness between unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression (ULBD) with unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and uniportal interlaminar endoscopy (UIE) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Methods

A clinical data of 52 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, who met the selection criteria and treated with ULBD between March 2021 and November 2022, was retrospectively analyzed. The patients were allocated into UBE group (23 cases) and UIE group (29 cases) according to the surgical methods. There was no significant difference ( P>0.05) in age, gender, body mass index, surgical segment, type of lumbar stenosis, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), disc height, and dural sac area between the two groups. Perioperative indexes (incision length, operation time, hospital stay, and surgical complications), clinical indicators (VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, and ODI before operation and at 3 days, 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months after operation), and imaging indicators (disc height and dural sac area before operation and at 1, 12 months after operation, and dural sac expansion area) were recorded and compared between the two group.

Results

All operations in both groups were successfully completed. Compared with the UIE group, the UBE group had shorter operation time and longer incision length, with significant differences ( P<0.05). But there was no significant difference in hospital stay and incidence of complications between the two groups ( P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12-20 months (mean, 14 months). The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain and ODI after operation significantly improved when compared with preoperative values ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in the above indicators between different time points after operation ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups at different time points ( P>0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference in disc height between the two groups at different time points after operation ( P>0.05). However, the dural sac area and dural sac expansion area were significantly larger in the UBE group than in the UIE group ( P<0.05).

Conclusion

ULBD with UBE and UIE can achieve satisfactory effectiveness in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. But the former has more thorough decompression and better dural sac expansion than the latter.

Comparison of Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for patients with lumbar degenerative diseases.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The MIS-TLIF has been widely used in lumbar degenerative diseases and achieved favorable clinical effects. The main disadvantage is the limited working space and visualization, especially in the deeper operational field, for preparing fusion bed. In recent years, with the development of surgical techniques, optical technology, and special instruments, Endo-TLIF has gradually been applied.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies between Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF in the lumbar degenerative diseases. The following outcome measures were extracted: visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index, fusion rate, disk height, segmental lordosis, operative time, length of hospital stay and complications. Data analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

Eight studies comprising 687 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled result revealed there was no significant differences in the VAS of leg, Oswestry Disability Index, fusion rate, disk height, segmental lordosis, and complication rate between the 2 groups ( P >0.05). However, the VAS of back in the Endo-TLIF group was significantly less than those in the MIS-TLIF group within 2 weeks after surgery [weighted mean difference (WMD)=-1.33 (-1.98, -0.68), P <0.0001] and at 3 months postoperatively [WMD=-0.72(-0.85, -0.59), P <0.00001]. The Endo-TLIF group also seemed to fewer VAS of back at the last follow-up (≥12 mo) [WMD=-0.12 (-0.25, -0.00), P =0.05]. Compared with the MIS-TLIF group, the Endo-TLIF group was associated with longer operation time [WMD=26.74 (2.14, 51.34), P =0.03], but shorter length of hospital stay [WMD=-1.98(-2.91, -1.05), P <0.0001].

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with minimally invasive TLIF, endoscopic TLIF achieved comparable improvement of symptoms and intervertebral fusion, longer operation time, and smaller surgical trauma. Endoscopic TLIF, which requires a demanding learning curve, maybe a feasible and effective technique for the patients with symptomatic lumbar degenerative diseases.

Comparison of Outcomes Between Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients With Single-Level Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).

METHODS

This retrospective study included 110 patients with single-level lumbar degenerative disease who underwent Endo-TLIF or MIS-TLIF between January 2019 and December 2021. Patients were divided into Endo-TLIF (n = 55) and MIS-TLIF groups (n = 55). Perioperative, clinical, and radiological outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

The Endo-TLIF group had significantly lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. However, the operation time was significantly longer and there was more x-ray exposure than in the MIS-TLIF group. There were no significant differences in complications between the groups. The Endo-TLIF group showed significantly lower creatine kinase levels than the MIS-TLIF group at 3 days postoperatively (P < 0.05), but not at 7 days postoperatively (P > 0.05). Oswestry Disability Index and visual analog scale scores were significantly reduced in both groups at different time points postoperation compared to preoperation. The visual analog scale score in the Endo-TLIF group was lower than that in the MIS-TLIF group at 3 days postoperatively. Moreover, no significant differences were found in fusion rates, lumbar lordosis, and lumbar segmental lordosis between the 2 groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Endo-TLIF might be considered as an effective and reliable treatment option for single-level lumbar degeneration. It results in less trauma and faster postoperative recovery, but a longer operative time and more x-ray exposure than MIS-TLIF. Endo-TLIF has effects on clinical and radiological outcomes that are comparable to those of MIS-TLIF.

Complications in endoscopic spine surgery: a systematic review

PURPOSE

This systematic review aims to investigate the complication rate of endoscopic spine surgeries, stratifying them by technique, district and kind of procedure performed.

METHODS

This study was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. The literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Register, OTseeker and ScienceDirect database. Types of studies included were observational studies (cohort studies, case-control studies and case series) and randomised or quasi-randomised clinical with human subjects. No restrictions on publication year were applied. Repeated articles, reviews, expert's comments, congress abstracts, technical notes and articles not in English were excluded. Several data were extracted from the articles. In particular, data of perioperative (≤ 3 months) and late (> 3 months) complications were collected and grouped according to: (1) surgical technique [uniportal full-endoscopic spine surgery (UESS) or unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery (UBESS)]; (2) spinal district treated [cervical, thoracic or lumbar] and (3) type of procedure [discectomy/decompression or fusion]. Complication analysis was performed in subgroups with at least 100 patients to have clinically meaningful statistical validity.

RESULTS

A total of 117 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of the 117 records included, 95 focused their research on UESS (14 LOE V, 33 LOE IV, 43 LOE III and five LOE II) and 23 on UBESS (three LOE V, eight LOE IV, 10 LOE III and two LOE II). A total of 20,020 patients were extracted to investigate the incidence of different perioperative and late complications, 10,405 for UESS and 9615 for UBESS.

CONCLUSION

The present study summarises the complications reported in the literature for spinal endoscopic procedures. On the one hand, the most relevant described were perioperative complications (transient neurological deficit, dural tear and dysesthesia) that are especially meaningful for endoscopic discectomy and decompression. On the other hand, late complications, such as mechanical implant failure, are more common in endoscopic interbody fusion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications between endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study compares the efficacy and complications of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar fusion (Endo-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) in treating lumbar degenerative diseases. It aims to provide reference data for clinical decision-making.

METHODS

We identified randomized controlled studies and non-randomized controlled studies on Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF for treating lumbar degenerative diseases based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were managed with Endnote X9 software and meta-analyzed using Revman 5.3 software. Extracted outcomes included lower back VAS score, lower extremity pain VAS score, low back pain ODI score, complication rate, fusion rate, time to surgery, blood loss, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

① Thirteen high-quality studies were included in this meta-analysis, totaling 1015 patients-493 in the Endo-TLIF group and 522 in the MIS-TLIF group. ② Meta-analysis results revealed no significant differences in preoperative, postoperative 6-month, and final follow-up waist VAS scores, lower limb pain VAS score, ODI index, complications, and fusion rate between the two groups (P > 0.05). The MIS-TLIF group had a shorter operative time (MD = 29.13, 95% CI 10.86, 47.39, P = 0.002) than the Endo-TLIF group. However, the Endo-TLIF group had less blood loss (MD = - 76.75, 95% CI - 111.59, - 41.90, P < 0.0001), a shorter hospital stay (MD = - 2.15, 95% CI - 2.95, - 1.34, P < 0.00001), and lower lumbar VAS scores both immediately postoperative (≤ 2 week) (MD = - 1.12, 95% CI - 1.53, - 0.71, P < 0.00001) compared to the MIS-TLIF group.

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis results indicated that Endo-TLIF is similar to MIS-TLIF in terms of long-term clinical outcomes, fusion rates, and complication rates. Although MIS-TLIF has a shorter operation time, Endo-TLIF can significantly reduce blood loss and hospital stay duration. Endo-TLIF offers the advantages of less surgical trauma, reduced blood loss, faster recovery, and early alleviation of postoperative back pain.

The clinical effect of unilateral decompressive laminectomy plus fusion with unilateral biportal endoscopic technique for single level lumbar spinal stenosis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare and analyze the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) decompressive laminectomy plus fusion and microscope-assisted open decompressive laminectomy plus fusion.

