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

Strategies for Optimizing Clinical Outcomes in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has transformed spinal surgery by minimizing tissue disruption, reducing recovery times, and lowering complication rates compared with traditional open procedures. MISS uses smaller incisions, specialized tools, and advanced imaging to treat conditions such as degenerative disk disease, trauma, and tumors. Techniques such as endoscopic spine surgery and tubular retractors have expanded its applications, enabling effective treatment with less postoperative pain and faster mobilization. Patient selection is crucial to the success of MISS, requiring detailed imaging analysis and consideration of overall health and pathology. Although MISS provides significant benefits, it is less effective for complex spinal deformities that require extensive sagittal or coronal corrections. Technological advancements, including robotic assistance and augmented reality, are enhancing surgical precision and expanding the scope of MISS. Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols, when combined with MISS, improve outcomes by reducing hospital stays and postoperative pain. Complications such as dural tears and hardware misplacement, although less common than in open surgery, require careful management, with techniques such as intraoperative imaging and robotic navigation aiding in complication prevention. Continued innovation in MISS will broaden its application and improve safety and patient outcomes across various spinal pathologies.

Visualization in the Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: From Tubular to Endoscopic Approaches

The transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion remains one of the most common surgical techniques used for spinal arthrodesis. Spine surgery over the last three decades has increasingly emphasized approaches that reduce tissue trauma, iatrogenic injury, and perioperative morbidity. The minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion approach represents an opportunity for surgeons to achieve that aim, with modalities that allow visualization through tubular retractors or spinal endoscopy. In this paper, the authors review the techniques and considerations underlying visualization within both methods, as well as provide summary of a hybrid system incorporating the advantages of both. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion modalities must be selected in accordance with patient factors to achieve optimal outcomes.

Nuances of the Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Technical Review

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) achieves anterior and posterior spinal arthrodesis through a single approach. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) methods reduce surgical morbidity while achieving positive outcomes.

METHODS

The major MIS-TLIF techniques, from tubular to endoscopic approaches, are reviewed with a discussion on the incorporation of new technologies and a comparative review of their outcomes.

RESULTS

MIS-TLIF approaches span a spectrum of visualization methods, with technical nuances related to patient and surgeon-specific factors determining optimal fit. To date, the superiority of 1 technique has yet to be definitively determined. Existing techniques may be integrated in a personalized manner to optimize surgical utility.

CONCLUSIONS

Selection of an MIS-TLIF modality relies on a calculus between patient characteristics and surgeon faculty; proper selection can offer significant benefits to patients with spine disease.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Emerging technologies for MIS-TLIF comprise a major source of development and clinical translation, while the safe and effective use of these techniques promises greater patient benefit in the right populations.

Innovative Nerve Root Protection in Full-Endoscopic Facet-Resecting Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Controlled Cage Glider Rotation Using the GUARD (Glider Used As a Rotary Device) Technique

This video presents a case of L4-5 unstable spondylolisthesis treated with full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF), emphasizing the GUARD (Glider Used as a Rotary Device) technique for nerve root protection. This innovative approach involves controlled rotation of the cage glider before cage insertion to minimize the risk of nerve root injury, a significant complication in Endo-TLIF procedures. The GUARD technique, validated in previous cadaveric studies, provides enhanced safety during cage insertion by protecting the nerve root. A 48-year-old woman with a 3-year history of progressive low back pain and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy (right-sided predominance) was diagnosed with L4-5 unstable spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. After failure of conservative management, she underwent uniportal full-endoscopic facet-resecting transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the GUARD technique. Postoperatively, the patient experienced significant symptomatic improvement and resolution of radiculopathy, without any intraoperative nerve root injury or postoperative neurological deficits. This case demonstrates the effectiveness of the GUARD technique in reducing neurological complications and improving patient outcomes.

