Biportal endoscopic surgery for lumbar spine herniated discs: a narrative review of its clinical application and outcomes

Minimally invasive biportal endoscopic spinal surgery for central canal stenosis in low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: clinical outcomes and implications: a retrospective observational study

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective observational study.

PURPOSE

To assess the clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) using biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) in patients with low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) and central canal stenosis.

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

DLS with central canal stenosis frequently requires surgical intervention to alleviate symptoms. Although traditional fusion surgeries are effective, they are associated with risks such as adjacent segment disease and increased postoperative morbidity. BESS presents a minimally invasive alternative that aims to achieve adequate decompression while preserving segmental stability.

METHODS

A total of 68 patients with symptomatic, low-grade DLS and moderate-to-severe central canal stenosis underwent ULBD using BESS. Patients were followed for at least 2 years. Clinical outcomes were measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the modified Macnab criteria for patient satisfaction. Radiological outcomes were assessed on the basis of sagittal translation from dynamic flexion-extension radiographs.

RESULTS

The mean VAS score for back pain decreased from 3.8±2.4 preoperatively to 1.9±2.0 at the final follow-up, and the leg pain scores decreased from 6.4±1.8 to 2.3±2.0 (both p<0.05). The ODI score improved significantly from 48.9±15.7 preoperatively to 23.1±17.5 at the final follow-up (p<0.05). According to the modified Macnab criteria, 27.9%, 42.6%, 22.1%, and 7.4% of the patients reported excellent, good, fair, and poor outcomes. Radiological assessments indicated no significant changes in sagittal translation, supporting the preservation of spinal stability.

CONCLUSIONS

BESS with ULBD represents a safe and effective minimally invasive approach for treating low-grade DLS with central canal stenosis. It offers substantial symptom relief and functional improvement without jeopardizing spinal stability, making it a viable alternative to conventional fusion surgery.

The unilateral biportal endoscopy journey: proposing a 10-tier difficulty progression framework for unilateral biportal endoscopy

Unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) has revolutionized minimally invasive spinal surgery, offering enhanced visualization and reduced recovery times. However, the steep learning curve and technical complexity require a structured training framework. This narrative review proposes a 10-tier difficulty progression framework for UBE designed to guide novice surgeons through incremental skill acquisition. Each tier corresponds to specific procedures with escalating challenges spanning lumbar, cervical, and thoracic pathologies. The proposed framework begins with foundational lumbar procedures, such as ipsilateral recess decompression and discectomy, and advances to more intricate techniques, such as transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Transitioning to the cervical and thoracic regions requires mastery of earlier tiers, emphasizing precision in handling delicate anatomical structures. These challenges include achieving proficiency in mobilizing nerve roots, minimizing spinal cord manipulation, and mastering advanced decompression techniques. Evidence from learning curve analyses, including cumulative sum methodologies, underscores the importance of tailored training to reduce complications and optimize outcomes. By standardizing the progression of UBE procedures, this framework aims to enhance surgical safety, improve patient outcomes, and facilitate their widespread adoption. Future research should focus on validating this framework by using clinical trials, training feedback, and long-term patient data. Ultimately, this 10-tiered approach provides a roadmap for mastering UBE, addressing the growing demand for minimally invasive spinal surgery with precision and confidence.

Comparison of Postoperative Epidural Hematoma Formation Between Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery and Conventional Microscopic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Biportal endoscopic spine surgery (BESS) has become widely recognized as a minimally invasive method for spinal decompression and discectomy. However, postoperative epidural hematoma (POEH) presents a significant risk in spinal surgery due to its potential to compress neural elements and lead to neurological deficits. This study compares the clinical and radiological outcomes of BESS with those of conventional microscopic surgery.

METHODS

In this single-center, single-blinded, actively controlled randomized clinical trial, 46 patients undergoing single-level posterior decompression or discectomy for spinal stenosis or herniated intervertebral discs were enrolled. Participants were randomly allocated to either the conventional microscopic surgery group or the BESS group. Experienced spine surgeons performed all procedures. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging assessments were conducted following the removal of the drain system. Outcome measures included the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the dura sac and POEH, as well as the incidence of neurological deficits.

RESULTS

The demographic and baseline characteristics of the patients were similar across the 2 groups, with 24 in the conventional group and 22 in the BESS group. There were no significant differences in the preoperative and postoperative CSA of the dura sac between the groups. However, the BESS group exhibited a significantly larger CSA of POEH (0.36 ± 0.34 cm²) compared with the conventional group (0.17 ± 0.15 cm², P = 0.033). Despite this higher incidence of POEH, there was no corresponding increase in neurological deficits or revision surgeries.

CONCLUSION

The findings indicate that while BESS achieves decompression comparable to that of conventional microscopic surgery, it is associated with a higher incidence of epidural hematomas. Importantly, these hematomas did not result in an increased rate of neurological deterioration or the need for surgical interventions. Further studies with larger sample sizes and extended follow-up are required to confirm these results and further refine the BESS technique.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Despite a higher incidence of epidural hematomas, BESS offers comparable decompression to microscopic surgery without increased neurological risks, making it a viable, less invasive option for patient care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

[Comparison of effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for degree degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis]

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) in the treatment of degreeⅠdegenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).

Methods

A clinical data of 58 patients with degreeⅠDLS who met the selection criteria between October 2021 and October 2022 was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 28 cases were treated with unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression (decompression group) and 30 cases with ULIF (ULIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05) in the gender, age, lesion segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), disk height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), and other baseline data. The operation time, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative ambulation time, VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, ODI, laboratory examination indexes (CRP, ESR), and imaging parameters (DH, SL) were compared between the two groups.

Results

Compared with the ULIF group, the decompression group had shorter operation time, less postoperative drainage, and earlier ambulation ( P<0.05). All incisions healed by first intention, and no complication such as nerve root injury, epidural hematoma, or infection occurred. All patients were followed up 12 months. Laboratory tests showed that ESR and CRP at 3 days after operation in decompression group were not significantly different from those before operation ( P>0.05), while the above indexes in ULIF group significantly increased at 3 days after operation compared to preoperative values ( P<0.05). There were significant differences in the changes of ESR and CRP before and after operation between the two groups ( P<0.05). Except that the VAS score of low back pain at 3 days after operation was not significantly different from that before operation in decompression group ( P>0.05), there were significant differences in VAS score of low back pain and VAS score of leg pain between the two groups at other time points ( P<0.05). The VAS score of low back pain in ULIF group was significantly higher than that in decompression group at 3 days after operation ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back pain and VAS score of leg pain between the two groups at other time points ( P>0.05). The ODI of the two groups significantly improved after operation ( P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between 3 days and 6 months after operation ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups at the two time points after operation ( P<0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference in DH and SL between pre-operation and 12 months after operation in decompression group ( P>0.05). However, the above two indexes in ULIF group were significantly higher than those before operation ( P<0.05). There were significant differences in the changes of DH and SL before and after operation between the two groups ( P<0.05).

Conclusion

Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression can achieve good effectiveness in the treatment of degree Ⅰ DLS. Compared with ULIF, it can shorten operation time, reduce postoperative drainage volume, promote early ambulation, reduce inflammatory reaction, and accelerate postoperative recovery. ULIF has more advantages in restoring intervertebral DH and SL.

Erratum: Biportal endoscopic surgery for lumbar spine herniated discs: a narrative review of its clinical application and outcomes: erratum

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000001053.].