METHODS

A total of 143 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were enrolled in this study between March 2020 and February 2021 with a minimum 2 years follow-up visit to our hospital. Sixty-five patients underwent the unilateral biportal endoscopic technique and were assigned to the UBE group, and the remaining 78 patients with microscope assistant were assigned to the Microscope group. The baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and radiological data were retrospectively collected and analyzed, as well as Clinical outcomes, radiological data and complications.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of baseline characteristics (P > 0.05). The UBE group was demonstrated to be significantly superior in CRP, drainage, blood loss, treatment cost and Hospital stay than the Microscope group (P < 0.05), whereas a significant longer operation time was observed (P < 0.05). The VAS-B, ODI, and JOA-L scores of the UBE group at 1 year follow-up were significantly greater than those of the Microscope group (P < 0.05). Regarding radiological data, there were no significant differences in the section area of the spinal canal and fusion grade between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In view of the satisfactory clinical outcomes of patients and notable decompression at the stenosed segment, UBE is a feasible, minimally invasive technique for single level lumbar canal stenosis.

Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF), minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs).

METHOD

A literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies comparing Endo-LIF, MIS-TLIF and OTLIF published from September 2017 to September 2022 for the treatment of LDD were retrieved. Data were extracted from preset clinical outcome measures, including operation time, estimated intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), complications, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, etc.

RESULT

Thirty-one studies with 3467 patients were included in this study. Network meta-analysis showed that in the comparison of the 3 procedures, Endo-LIF was superior to MIS-TLIF and OTLIF in terms of reducing EBL, LOS, time to ambulation, and VAS score of back pain. MIS-TLIF was superior to Endo-LIF in terms of ODI improvement, and OTLIF required the shortest intraoperative fluoroscopy time. There was no significant difference in operative time, complication rate, fusion rate, VAS score of leg pain, or JOA score among the 3 procedures.

CONCLUSION

Endo-LIF, MIS-TLIF and OTLIF each have their own advantages and disadvantages and show similar results in many respects, except for better early outcomes achieved with the more minimally invasive procedure.

Comparing the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

This study was registered on International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (ID: CRD42023432460). We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Database, and Wei Pu Database by computer to collect controlled clinical studies on the efficacy and safety of unilateral BE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF in lumbar degenerative diseases from database establishment to May 2023. Two researchers screened the literature, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias of the included studies, recorded the authors, and sample size, and extracted the intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative drainage, Oswestry disability index, Visual analogue scale, lumbar lordosis, disk height, hospital length stay, fusion rate, and complications in each study. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 software provided by Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

A total of 14 cohort studies with a total of 1007 patients were included in this study, including 472 patients in the BE-TLIF group and 535 patients in the MIS-TLIF group. The BE-TLIF group had lower intraoperative blood loss than the MIS-TLIF group [mean difference (MD) = - 78.72, 95% CI (- 98.47, - 58.97), P < 0.00001] and significantly reduced postoperative drainage than the MIS-TLIF group [MD = - 43.20, 95% CI (- 56.57, - 29.83), P < 0.00001], and the operation time was longer than that of the MIS-TLIF group [MD = 22.68, 95% CI (12.03, 33.33), P < 0.0001]. Hospital length stay in BE-TLIF group was significantly less than that in MIS-TLIF group [MD = - 1.20, 95% CI (- 1.82, - 0.57), P = 0.0002].

CONCLUSION

Compared with MIS-TLIF, BE-TLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, less early postoperative low back and leg pain, shorter postoperative hospital length stay, and faster early functional recovery.

Different lumbar fusion techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively compare and assess the effects of different lumbar fusion techniques in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to December 24, 2022 in this network meta-analysis. Outcomes were pain (pain, low back pain, and leg pain), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), complications, reoperation, and fusion. Network plots illustrated the direct and indirect comparisons of different fusion techniques for the outcomes. League tables showed the comparisons of any two fusion techniques, based on both direct and indirect evidence. The efficacy of each fusion technique for LSS was ranked by rank probabilities.

RESULTS

Totally 29 studies involving 2,379 patients were eligible. For pain, percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) was most likely to be the best technique, followed by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PLIF) had the greatest likelihood to be the optimal technique for low back pain, followed sequentially by MIS-TLIF, minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-PLIF), XLIF, Endo-TLIF, TLIF, oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). MIS-PLIF was ranked the most effective technique concerning leg pain, followed by Endo-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, TLIF, Endo-PLIF, PLIF, OLIF, PLF, and XLIF. As regards JOA scores, Endo-TLIF had the maximum probability to be the best technique, followed by MIS-TLIF and TLIF. Endo-PLIF had the greatest likelihood to be the optimum technique for complications, followed by TLIF, MIS-TLIF, Endo-TLIF, OLIF, and XLIF.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive fusion techniques may be effective in the treatment of LSS, compared with traditional techniques. Minimally invasive techniques were likely non-inferior with regards to postoperative complications.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus conventional interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis compares the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) to conventional interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD).

METHODS

An extensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Research related to UBE-TLIF published up to November 2022 was reviewed. The relevant articles were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as an evaluation of the quality of the data extraction literature. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included six high-quality case-control trials (CCTs) involving 621 subjects. The clinical outcomes assessment showed no statistical differences in complication rates, fusion rates, leg pain VAS scores, or ODI scores. After UBE-TLIF, low back pain VAS scores were significantly improved with less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter hospital stay. A longer time was required for UBE-TLIF, however.

CONCLUSION

Despite the lack of sufficient high quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in this study, the results of this meta-analysis suggest that UBE-TLIF is more effective than open surgery in terms of length of stay, blood loss reduction during surgery, and improved low back pain after surgery. Nevertheless, the evidence will be supplemented in the future by more and better quality multicenter randomized controlled trials.

"Early Efficacy and Safety of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Minimal Invasive in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases"

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the early clinical efficacy and radiologic outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Along with the continuous development of endoscopic technology, the early safety and effectiveness of ULIF technology are still unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 61 patients who underwent fusion surgery through ULIF or MIS-TLIF in 2021. Twenty-nine patients underwent ULIF (group A), and 32 underwent MIS-TLIF (group B). Fusion rate, bone graft volume, hidden blood loss (HBL), C-reactive protein level, operative time, Oswestry Disability Index , Visual Analog Scale score, and MacNab criteria were assessed in both groups.

RESULTS

The Visual Analog Scale score for back pain in the early postoperative period was significantly lower in group A than in group B ( P <0.05). All other clinical scores showed improvement, with no significant difference between the 2 groups ( P >0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative C-reactive protein levels and fusion rates between the 2 groups ( P >0.05). However, HBL was higher and operative time was longer in group A than in group B ( P <0.05). Most importantly, there were no statistically significant differences between groups A and B in fusion rate, length of stay and bone graft volume ( P >0.05). No serious surgical complications occurred in our study.

CONCLUSIONS

ULIF is a new option for lumbar fusion. Despite the drawbacks of longer operation time and higher HBL, ULIF may be a viable alternative to MIS-TLIF as technology advances.

Technical Feasibility and Early Clinical Outcome of Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Larger Cage

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with biportal endoscopic guidance (BE-TLIF) has been previously reported with promising clinical results. However, complications such as delayed union or subsidence occurred as with open surgery. We assumed using larger cages would result in less occurrence of such complications. We aimed to analyze the clinical outcome and technical feasibility of BE-TLIF using larger cages, initially designed for oblique lumbar interbody fusion.

METHODS

We enrolled cases that underwent single-level BE-TLIF between January 2021 and January 2022. Polyetheretherketone cages that were larger than the conventional size were used. Diagnoses were degenerative spondylolisthesis or isthmic spondylolisthesis. Visual analog scale scores of the back and leg and Oswestry Disability Index were collected perioperatively. Modified Macnab criteria were used to evaluate the patients at the final follow-up. Radiologic outcome of interbody fusion rate and perioperative complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 35 cases were included in this study. The mean age was 67.5 ± 8.4 and consisted of 13 male patients, and the mean follow-up duration was 18.3 ± 3.7 months. The majority (32/35, 91.3%) of the index level was located within the lower lumbar region, L4-S1. Oswestry Disability Index scores improved from 65.4 ± 5.4 preoperatively to 15.4 ± 6.1 at the final follow-up (P < 0.001). Visual analog scale scores of the leg decreased from 7.9 ± 1.5 to 1.7 ± 1.5 at the final follow-up (P < 0.001). Per the modified Macnab criteria on the final follow-up, 94% of the patients reported good/excellent. Most (94.2%) of the patients showed fusion grade I and II at the 1-year follow-up. No patient showed subsidence or other postoperative complication.