Full-endoscopic spine-surgery in the elderly and patients with comorbidities

Due to demographic changes, a growing number of elderly patients with comorbidities will require spine surgery in the next decades. However, age and multimorbidity have been associated with considerably worse postoperative outcomes, and is often associated with surgical invasiveness. Full-endoscopic spine-surgery (FESS), as a cornerstone of contemporary minimally invasive surgery, has the potential to mitigate some of these disparities. Thus, we conducted an analysis of all FESS cases at a national center. Utilizing the Charlson Comorbidity index (CCI) ≥ 3 as a frailty surrogate we separated patients in two groups for patients with and without comorbidities. Patients with (CCI) ≥ 3 exhibited a higher age (p < 0.001), and number of comorbidities (p < 0.001) than the control group. Thereafter, a propensity score matching was done to adjust for potential confounders. Postoperative safety measures in emergency department utilization, and clinic readmission did not significantly differ between the groups. Furthermore, patients of both groups reported similar postoperative pain improvements. However, patients with a (CCI) ≥ 3 were treated as inpatients more often (p < 0.001), had a higher length of stay (p < 0.001) and a smaller functional improvement after at a chronic postoperative timepoint (p = 0.045). The results underline safety and efficacy of FESS in patients with comorbidities. Additionally, they provide guidance for preoperative patient counselling and resource utilization when applying FESS in frail patients.

How to Prevent Nerve Root Injury in Uniportal Full Endoscopic Lumbar Fusion Surgery? Insights From a Cadaveric Anatomic Study With Simulation Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

The study included 2 fresh-frozen cadavers.

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate the positional relationship between surgical instruments and nerve roots during full endoscopic facet-sparing (FE fs-TLIF) and full endoscopic facet-resecting (FE fr-TLIF) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and propose safe instrumentation insertion procedures and recommend cage glider designs aimed at protecting nerve roots.

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic surgical techniques are increasingly used for minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgery, with FE fr-TLIF and FE fs-TLIF being common approaches. However, the risk of nerve root injury remains a significant concern during these procedures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eight experienced endoscopic spine surgeons performed uniportal FE fr-TLIF and FE fs-TLIF on cadaveric lumbar spines, totaling 16 surgeries. Postoperation, soft tissues were removed to assess the positional relationship between the cage entry point and nerve roots. Distances between the cage entry point, traversing nerve root, and exiting nerve root were measured. Safe instrumentation design and insertion procedures were determined.

RESULTS

In FE fr-TLIF, the mean distance between the cage entry point and traversing nerve root was significantly shorter compared with FE fs-TLIF (3.30 ± 1.35 vs . 8.58 ± 2.47 mm, respectively; P < 0.0001). Conversely, the mean distance between the cage entry point and the exiting nerve root was significantly shorter in FE fs-TLIF compared with FE fr-TLIF (3.73 ± 1.97 vs . 6.90 ± 1.36 mm, respectively; P < 0.0001). For FE fr-TLIF, prioritizing the protection of the traversing root using a 2-bevel tip cage glider was crucial. In contrast, for FE fs-TLIF, a single-bevel tip cage glider placed in the caudal location was recommended.

CONCLUSION

This study elucidates the anatomic relationship between cage entry points and nerve roots in uniportal endoscopic lumbar fusion surgery. Protection strategies should prioritize the traversing root in FE fr-TLIF and the exiting root in FE fs-TLIF, with corresponding variations in surgical techniques.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V.

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.

Closing the Gap: The Incidence of Complications in Minimally Invasive Tubular, Endoscopic, and Robotic-Assisted Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Procedures

BACKGROUND

The aim of the current study was to compare the incidence of postoperative complications among minimally invasive surgery (MIS) tubular, endoscopic, and robot-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) techniques.

METHODS

We studied consecutive patients who underwent single-level or multilevel TLIF between 2020 and 2022. Preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcomes (Visual Analog Scale leg score and Oswestry Disability Index), demographic, and intraoperative variables were recorded. One-way analysis of variance with Bartlett's equal-variance and Pearson chi-squared tests were used.

RESULTS

The study included 170 TLIF patients: 107 (63%) tubular, 42 (25%) endoscopic, and 21 (12%) robot assisted. All 3 TLIF techniques had similar complication rates: tubular 6 (5.6%), endoscopic 2 (4.8%), and robot assisted 1 (4.8%) all occurring within the first 2 weeks. Tubular TLIF reported the lowest incidence of new-onset neurologic symptoms, primarily radiculitis or numbness/tingling, at 2 weeks postoperatively (P < 0.05) with 21 (20%) tubular, 17 (41%) endoscopic, and 9 (43%) robot-assisted patients. There were 2 revisions in the robot-assisted group, while tubular and endoscopic each had one within 1 year. There was no statistical difference in preoperative or postoperative patient-reported outcomes between the TLIF groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study demonstrated that tubular, endoscopic, and robot-assisted TLIF procedures had similar complication rates. The tubular MIS TLIF reported fewer new neurologic symptoms compared with endoscopic and robot-assisted TLIF procedures at 2 weeks postoperative, with all groups declining in symptom persistency at later time intervals. Average Visual Analog Scale scores continuously improved up to 1 year postoperatively among all groups.

