Retrospective Case Control Study: Clinical and Computer Tomographic Fusion and Subsidence Evaluation for Single Level Uniportal Endoscopic Posterolateral Approach Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Microscopic Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion

[Comparison of Clinical Effects of Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws and Traditional Pedicle Screws in Posterior Lumbar Fusion]

Objective

To compare the clinical effects of cortical bone trajectory screws and traditional pedicle screws in posterior lumbar fusion.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted to analyze lumbar degeneration patients who underwent surgical treatment at our hospital between January 2016 and January 2019. A total of 123 patients who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled. The subjects were divided into two groups according to their surgical procedures and the members of the two groups were matched by age, sex, and the number of fusion segments. There were 63 patients in the traditional pedicle screws (PS) group and 60 in the cortical bone trajectory screws (CBTS) group. The outcomes of the two groups were compared. The primary outcome measures were perioperative conditions, including operation duration, estimated intraoperative blood loss (EBL), and length-of-stay (LOS), visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and interbody fusion rate. The secondary outcome measures were the time to postoperative ambulation and the incidence of complications. VAS scores and ODI scores were assessed before operation, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 12 months after operation, and at the final follow-up. The interbody fusion rate was assessed in 1 year and 2 years after the operation and at the final follow-up.

Results

The CBTS group showed a reduction in operation duration ([142.8±13.1] min vs. [174.7±15.4] min, P<0.001), LOS ([9.5±1.5] d vs. [12.0±2.0] d, P<0.001), and EBL ([194.2±38.3] mL vs. [377.5±33.1] mL, P<0.001) in comparison with the PS group. The VAS score for back pain in the CBTS group was lower than that in the PS group at 1 week and 1 month after operation and the ODI score in the CBTS group was lower than that in the PS group at 1 month after operation, with the differences being statistically significant (P<0.05). At each postoperative time point, the VAS score for leg pain and the interbody fusion rate did not show significant difference between the two groups. The VAS score for back and leg pain and the ODI score at each time point after operation in both the CBTS group and the PS group were significantly lower than those before operation (P<0.05). No significant difference was found in the time to postoperative ambulation or the overall complication incidence between the two groups.

Conclusion

The CBTS technique could significantly shorten the operation duration and LOS, reduce EBL, and achieve the same effect as the PS technique does in terms of intervertebral fusion rate, pain relief, functional improvement, and complication incidence in patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion.

Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Versus Microscopic Lumbar Discectomy: A Preliminary Analysis of L5-S1 Lumbar Disc Herniation Outcomes in Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

A preliminary report from a single institution, noninferiority, prospective randomized controlled trial is conducted to determine the effectiveness of interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) versus microscopic lumbar discectomy (MLD) for the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

METHODS

This prospective, noncrossover, randomized controlled trials was conducted at a single neurosurgical center. Patients with symptomatic radiculopathy or intermittent neurogenic claudication caused by LDH were enrolled from July 2016 to July 2021. The study compared the effectiveness of microscopic and full-endoscopic discectomy procedures. Outcome measures included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index scores, radiologic measurements, endurance time of walking, and satisfaction rate.

RESULTS

Of 37 assessed patients, both IELD and MLD groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS scores for pain over time, with no significant difference between them. For secondary outcomes, the IELD group had a shorter hospital stay and reduced blood loss but a longer operation time than the MLD group. Radiographic evaluations showed no change compared to preoperative data. Patient satisfaction and recovery rates were slightly higher for the MLD group, but both groups were comparable in most evaluations, with complications being minimal.

CONCLUSION

The IELD was noninferior in improving the intensity of back and leg pain and functional disability, compared to the MLD. Additionally, the IELD showed no difference in clinical outcomes for patients in terms of radiographic results and patient satisfaction rates. The results of this research preliminarily demonstrate that the IELD could be considered an effective alternative to MLD for L5-S1 central or paracentral LDH.

Outpatient Spine Procedures in Poland: Clinical Outcomes, Safety, Complications, and Technical Insights into an Ambulatory Spine Surgery Center

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of spine procedures performed in an ambulatory spine surgery unit in Poland.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 318 patients who underwent ambulatory spine surgery between 2018 and 2021, with procedures including microdiscectomy (MLD), anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), endoscopic interbody fusion (endoLIF), posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy (PECD), interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy IELD, and transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD). Patient data were analyzed for pre-operative and post-operative visual analog scale (VAS) scores.

RESULTS

The findings indicated that outpatient techniques were safe and effective, with a 2.83% complication rate. All procedures significantly improved VAS scores under short-term observation, and core outcome measurement index (COMI) scores under long-term observation.

CONCLUSIONS

Ambulatory spine surgery represents a relatively new approach in Poland, with only a select few centers currently offering this type of service. Outpatient spine surgery is a safe, effective, and cost-effective option for patients requiring basic spine surgeries.