CONCLUSIONS

BE-TLIF using a larger cage was safely performed without risk of subsidence during the 1-year follow-up. A cage with a larger footprint may be advantageous in BE-TLIF in the aspect of interbody fusion and subsidence.

Short-term clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the short-term clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases by meta-analysis.

METHODS

A computer-based search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP) was conducted from the inception of the each database to April 2023. The searched literature was then screened according to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The critical data were extracted and analyzed using Review Manager software5.4.1. Pooled effects were calculated on the basis of data attributes by mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the studies.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies and 949 patients met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis, 445 in the UBE-LIF group and 504 in the MIS-TLIF group. UBE-TLIF was superior to MIS-TLIF in terms of intraoperative blood flow, postoperative drainage flow, duration of hospital stay, VAS score for low back pain and ODI score, but the operative time was longer than MIS-TLIF group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of total complication rate, modified Macnab grading criteria, fusion rate, VAS score of leg pain, lumbar lordosis, intervertebral disk height.

CONCLUSION

Both UBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF are effective surgical modalities for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases. They have similar treatment outcomes, but UBE-TLIF has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and faster recovery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study has been registered at INPLASY.COM (No. INPLASY202320087).

Comparison of efficacy between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and prognosis of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

Chinese and English databases were retrieved for the period from database creation to December 31, 2022. Case-control studies on unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion were collected. The observation indexes consisted of operation times, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain score, postoperative oswestry disability index score, postoperative MacNab excellent and good rate, imaging fusion rate at the last follow-up, and complications. The NO rating table was employed to assess the quality of the included literature, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Revman5.4.1 and Stata17.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 738 surgical patients were considered, including 347 patients in the ULIF group and 391 in the MIS-TLIF group. This Meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences in mean operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, length of hospital stay, and early postoperative (1-2W) visual analogue scale/score (VAS) scores for back pain. No significant differences were observed in the final follow-up postoperative VAS scores for back pain, postoperative leg VAS score, postoperative oswestry disability index score, excellent and good rate of postoperative modified MacNab, imaging fusion rate, and complications.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the MIS-TLIF group, the ULIF group had longer operation time, lower intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume, lower lumbar VAS score in the early postoperative period, and shorter hospital stay. ULIF is less invasive than traditional MIS-TLIF, making it a trustworthy surgical option for lumbar degenerative diseases with comparable fusion efficiency, superior MacNab rate, and complication rate.

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.

Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Using the Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Technique Compared With Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spine Diseases: Analysis of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes

BACKGROUND

There has been a widespread application of minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques in the past few years. Unilateral biportal endoscopic has been successfully used in a variety of lumbar spine diseases, but there are few studies on lumbar fusion assisted by unilateral biportal endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of transforaminal interbody fusion using the unilateral biportal endoscopic technique (UBEIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in patients with lumbar disease.

METHODS

We studied 128 patients, 58 in the UBEIF group and 70 in the TLIF group. The Oswestry disability index, creatine kinase, visual analog score (VAS) for leg and back pain were used to assess clinical outcomes. Radiographic outcomes were assessed using the fusion rate, internal fixation loosening, and adjacent segment degeneration.

RESULTS

Back and leg pain VAS scores in both groups were significantly lower 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery ( P < .05). A significant reduction in Oswestry disability index in both groups was observed 6 and 12 months after surgery ( P < .05). Compared with the TLIF group at 1 week after surgery, UBEIF patients' VAS score for back pain significantly improved ( P < .05). There was no difference in fusion rate between the 2 groups (98.27% vs 98.57%).

CONCLUSION

UBEIF and TLIF have similar clinical and radiographic outcomes in the treatment of single-segment lumbar disease with lumbar instability, including improved back and leg pain, improved disability, and high fusion rates. Furthermore, with UBEIF, less blood is lost, there is better relief of early back pain, and hospital stays are shorter.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Complications Between Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is a classic surgical procedure for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD). With the development of endoscopic technology, endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) can also achieve adequate decompression and interbody fusion. However, whether Endo-TLIF is superior to MIS-TLIF has not been adequately studied. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the treatment difference between Endo-TLIF vs MIS-TLIF.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies to compare the clinical outcomes and complications associated with Endo-TLIF vs. MIS-TLIF for the treatment of LDD. A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases for studies published up to April 1, 2022. Both retrospective and prospective studies that compared between Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF were included.

RESULTS

A total of 8 studies involving 581 patients were finally included in this meta-analysis. Endo-TLIF significantly prolonged the operation time, but reduced the blood loss amount and length of hospital stay. Moreover, Endo-TLIF was superior to MIS-TLIF on relief of back pain and functional recovery in the early postoperative period. However, there were no significantly differences in long-term clinical outcomes, fusion rate and incidence of complications between Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF.

CONCLUSIONS

Endo-TLIF was similar to MIS-TLIF in the long-term clinical outcomes, fusion and complication rates. Endo-TLIF prolongs the operation time, but shortens the length of hospital stay, and has the advantages of less surgical trauma, less blood loss, faster recovery, and early postoperative back pain relief.

Biportal endoscopic extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a 3D-printed porous titanium cage with large footprints: technical note and preliminary results

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to introduce biportal endoscopic extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-EFLIF), which involves insertion of a cage through a more lateral side as compared to the conventional corridor of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. We described the advantages and surgical steps of 3D-printed porous titanium cage with large footprints insertion through multi-portal approach, and preliminary results of this technique.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 12 consecutive patients who underwent BE-EFLIF for symptomatic single-level lumbar degenerative disease. Clinical outcomes, including a visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain and the Oswestry disability index (ODI), were collected at preoperative months 1 and 3, and 6 months postoperatively. In addition, perioperative data and radiographic parameters were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean patient age, follow-up period, operation time, and volume of surgical drainage were 68.3 ± 8.4 years, 7.6 ± 2.8 months, 188.3 ± 42.4 min, 92.5 ± 49.6 mL, respectively. There were no transfusion cases. All patients showed significant improvement in VAS and ODI postoperatively, and these were maintained for 6 months after surgery (P < 0.001). The anterior and posterior disc heights significantly increased after surgery (P < 0.001), and the cage was ideally positioned in all patients. There were no incidences of early cage subsidence or other complications.

CONCLUSIONS

BE-EFLIF using a 3D-printed porous titanium cage with large footprints is a feasible option for minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion. This technique is expected to reduce the risk of cage subsidence and improve the fusion rate.

Background, techniques, applications, current trends, and future directions of minimally invasive endoscopic spine surgery: A review of literature

Across many of the surgical specialties, the use of minimally invasive techniques that utilize indirect visualization has been increasingly replacing traditional techniques which utilize direct visualization. Arthroscopic surgery of the appendicular skeleton has evolved dramatically and become an integral part of musculoskeletal surgery over the last several decades, allowing surgeons to achieve similar or better outcomes, while reducing cost and recovery time. However, to date, the axial skeleton, with its close proximity to critical neural and vascular structures, has not adopted endoscopic techniques at as rapid of a rate. Over the past decade, increased patient demand for less invasive spine surgery combined with surgeon desire to meet these demands has driven significant evolution and innovation in endoscopic spine surgery. In addition, there has been an enormous advancement in technologies that assist in navigation and automation that help surgeons circumvent limitations of direct visualization inherent to less invasive techniques. There are currently a multitude of endoscopic techniques and approaches that can be utilized in the treatment of spine disorders, many of which are evolving rapidly. Here we present a review of the field of endoscopic spine surgery, including the background, techniques, applications, current trends, and future directions, to help providers gain a better understanding of this growing modality in spine surgery.

Comparison of the total and hidden blood loss in patients undergoing single-level open and unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective case control study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare total blood loss (TBL) and hidden blood loss (HBL) in patients undergoing single-level open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) and unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF).

METHODS

A total of 53 patients who underwent ULIF and 53 patients who underwent O-TLIF from March 2020 to July 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The Nadler's formula was employed to estimate the patient's blood volume (PBV), Gross's formula to estimate TBL, and Sehat's formula to estimate HBL. The obtained data were then analyzed with independent t test, chi-squared test, and analysis of covariance.

