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

Optimizing Disc and Cartilage Endplate Preparation in Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An In-Depth Exploration of Surgical Instruments with a Technique Note and Narrative Review

Full-endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (FELIF) is a critical yet challenging procedure. However, extensive analyses of discectomy and cartilage endplate preparation techniques are limited. This can be attributed to the lack of universal protocols owing to diverse surgical practices and equipment preferences. Therefore, this narrative review presents a comprehensive overview of discectomy and cartilage endplate preparation techniques in FELIF. A literature search of the PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases in December 2023 retrieved 490 studies, of which 53 met the predefined inclusion criteria, and 1373 patients were included in the analyses. Spinal endoscopic disc and cartilage endplate removal can be categorized into 2 main types: removal under direct endoscopic visualization and removal under radiographic guidance with the protection of a working sheath following the endoscope's removal. Removal under direct visualization ensures the safety and precision of the procedure. Radiographic guidance can enhance the efficiency of the removal process. Specially designed instruments can be utilized through the narrow working channels of spinal endoscopes for the scraping surgery. Moreover, many traditional spinal endoscopic instruments, through specific techniques and manipulations, can also aid in cartilage removal. The approaches and techniques vary significantly among physicians, but overall, these instruments and techniques aim to achieve a safe and efficient disc-scraping outcome. Thus, this review may offer a comprehensive guidance to surgeons in selecting the most efficient practices for FELIF. Uniform procedural protocols are needed to ensure broader adoption and standardized practice.

Full-Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review and Technical Note

Remarkable innovations in spinal endoscopic surgery have broadened its applications over the past 20 years. Full-endoscopic fusions have been widely reported, and several full-endoscopic approaches for interbody fusion have been published. In general, full-endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is called Endo-LIF, and facet-preserving Endo-LIF through the transforaminal route is called trans-Kambin's triangle LIF, which has a relatively longer history than facet-sacrificing Endo-LIF via the posterolateral route. Both approaches can reduce intraoperative and postoperative bleeding. However, there is a higher risk of subsidence and exit nerve root injury. There is no direct decompression in either of the interbody fusions, and additional decompression is required if there is severe lumbar bony canal stenosis. However, the posterior interlaminar approach, which is a well-known standard in full-endoscopic spine surgery, has rarely been applied in the field of endoscopic lumbar fusion surgery. Full-endoscopic posterior LIF (FE-PLIF) via an interlaminar approach can accomplish direct decompression of bony canal stenosis and safe interbody fusion. FE-PLIF via an interlaminar approach demonstrated a longer operation time, less blood loss, and shorter hospitalization duration than minimally invasive transforaminal LIF. FE-PLIF, which can accomplish direct decompression for bony spinal canal stenosis, is superior to other Endo-LIFs. However, FE-PLIF requires technical dexterity to improve efficiency and reduce technical complexity.

Placement of 2 cages using navigation-guided biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: illustrative case

BACKGROUND

In recent developments, full endoscopic and unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spine surgery have emerged to aid the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure. Yet, both approaches present a challenge due to limited space for cage insertion, potentially leading to complications such as cage subsidence or nonfusion in long-term assessments. Utilizing double cages may mitigate these concerns. This paper presents a unique case in which a patient successfully underwent computed tomography (CT) navigation-guided UBE-TLIF with 2 converging cages, highlighting the potential benefits and feasibility of this innovative approach.

OBSERVATIONS

A 59-year-old female diagnosed with degenerative spondylolisthesis at the L4-5 level underwent a UBE-TLIF. The operation is detailed step by step and supported by illustrative figures and surgical videos. Postsurgery results revealed a significant improvement in the patient's condition, with the visual analog scale score decreasing from 7 to 3 on the first day, leading to a satisfaction rate of 90% at the last follow-up.

LESSONS

Utilizing endoscopic visualization complemented by contrast medium has substantially elevated the quality of disc preparation. From their observations, the authors affirm that the integration of intraoperative CT navigation systems significantly augments safety and pinpoint accuracy in UBE-TLIF procedures. The strategy of employing 2 converging cages through a unilateral technique stands as a practical solution, potentially optimizing the fusion outcomes of UBE-TLIF surgery. https://thejns.org/doi/10.3171/CASE23512.

Is endoscopic technique an effective and safe alternative for lumbar interbody fusion? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Study design

Systematic review; meta-analysis.

Purpose

Lumbar degenerative disease is frequent and has a tremendous impact on patients' disability and quality-of-life. Open and minimally invasive procedures have been used to achieve adequate decompression and fusion. Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF) is emerging as an alternative, trying to reduce morbidity, while achieving comparable to superior clinical outcomes. The aim of this work is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate how Endo-LIF compares to open or minimally invasive procedures.

Methods

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane) were systematically reviewed using the query: '(percutaneous OR endoscop*) AND (open OR minimal* invasive) AND lumbar AND fusion'. PRISMA guidelines were followed.

Results

Twenty-seven articles were included (25 cohort study, 1 quasi-experimental study, and 1 randomized control trial; for meta-analytical results, only observational studies were considered). Endo-LIF conditioned longer operative time, with significantly lower blood loss, bedtime, and hospital length of stay. Early post-operative back pain favored endoscopic techniques. Endo-LIF and non-Endo-LIF minimally invasive surgery displayed comparable results for most back and leg pain or disability outcomes, despite Endo-LIF having been associated with higher disability at late follow-up (versus Open-LIF). No differences were found regarding fusion rates, cage subsidence, or adverse events. Definitive conclusions regarding fusion rate cannot be drawn due to low number of studies and unstandardized fusion definition.

Conclusion

Endo-LIF is an effective and safe alternative to conventional lumbar interbody fusion procedures. Evidence shortcomings may be addressed, and future randomized control trials may be performed to compare techniques and to validate results.

[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.