RESULTS

TBL and measured blood loss (MBL) in ULIF group (326.86 ± 223.45 ml, 99.00 ± 72.81 ml) was significantly lower than O-TLIF group (427.97 ± 280.52 ml, 270.66 ± 102.34 ml). Nevertheless, the HBL in ULIF group was higher than that in O-TLIF group (227.86 ± 221.75 ml vs 157.31 ± 268.08 ml), however this was not statistically significant (p = 0.143). The HBL was 69.71 ± 23.72% of TBL in ULIF group and 36.76 ± 18.79% of TBL in O-TLIF group. Patients in ULIF group had lower TBL and MBL, shorter duration of drainage, lower postoperative anemia, and shorter postoperative hospital stay compared to those in O-TLIF group.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative HBL should not be neglected in patients undergoing ULIF or O-TILF, as it accounts for a large percentage of TBL in both groups. ULIF is associated with lower TBL and MBL, postoperative anemia, shorter postoperative hospital stays compared with O-TLIF.

Comparison of surgical invasiveness, hidden blood loss, and clinical outcome between unilateral biportal endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Currently, hidden blood loss (HBL) has been paid more and more attention by spine surgeons. Simultaneously, it has been the effort of spine surgeons to explore more advantages of minimally invasive surgery. More and more articles have compared unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (BE-LIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). But so far, there is no HBL comparison between BE-LIF and MIS-TLIF. This study aims to compare the surgical invasiveness, hidden blood loss, and clinical outcome of BE-LIF and MIS-TLIF and to provide insight regarding minimally invasive surgery for lumbar degenerative disease (LDD).

METHODS

We enrolled 103 eligible patients with LDD who underwent BE-LIF (n = 46) and MIS-TLIF (n = 57) during August 2020-March 2021. We collected data, including demographics, perioperative haematocrit, operative and postoperative hospital times, serum creatine kinase (CK) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and hospitalization costs. Total and hidden blood loss was calculated. Clinical outcomes were assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) score for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), modified MacNab criteria, fusion rate, and complications.

RESULTS

Basic demographics and surgical data were comparable. The CRP and CK levels were generally lower in the BE-LIF than in the MIS-TLIF group, especially CRP levels on postoperative day (POD) three and CK levels on POD one. True total blood loss, postoperative blood loss, and hidden blood loss were significantly reduced in the BE-LIF group compared with the MIS-TLIF group. Postoperative hospital times was statistically significantly shorter in the BE-LIF group. The VAS pain and ODI scores improved in both groups. At three days and one month, the VAS lower back pain scores were significantly better after BE-LIF. Clinical outcomes did not otherwise differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with MIS-TLIF, BE-LIF has similar medium and short-term clinical outcomes. However, it is better regarding surgical trauma, early lower back pain, total and hidden blood loss, and recovery time. BE-LIF is an adequate option for selected LDD.

The Role and Future of Endoscopic Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review

Many types of surgeries are changing from conventional to minimally invasive techniques. Techniques in spine surgery have also changed, with endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) becoming a major surgical technique. Although ESS has advantages such as less soft tissue dissection and normal structure damage, reduced blood loss, less epidural scarring, reduced hospital stay, and earlier functional recovery, it is not possible to replace all spine surgery techniques with ESS. ESS was first used for discectomy in the lumbar spine, but the range of ESS has expanded to cover the entire spine, including the cervical and thoracic spine. With improvements in ESS instruments (optics, endoscope, endoscopic drill and shaver, irrigation pump, and multiportal endoscopic), limitations of ESS have gradually decreased, and it is possible to apply ESS to more spine pathologies. ESS currently incorporates new technologies, such as navigation, augmented and virtual reality, robotics, and 3-dimentional and ultraresolution visualization, to innovate and improve outcomes. In this article, we review the history and current status of ESS, and discuss future goals and possibilities for ESS through comparisons with conventional surgical techniques.

Endoscopic and Nonendoscopic Approaches to Single-Level Lumbar Spine Decompression: Propensity Score-Matched Comparative Analysis and Frailty-Driven Predictive Model

Objective: The endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) approach is associated with high levels of patient satisfaction, shorter recovery time, and reduced complications. The present study reports multicenter, international data, comparing ESS and non-ESS approaches for singlelevel lumbar decompression, and proposes a frailty-driven predictive model for nonhome discharge (NHD) disposition.Methods: Cases of ESS and non-ESS lumbar spine decompression were queried from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2017–2020). Propensity score matching was performed on baseline characteristics frailty score (measured by risk analysis index [RAI] and modified frailty index-5 [mFI-5]). The primary outcome of interest was NHD disposition. A predictive model was built using logistic regression with RAI as the primary driver.Results: Single-level nonfusion spine lumbar decompression surgery was performed in 38,686 patients. Frailty, as measured by RAI, was a reliable predictor of NHD with excellent discriminatory accuracy in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis: C-statistic: 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–0.94) in ESS cohort, C-statistic: 0.75 (95% CI, 0.73–0.76) overall cohort. After propensity score matching, there was a reduction in total operative time (89 minutes vs. 103 minutes, p = 0.049) and hospital length of stay (LOS) (0.82 days vs. 1.37 days, p < 0.001) in patients treated endoscopically. In ROC curve analysis, the frailty-driven predictive model performed with excellent diagnostic accuracy for the primary outcome of NHD (C-statistic: 0.87; 95% CI, 0.85–0.88).Conclusion: After frailty-based propensity matching, ESS is associated with reduced operative time, shorter hospital LOS, and decreased NHD. The RAI frailty-driven model predicts NHD with excellent diagnostic accuracy and may be applied to preoperative decisionmaking with a user-friendly calculator: nsgyfrailtyoutcomeslab.shinyapps.io/lumbar_decompression_dischargedispo.

Determining the learning curve for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases

PURPOSE

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PELIF) is one of the least invasive procedures for lumbar degenerative disorders (LDD). There is limited knowledge of the learning curve for PELIF.

METHODS

A total of 93 consecutive patients who underwent PELIF performed by a single spine surgeon for LDD failed with conservative treatment were retrospectively reviewed. The case series was split into three groups based on timing: A (earliest third of patients); B (middle third of patients); and C (latest third of patients). The following were also recorded: operating time, X-ray exposure time, complications, radiologic fusion rates, pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) scores (visual analogue scale (VAS) for back pain, VAS for leg pain, Japanese Orthopaedic Association, Oswestry Disability Index and MacNab criteria), length of hospital stay, and need for revision surgeries. A learning curve was then developed by a logarithmic curve-fit regression analysis.

RESULTS

The operative time gradually decreased over time, and an asymptote was reached after about 25 cases. Compared with group B or C, group A had significantly longer operative time, significantly longer length of hospital stay, needed significantly more x-ray exposure time. Though not significantly different, there are fewer complications and revision surgeries over time. There is no significant difference over time in PROMs scores except for the VAS back scores.

CONCLUSIONS

PELIF is an alternative for minimal invasive surgery for LDD, PELIF presents a learning curve to the practicing spine surgeon with regard to operative time, x-ray exposure time, length of hospital stay, clinical PROMs and radiographic outcomes and complications. The presented PELIF learning curve provided valuable insight to surgeons interested in performing this surgery.

Comparing the efficacy and complications of unilateral biportal endoscopic fusion versus minimally invasive fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and mate-analysis

BACKGROUND

Unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) has been gradually applied in clinical practice. UBE has two channels, with good visual field and operating space, and has achieved good results in the treatment of lumbar spine diseases. Some scholars combine UBE with vertebral body fusion to replace traditional open fusion surgery and minimally invasive fusion surgery. The efficacy of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) is still controversial. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, BE-TLIF and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) are compared in the efficacy and complications of lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were used to search literatures related to BE-TLIF before January 2023, to identify relevant studies, and systematically review all literatures. Evaluation indicators mainly include operation time, hospital stay, estimated blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Macnab.

RESULTS

A total of 9 studies were included in this study; a total of 637 patients were collected, and 710 vertebral bodies were treated. Nine studies showed that there was no significant difference in VAS score, ODI, fusion rate, and complication rate between BE-TLIF and MI-TLIF at the final follow-up after surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that BE-TLIF is a safe and effective surgical approach. BE-TLIF surgery has similar good efficacy to MI-TLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. And compared with MI-TLIF, it has the advantages of early postoperative relief of low-back pain, shorter hospital stay, and faster functional recovery. However, high-quality prospective studies are needed to validate this conclusion.

Postoperative bone graft migration into the thecal sac and shifting down to the lower level after an endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a case report

BACKGROUND

Postoperative bone graft migration (PBGM) is a fairly rare spinal postoperative complication. Its occurrence after endoscopic surgery has rarely been reported in the literature so far. This is a case report of a 52-year-old male occurring PBGM into the thecal sac in the 8th days after an endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ELIF), which can make surgeons more minded with such serious rare complication after BGM.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 52-year-old male patient, underwent a L4-5 ELIF, presented with an acute radiculopathy on right leg and urinary incontinence in the 8^th postoperative day. An emergency lumbar Computed Tomography(CT scan) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) demonstrated bone graft migration into the thecal sac at the L4-5 level, and shifting down to the lower level. The revision surgery was performed at once successfully. Finally, the patient got well managed before discharge.

CONCLUSION

Supported by this case report, we believe that PBGM into the thecal sac is a rare but horrible complication of ELIF. However, too much volume of bone graft and its posterior placement are more prone to developing this complication. Finally, we are not sure that the outcome presented in this study will be repeated in future cases.

Clinical Efficacy of Bilateral Decompression Using Biportal Endoscopic Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases

OBJECTIVE

The study purpose was to compare unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases in terms of surgical trauma and short-to medium-term postoperative results.

METHODS

Forty-nine patients with lumbar degenerative diseases (25 underwent ULIF, 24 underwent MIS-TLIF) who were treated between May 2019 and October 2021, were included in this retrospective analysis. We compared the 2 groups' blood loss, serum C-reactive protein (CRP), visual analog scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score and slip percentage (SP). The modified Macnab score was obtained at the last follow-up.

RESULTS

On the postoperative day, the CRP levels (P < 0.05) were considerably lower in the ULIF group than those in the MIS-TLIF group. In addition, the ULIF group had significantly decreased intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.00) and postoperative blood loss (P = 0.00). After surgery, there was significant improvement in both groups in the VAS scores for low back and leg pain and in the ODI scores (P < 0.05). Two weeks after surgery, the ODI and VAS scores for low back pain of the ULIF group were considerably lower than those of the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.05). The excellent and good rates of the Macnab criteria between the 2 groups were not significantly different at the last follow-up (P = 0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

The ULIF technique can effectively treat short-segment lumbar degenerative diseases and is a feasible alternative to the traditional minimally invasive surgery.

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

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

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

PURPOSE

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

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective case control study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

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

OUTCOME MEASURES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion enhanced the recovery of patients with the lumbar degenerative disease compared with the conventional posterior procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Minimally invasive endoscopic technique is an important component of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol for neurosurgery. In recent years, unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) has been used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD). This study aims to investigate whether ULIF could enhance the recovery of patients with LDD compared with the conventional minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed for relevant studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library database, China National Knowledge Internet, and Wanfang database. Surgical data, clinical outcomes, radiographic outcomes, and surgical complications were compared between patients with LDD who underwent ULIF and those who underwent conventional MI-TLIF or PLIF.

Results

Notably, 12 studies, comprising 981 patients with LDD, were included. Of these patients, 449 underwent ULIF and 532 patients (355 MI-TLIF and 177 PLIF) were treated with conventional procedures. There was no significant difference in the fusion rate, cage subsidence rate, and surgical complications between the ULIF group and the MI-TLIF or PLIF group. Compared with MI-TLIF, the ULIF group presented a significantly reduced estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD, -106.00; 95% CI -140.99 to -71.10, P < 0.001) and shorter length of hospital stay (LOS) (WMD, -1.27; 95% CI -1.88 to -0.66, P < 0.001); better short-term improvement in ODI (WMD, -2.12; 95% CI -3.53 to -0.72, P = 0.003) and VAS score for back pain (VAS-BP) (WMD, -0.86; 95% CI -1.15 to -0.58, P < 0.001) at 1 month post-operatively. Compared with PLIF, the ULIF group presented a significantly reduced EBL (WMD, -149.22; 95% CI -284.98 to -13.47, P = 0.031) and shorter LOS (WMD, -4.40; 95% CI -8.04 to -0.75, P = 0.018); better short-term improvement in VAS-BP (WMD, -1.07; 95% CI -1.77 to -0.38, P = 0.002) and VAS score for leg pain (VAS-LP) (WMD, -0.40; 95% CI -0.72 to -0.08, P = 0.014) at 1-2 week post-operatively; enhanced short- and long-term improvement in ODI at 1 month post-operatively (WMD, -3.12; 95% CI -5.72 to -0.53, P = 0.018) and the final follow-up (WMD, -1.97; 95% CI -3.32 to -0.62, P = 0.004), respectively.

Conclusion

Compared with conventional MI-TLIF and PLIF, ULIF was associated with reduced EBL, shorter LOS, and comparable fusion rate as well as complication management. Compared with MI-TLIF, a better short-term improvement in VAS-BP and ODI was achieved by ULIF; compared with open PLIF, additional enhanced short-term improvement in VAS-LP and long-term improvement in ODI were observed in ULIF. ULIF could enhance the recovery of patients with LDD compared with conventional posterior procedures.

Systematic trial registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=230695, CRD42021230695.

Percutaneous endoscopic versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis

Introduction

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is commonly used in patients with lumbar degenerative disease (LDD). The most commonly used techniques include minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF) and percutaneous endoscopic TLIF (PE-TLIF).

Aim

To compare the safety and clinical effectiveness of PE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF in treating LDD.

Material and methods

We screened for related articles in multiple scientific databases, namely, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, VIP, and CINK, and analyzed the relative outcomes.

Results

Based on our inclusion criteria, we selected 8 studies for meta-analysis. There are a total of 229 patients who underwent PE-TLIF and 258 patients who underwent MIS-TLIF. MIS-TLIF and PE-TLIF have similar effectiveness in relieving leg pain and improving the Oswestry Disability Index. However, PE-TLIF is superior in relieving back pain. The pooled data of fusion rates, postoperative analgesic, and complication rates are comparable between the 2 groups. The pooled operation and intra-operative fluoroscopic time are both significantly higher in the PE-TLIF group than the MIS-TLIF group. The pooled intra-operative blood loss, incision length, duration from surgery to ambulation, and hospital stay are significantly lower in the PE-TLIF group than the MIS-TLIF group. Most of the endpoints reveal significant heterogeneity. The endpoints of operation time and intra-operative blood loss reveal significant publication bias.

Conclusions

Both PE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF are safe and effective interventions for patients with LDD. When compared, although MIS-TLIF results in reduced operative time, less intra-operative blood loss and enhanced post-operative recovery can be achieved by PE-TLIF.

[Short-term effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for Meyerding degree Ⅰ or Ⅱ single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis]

Objective

To investigate the short-term effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) in the treatment of Meyerding degree Ⅰ or Ⅱ single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Methods

The clinical data of 26 patients with Meyerding degree Ⅰ or Ⅱ single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis treated with UBE-TLIF between January 2021 and August 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, there were 10 males and 16 females with a mean age of 61.5 years (range, 35-76 years). The lesion segment included L 3, 4 in 2 cases, L 4, 5 in 18 cases, and L 5, S 1 in 6 cases. There were 17 cases of degenerative spondylolisthesis and 9 cases of isthmic spondylolisthesis; according to the Meyerding classification of spondylolisthesis, 19 cases were grade Ⅰ and 7 cases were grade Ⅱ. Twenty-one cases were complicated with lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis and 5 cases with lumbar spinal stenosis. The operation time, hospitalization stay, complications, hemoglobin (Hb) and serum creatine kinase (CK) levels before operation and at 1 day after operation were recorded; lumbar lordosis angle changes and postoperative spondylolisthesis reduction were evaluated by lumbar anteroposterior and lateral X-ray films before operation and at last follow-up; visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate the low back pain and leg pain before operation, at 2 days, 1 week, 2 weeks after operation, and at last follow-up; Oswestry disability index (ODI) was used to evaluate the functional recovery of the patients before operation and at last follow-up.

Results

The operation was successfully completed in all 26 patients, with an average operation time of 181.9 minutes (range, 130-224 minutes) and an average hospitalization stay of 6.3 days (range, 3-9 days). Hb levels were significantly lower and serum CK levels were significantly higher at 1 day after operation when compared with those before operation ( t=7.594, P<0.001; t=-15.647, P<0.001). No serious complication occurred during and after operation. CT examination at 3 days after operation showed that the percutaneous screw was not in good position in 1 case, and nerve paralysis (pain, numbness) occurred in 2 cases after operation, which were improved within 2 weeks after operation. All the 26 patients were followed up 6-11 months, with an average of 8.7 months. Complete reduction (the slippage reduction rate was 100%) was achieved in 24 patients (92.3%), and partial reduction (the slippage reduction rate was 87.5%) in 2 patients (7.7%). During the follow-up, there was no complication such as incision infection, fusion Cage subsidence or displacement, and internal fixator loosening. The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain significantly improved at each time point after operation when compared with those before operation ( P<0.05); there was no significant difference in the VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain between at 2 days and 1 week after operation, the VAS scores of low back pain between at 1 week and 2 weeks after operation, and the VAS scores of leg pain between at 2 weeks after operation and last follow-up ( P>0.05); but there was significant difference between the other time points after operation ( P<0.05). ODI and lumbar lordosis angle significantly improved at last follow-up ( P<0.05).

Conclusion

UBE-TLIF provides favorable short-term effectiveness and obvious advantages of minimally invasive in the treatment of Meyerding degree Ⅰ or Ⅱ single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, the safety and long-term effectiveness need to be further studied.

A new method for establishing operative channels in unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery: Technical notes and preliminary results

BACKGROUND

The unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) technique has been widely used in spine surgery. At present, a traditional rigid working channel is available for the UBE system. A metal semicircular canal is located in the working channel. However, due to the metal material of the working channel, arthroscopy and instruments are constrained from moving in UBE surgery. Additionally, an assistant is needed during the procedure to hold the traditional working channel.

OBJECTIVE

For simplicity of operation and convenient movement of the arthroscopy and instrument, we describe a new method for establishing operative channels in UBE surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 50 patients who underwent unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) from February 2020 to August 2020 via our new method. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) score were measured preoperatively and 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months postoperatively. Statistical comparisons were made using analysis of covariance and paired t tests.

RESULTS

The VAS scores for back pain at the five time points were 5.20 ± 2.57, 1.96 ± 0.95, 1.50 ± 0.84, 1.64 ± 1.08 and 1.18 ± 0.39. The leg pain VAS scores were 7.02 ± 2.25, 2.02 ± 1.27, 1.48 ± 0.89, 1.32 ± 0.79 and 0.88 ± 0.52. The ODI values were 51.08 ± 19.97, 19.62 ± 15.51, 8.26 ± 7.40, and 7.54 ± 6.42 to 3.24 ± 1.10. The postoperative ODIs and VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain were significantly lower than those before surgery, and differences were statistically significant (all p< 0.05). The pressure of the closed outflow was significantly higher than that of the open outflow (37.35 ± 13.11 mm Hg vs. 24.55 ± 12.64 mm Hg p= 0.003). After we tightened the infusion strap to open the outflow, the pressure decreased significantly (26.4 ± 14.08 mm Hg vs. 37.35 ± 13.11 mm Hg p= 0.015). There were 2 cases of complications, including 1 case of postoperative recurrence and 1 case of dural tears.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the technical feasibility, safety, and efficacy of modified channel establishment in UBE surgery.

Analysis of curative effect of percutaneous coaxial large channel endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis

Objective

To investigate the clinical efficacy and technical points of Percutaneous Coaxial Large-channel Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PCLE-LIF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Methods

The clinical data of patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent PCLE-LIF surgery from January 2019 to June 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Surgery-related data included symptom duration, operation time, hospital stay, and complication rate. Functional score data included low back pain and lower extremity pain VAS score, ODI score, and MacNab criteria were used to evaluate clinical effects. The Brantigan criteria were used to evaluate the interbody fusion.

Results

There were 62 patients in this group, including 35 males and 27 females. The surgical sites were all lower lumbar spine, including 35 cases of lumbar L4/5 and 27 cases of L5/S1. The length of hospital stay was 7.7 ± 1.4 days. All patients were followed up regularly for 1 year. The interbody fusion rate was 93.5% at 1 year after operation. There were 2 cases of numbness, 2 cases of nerve edema and pain, 1 case of cage displacement, and 1 case of pedicle screw loosening. The complication rate was 9.6%. The VAS scores of low back pain 1 day before surgery, 3 days, 3 months and 1 year after surgery were 4.48 ± 1.06, 0.84 ± 0.81, 0.40 ± 0.56, 0.39 ± 0.69, and the VAS of lower extremity pain at each time point of appeal were 5.58 ± 0.98, 0.91 ± 0.58, 0.31 ± 0.46, 0.19 ± 0.40. The ODI scores at 1 day before surgery, 3 months and 1 year after surgery were 60.01 ± 6.21, 15.58 ± 2.84, 8.82 ± 2.15. The ODI scores and VAS scores of low back pain and lower extremity pain at each follow-up time point after operation were significantly lower than those before operation (p < 0.05). The 1-year follow-up after operation was evaluated by the modified MacNab standard, and the results were excellent in 36 cases, good in 23 cases, fair in 3 cases, and poor in 0 cases, with an excellent and good rate of 95.2%.

Conclusion

Percutaneous coaxial large-channel endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis has good short-term efficacy and high safety, and is worthy of popularization.

[Learning curve analysis of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the learning curve of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-LIF).

METHODS

Fifty-five patients with single-segment lumbar degenerative disease treated with UBE-LIF between December 2020 and February 2022 were selected as the research subjects. The patients were grouped according to the operation sequence, the first 27 cases were in the early group, and the last 28 cases were in the late group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in age, gender, disease type, and surgical segment distribution ( P>0.05). The operation time, the amount of hemoglobin loss (the difference between 1 day before operation and 3 days after operation), the hospital stay after operation, and the incidence of perioperative complications were recorded; the learning curve of UBE-LIF was analyzed by log-curve regression analysis.

RESULTS

All the operations were successfully completed without changing to other operations. The operation time, the amount of hemoglobin loss, and hospital stay in the early group were significantly more than those in the late group ( P<0.05). Complications occurred in 2 cases (7.4%) in the early group, including 1 case of dural tear during operation and 1 case of epidural hematoma after operation, and 1 case (3.6%) with transient radiculitis in the late group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups ( P=0.518) . The log-curve regression analysis showed that the operation time decreased significantly with the increase of the number of patients ( P<0.05). The operation time tended to be stable after the surgeon completed 17 cases.

CONCLUSION

For single-level lumbar degenerative disease, the operation time of UBE-LIF can decrease gradually with the increase of the number of patients, and tend to be stable after 17 cases.

[Early effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy combined with annulus fibrosus suture in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the early effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) combined with annulus fibrosus suture in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

METHODS

The clinical data of 19 patients with LDH treated with UBED and annulus fibrosus suture between October 2020 and October 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 12 males and 7 females with an average age of 39.1 years (range, 26-59 years). The operative segment was L _{4, 5} in 13 cases, and L ₅, S ₁ in 6 cases. The mean disease duration was 6.7 months (range, 3-15 months). Preoperative neurological examination showed that muscle strength, sensation, and tendon reflex weakened or disappeared in varying degrees. Single annulus fibrosus suture (14 cases) or anchor assisted annulus fibrosus suture (5 cases) was selected according to the location of annulus fibrosus tears. Visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to assess the low back and leg pain before operation and at 3 days, 3 months, and 6 months after operation. Oswestry disability index (ODI) was used to evaluate the function recovery of lumbar spine before operation and at 3 days, 3 months, and 6 months after operation. At 3 days and 3 months after operation, MRI was used to examine the removal of nucleus pulposus and decompression of nerve root. MacNab criteria was used to evaluate the effectiveness at 6 months after operation and the recovery of nerve root function was recorded.

RESULTS

All operations were successfully completed with a mean operation time of 52.7 minutes (range, 40-75 minutes). There was no complication such as nerve injury, spinal cord hypertension syndrome, or dural sac tear during operation, and no complication such as infection, aggravation of nerve damage, or cerebrospinal fluid leakage after operation. All the patients were followed up 6-10 months (mean, 8.2 months). Postoperative MRI showed that the herniated disc was completely removed and nerve roots were fully decompressed. During the follow-up, there was no recurrence of disc herniation. The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain and ODI at each time point after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation, and those at 6 months after operation further improved than those at 3 days and 3 months after operation, all showing significant differences ( P<0.05). At 6 months after operation, MacNab standard was used to evaluate the effectiveness, and the results were excellent in 14 cases, good in 4 cases, and fair in 1 case, with an excellent and good rate of 94.7%. Neurological examination showed that the sensation and muscle strength of the affected nerve root innervated area recovered significantly when compared with those before operation ( P<0.05); the recovery of tendon reflex was not obvious, showing no significant difference when compared with that before operation ( P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

UBED combined with annulus fibrosus suture is a safe and effective technique for LDH and early effectiveness is satisfactory.

Mapping knowledge structure and themes trends in unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery: A bibliometric analysis

Background

The numerous benefits of unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spine surgery have attracted the attention of many researchers, and a considerable number of relevant clinical studies have been published. However, global research trends in the field of UBE have received little attention. The purpose of this study was to apply bibliometric method to analyze the UBE-related publications to obtain an overview of the research trends in the field of UBE, as well as research hotspots and trends.

Methods

Web of Science database was searched for articles published until January 31, 2022. CiteSpace was used to analyze the data, which provided graphical knowledge maps. The following factors were applied to all literature: number of publications, distribution, h-index, institutions, journals, authors, and keywords.

Results

Seventy-three articles were identified. Since 2019, there has been a significant increase in the number of UBE-related publications. The country with the largest number of articles was South Korea (72.6%), followed by China (9.6%), Japan (4.1%), and Egypt (4.1%). South Korea had the highest h-index (16), followed by China (2), Japan (1), and Egypt (1). Leon Wiltse Memorial Hospital was the organization that produced the most papers (12 publications). Heo DH was the most productive author (16 papers) and was the most cited author (35 times). World Neurosurgery published the most papers on UBE (23.3%). The main research hotspots were spinal diseases, decompression, complications, learning curve, and interbody fusion. In addition, the recent concerns were “learning curve,” “interbody fusion,” “management,” and “dural tear.”

Conclusions

The quantity of publications on UBE research will increase, and South Korea being the major contributor and most prominent country in this field. The findings of our study will provide researchers with practical information on the field of UBE, and identification of mainstream research directions and recent hotspots.

Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus other spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) versus other forms of spine surgery.

Methods

Electronic databases were systematically searched up to February 2022. The authors used Review Manager 5.3 to manage the data and perform the review.

Results

After the preliminary selection of 239 studies from electronic databases, the full inclusion criteria were applied; 16 studies were found to be eligible for inclusion. These 16 studies enrolled 1,488 patients: 653 patients in the UBE group, 570 in the microendoscopic discectomy group, 153 in the percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy group, and 70 in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion group. UBE was superior to microendoscopic discectomy regarding 1-day Visual Analog Scale(VAS) back pain scores (P < 0.00001). No difference was found between UBE and microendoscopic discectomy regarding 1-day Visual Analog Scale leg pain scores (P = 0.25), long-term VAS back pain scores (P = 0.06), long-term VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.05), Oswestry Disability Index scores (P = 0.09) or complications (P = 0.19). Pooled analysis indicated that UBE was similar to percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy regarding 1-day VAS back pain scores (P = 0.71), 1-day VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.37), long-term VAS back pain scores (P = 0.75), long-term VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.41), Oswestry Disability Index scores (P = 0.07) and complications (P = 0.88). One study reported no difference between UBE and posterior lumbar interbody fusion regarding long-term VAS back pain, long-term VAS leg pain, or Oswestry Disability Index scores.

Conclusions

UBE is superior to microendoscopic discectomy to relieve back pain 1 day postoperatively. However, these two procedures are similar regarding 1-day leg pain relief, long-term effects, and safety. UBE and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy are similar regarding 1-day pain relief, long-term effects and safety. More evidence is needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UBE versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Endoscope-Assisted Retroperitoneal Prepsoas Approach to Lumbar Intervertebral Disk Decompression. Technical Note

BACKGROUND

Increasingly there is an impetus on the part of surgeons to find more minimally invasive approaches to treat spinal pathologies. Retroperitoneal prepsoas and transpsoas approaches to the lumbar spine are one such example gaining increased attention. Endoscope-assisted approaches may help further reduce soft tissue dissection.

OBJECTIVE

To describe an endoscope-assisted lateral retroperitoneal prepsoas approach for lumbar diskectomy.

METHODS

Two fresh-frozen thoracolumbar cadaveric specimens were obtained and placed in the right lateral decubitus position. Using a left-sided, retroperitoneal prepsoas approach to the lumbar spine and under endoscopic visualization, diskectomies were performed at the L2/3, L3/4, L4/5, and L5/S1 intervertebral spaces. Qualitative assessment of the extent of central and contralateral foraminal decompression was performed.

RESULTS

The endoscope was found to provide effective visualization at all disk spaces and combined with the anterior retroperitoneal prepsoas approach allowed for effective decompression of all explored disk spaces. Both operators noted difficulty obtaining visualization of the ipsilateral foramen, but adequate central and contralateral foraminal decompression was achievable for central, paracentral, and contralateral far lateral disk protrusions.

CONCLUSION

Endoscope assistance may improve visualization of the lumbar intervertebral disk spaces during retroperitoneal prepsoas approaches and thereby help to expand the surgical indication for anterior and oblique lumbar interbody fusion.

Full-Endoscopic versus Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

Although full-endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF) has been tried as the latest alternative technique to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interobody fusion (MIS-TLIF) since mid-2010, the evidence is still lacking. We compared the clinical outcome and safety of Endo-LIF to MIS-TLIF for lumbar degenerative disease.

Methods

We systematically searched electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library to find literature comparing Endo-LIF to MIS-TLIF. The results retrieved were last updated on December 11, 2020. The perioperative outcome included the operation time, blood loss, complication, and hospital stay. The clinical outcomes included Visual analog scale (VAS) of low back pain and leg pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the radiological outcome included pseudoarthosis rate with 12-month minimum follow-up.

Results

Four retrospective observational studies and one prospective observational study comprising 423 patients (183 Endo-LIF and 241 MIS-TLIF) were included, and the pooled data analysis revealed low heterogeneity between studies in our review. Baseline characteristics including age and sex were not different between the two groups. Operation time was significantly longer in Endo-LIF (mean difference [MD], 23.220 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.669–35.771; p=0.001). However, Endo-LIF resulted in less perioperative blood loss (MD, -144.710 mL; 95% CI, 247.941–41.478; p=0.023). Although VAS back pain at final (MD, -0.120; p=0.586), leg pain within 2 weeks (MD, 0.005; p=0.293), VAS leg pain at final (MD, 0.099; p=0.099), ODI at final (MD, 0.141; p=0.093) were not different, VAS back pain within 2 weeks was more favorable in the Endo-LIF (MD, -1.538; 95% CI, -2.044 to -1.032; p<0.001). On the other hand, no statistically significant group difference in complication rate (relative risk [RR], 0.709; p=0.774), hospital stay (MD, -2.399; p=0.151), and pseudoarthrosis rate (RR, 1.284; p=0.736) were found.

Conclusion

Relative to MIS-TLIF, immediate outcomes were favorable in Endo-LIF in terms of blood loss and immediate VAS back pain, although complication rate, mid-term clinical outcomes, and fusion rate were not different. However, the challenges for Endo-LIF include longer operation time which means a difficult learning curve and limited surgical indication which means patient selection bias. Larger-scale, well-designed study with long-term follow-up and randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm and update the results of this systematic review.

[Analysis of technical advantages and disadvantages of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and its trend prospect]

OBJECTIVE

To review and evaluate the technical advantages and disadvantages and research progress of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion.

METHODS

The domestic and foreign related research literature on percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion was extensively consulted. The advantages, disadvantages, and effectiveness were summarized. And the development trend of this technology was prospected.

RESULTS

Compared with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion has less intraoperative and postoperative bleeding, better improvement of low back pain in the early stage after operation, and similar long-term effectiveness, fusion rate, and incidence of complication, but a longer learning curve. The operation time of biportal and large-channel uniportal endoscopic lumbar fusion is close to that of MIS-TLIF, but the operation time of small-channel uniportal endoscopic fusion is longer than that of MIS-TLIF.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion has the advantages of less trauma and good effectiveness, but its learning curve is long, and indications should be strictly selected for this operation. In the future, with the continuous development and complementation of various endoscopic fusion technologies, this technology will gain better application prospects.

[Comparison of effectiveness between percutaneous coaxial large-channel endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of percutaneous coaxial large-channel endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PE-LIF) and minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

The clinical data of 134 patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who met the selection criteria between January 2019 and January 2021 were retrospectively analyzed, including 52 cases in PE-LIF group and 82 cases in MIS-TLIF group. There was no significant difference in general data such as gender, age, disease duration, surgical segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of low back pain and lower extremity pain, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) between the two groups ( P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, hospitalization stay, and complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. The level of serum creatine kinase (CK) was recorded at 1 day before operation and at 1 and 3 days after operation to evaluate intraoperative muscle damage. The Brantigan criteria was used to evaluate the interbody fusion in the two groups. The VAS scores of low back pain and lower extremity pain at 1 day before operation and at 3 days, 3 months, and 1 year after operation, and the ODI scores at 1 day before operation and at 3 months and 1 year after operation were recorded and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in operation time and hospitalization stay between the two groups ( P>0.05). The intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage in the PE-LIF group were significantly lower than those in the MIS-TLIF group ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in serum CK between the two groups before operation ( P>0.05), and the serum CK in the PE-LIF group at 1 and 3 days after operation were significantly lower than those in the MIS-TLIF group ( P<0.05). All patients were followed up regularly for 1 year. The postoperative VAS scores of low back pain and lower extremity pain and ODI score in both groups were significantly lower than those before operation ( P<0.05); there was no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05). At 1 year after operation, 48 patients in PE-LIF group had successful interbody fusion, and 77 patients in MIS-TLIF group had successful interbody fusion. There was no significant difference in the interbody fusion distribution between the two groups at 3 months and 1 year after operation ( P>0.05). There were 2 and 3 cases of lower limb numbness, 1 and 3 cases of neuroedema pain, 1 and 1 case of Cage displacement, 1 and 1 case of pedicle screw loosening in the PE-LIF group and MIS-TLIF group, respectively. No infection or dural sac tearing occurred in the two groups. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (9.6% vs. 9.8%) ( χ ²=0.001, P=0.979).

CONCLUSION

In the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, PE-LIF can achieve similar effectiveness as MIS-TLIF, and PE-LIF has less intraoperative blood loss and less muscle damage.

[Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive tubular transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and minimally invasive tubular TLIF (MT-TLIF) in treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

A clinical data of 75 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases, who met the selection criteria between August 2019 and August 2020, was retrospectively analyzed, including 35 patients in the UBE- TLIF group and 40 patients in the MT-TLIF group. There was no significant difference in general data such as gender, age, body mass index, disease type and duration, and surgical segment between the two groups ( P>0.05), which was comparable. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hemoglobin (Hb) before operation and at 1 day after operation, the length of hospital stay, incidence of complications, and visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short-Form 36 Health Survey Scale (SF-36 scale), intervertebral disc height (IDH), sagittal Cobb angle, lumbar lordosis (LL), and the intervertebral fusion were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Compared with MT-TLIF group, UBE-TLIF group had significantly longer operation time but less intraoperative blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay ( P<0.05). The Hb levels in both groups decreased at 1 day after operation, but there was no significant difference in the difference before and after operation between the two groups ( P>0.05). All patients were followed up, and the follow-up time was (14.7±2.5) months in the UBE-TLIF group and (15.0±3.4) months in the MT-TLIF group, with no significant difference ( t=0.406, P=0.686). In both groups, the VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, SF-36 scale, and ODI after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference between 1 month after operation and last follow-up ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, and SF-36 scale between the two groups before and after operation ( P>0.05). At 1 month after operation, the ODI in the UBE-TLIF group was significantly better than that in the MT-TLIF group ( P<0.05). At 1 month after operation, IDH, Cobb angle, and LL in both groups recovered when compared with those before operation ( P<0.05), and were maintained until last follow-up ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the IDH, Cobb angle, and LL between the two groups at each time point ( P>0.05). Thirty-three cases (89.2%) in the UBE-TLIF group and 35 cases (87.5%) in the MT-TLIF group achieved fusion, and the difference was not significant ( χ ²=0.015, P=0.901). In the UBE-TLIF group, 1 case of intraoperative dural tear and 1 case of postoperative epidural hematoma occurred, with an incidence of 5.7%. In the MT-TLIF group, 1 case of intraoperative dural tear, 1 case of postoperative epidural hematoma, and 1 case of superficial infection of the surgical incision occurred, with an incidence of 7.5%. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups ( χ ²=1.234, P=1.000).

CONCLUSION

Compared with MT-TLIF, UBE-TILF can achieve similar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, and has the advantages of smaller incision, less bleeding, and shorter length of hospital stay.

Percutaneous Transforaminal Full-Endoscopic Removal of Neurinoma of the Fifth Lumbar Nerve Root With Intraoperative Neuromonitoring: A Case Report

Background

Technical achievements and surgical techniques improvement contribute to the expansion of the endoscopic spine surgery possibilities. However, today there are few reports about the use of percutaneous endoscopy in spinal tumor surgery. A case of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic removal of the lumbar spinal nerve tumor with intraoperative neuromonitoring is presented.

Case Description

A 59-year-old female was complaining of a left shin and foot pain, weakness, and paresthesia. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a tumor (neurinoma) at the left L5-S1 intervertebral foramen. Transforaminal endoscopic removal of an extramedullary tumor from an 8-mm skin incision with intraoperative neuromonitoring was performed. Postoperative MRI revealed the signs of total resection of the tumor.

Conclusion

The presented case confirms that percutaneous endoscopic removal of lumbar spine intraforaminal neurinomas can be safe and effective.

Case Report: Full-Endoscopic Surgery for Bullet Wounds of the Spine: A Report of Three Cases

Objectives

To determine the feasibility and evaluate effectiveness of full-endoscopic surgery in gunshot wound of the spine.

Methods

Three clinical cases of lumbar and thoracic spine bullet wounds made by firearms and traumatic weapons are described. Percutaneous endoscopic surgery was performed to extract bullet from the spinal canal. The results are compared to the data from literature.

Results

Percutaneous endoscopic approach to spinal canal with a possibility to extract a bullet, decompression of nerve roots, defect closure of the dura mater is demonstrated.

Conclusion

Good clinical outcomes allows to recommend percutaneous endoscopic surgery to manage similar lumbar and thoracic spine bullet wounds at the tertiary care level.

Clinical outcomes, complications and fusion rates in endoscopic assisted intraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (iLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): systematic review and meta-analysis

This meta-analysis aims to determine the clinical outcomes, complications, and fusion rates in endoscopic assisted intra-foraminal lumbar interbody fusion (iLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases. The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. The inclusion criteria were: five or more consecutive patients who underwent iLIF or MI-TLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases; description of the surgical technique; clinical outcome measures, complications and imaging assessment; minimum follow-up of 12 months. Surgical time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were extracted. Mean outcome improvements were pooled and compared with minimal clinically important differences (MCID). Pooled and direct meta-analysis were evaluated. We identified 42 eligible studies. The iLIF group had significantly lower mean intra-operative blood loss, unstandardized mean difference (UMD) 110.61 mL (95%CI 70.43; 150.80; p value < 0.0001), and significantly decreased length of hospital stay (UMD 2.36; 95%CI 1.77; 2.94; p value < 0.0001). Visual analogue scale (VAS) back, VAS leg and Oswestry disability index (ODI) baseline to last follow-up mean improvements were statistically significant (p value < 0.0001), and clinically important for both groups (MCID VAS back > 1.16; MCID VAS leg > 1.36; MCID > 12.40). There was no significant difference in complication nor fusion rates between both cohorts. Interbody fusion using either iLIF or MI-TLIF leads to significant and clinically important improvements in clinical outcomes for lumbar degenerative diseases. Both procedures provide high rates of fusion at 12 months or later, without significant difference in complication rates. iLIF is associated with significantly less intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay.

Study registration: PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews: Registration No. CRD42020180980, accessible at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ April 2020.