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.

Outcome of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy in Relation to the Surgeon's Experience: Propensity Score Matching

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) presents a challenging learning curve, and the correlation between surgeon experience and clinical outcomes remains contentious. This retrospective study aimed to compare the outcomes of PELD performed by a single surgeon at beginner and experienced stages. Propensity score matching selected 150 patients (75 per group) with a minimum 3-year follow-up. Clinical and radiological outcomes, perioperative complications, and adverse events were assessed. Baseline characteristics, pain improvement, patient satisfaction, and radiological outcomes did not differ between the groups. However, operation time was longer in the beginner group than in the experienced group (57.5 min [IQR, 50.0-70.0] versus 50.0 min [IQR, 45.0-55.0], p < 0.001). The beginner group had higher perioperative complication rates (eight patients [10.7%] versus one patient [1.3%], with a hazard ratio of 8.836 [95% CI, 1.077-72.514], p = 0.034) and lower 3-year survival without adverse events (19 patients [25.3%] in the beginner group and 10 patients [13.3%] in the experienced group, p = 0.045). Our findings indicate that the clinical outcomes were more favorable in patients operated on at the experienced stage compared to those treated at the beginner stage.

Acupressure: a possible therapeutic strategy for anxiety related to COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

From the end of 2019 to December 2023, the world grappled with the COVID-19 pandemic. The scope and ultimate repercussions of the pandemic on global health and well-being remained uncertain, ushering in a wave of fear, anxiety, and worry. This resulted in many individuals succumbing to fear and despair. Acupoint massage emerged as a safe and effective alternative therapy for anxiety relief. However, its efficacy was yet to be extensively backed by evidence-based medicine. This study aimed to enhance the clinical effectiveness of acupoint massage and extend its benefits to a wider population. It undertakes a systematic review of the existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the impact of acupoint massage on anxiety treatment, discussing its potential benefits and implications. This research aims to furnish robust evidence supporting anxiety treatment strategies for patients afflicted with COVID-19 disease and spark new approaches to anxiety management.

Objectives

This study evaluates the evidence derived from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quantifies the impact of acupressure on anxiety manifestations within the general population, and proposes viable supplementary intervention strategies for managing COVID-19 related anxiety.

Materials and methods

This review included RCTs published between February 2014 and July 2023, that compared the effects of acupressure with sham control in alleviating anxiety symptomatology as the outcome measure. The studies were sourced from the multiple databases, including CINAHL, EBM Reviews, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. A meta-analysis was performed on the eligible studies, and an overall effect size was computed specifically for the anxiety outcome. The Cochrane Collaboration Bias Risk Assessment Tool (RevMan V5.4) was employed to assess bias risk, data integration, meta-analysis, and subgroup analysis. The mean difference, standard mean deviation, and binary data were used to represent continuous outcomes.

Results

Of 1,110 studies of potential relevance, 39 met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The majority of the studies reported a positive effect of acupressure in assuaging anticipatory anxiety about treatment. Eighteen studies were evaluated using the STAI scale. The acupressure procedures were thoroughly documented, and studies exhibited a low risk of bias. The cumulative results of the 18 trials showcased a more substantial reduction in anxiety in the acupressure group compared to controls (SMD = -5.39, 95% CI -5.61 to -5.17, p < 0.01). A subsequent subgroup analysis, based on different interventions in the control group, demonstrated improvement in anxiety levels with sham acupressure in improving changes in anxiety levels (SMD -1.61, 95% CI: -2.34 to -0.87, p < 0.0001), and blank controls (SMD -0.92, 95% CI: -2.37 to 0.53, p = 0.22).

Conclusion

In the clinical research of traditional Chinese medicine treatment of anxiety, acupressure demonstrated effectiveness in providing instant relief from anxiety related to multiple diseases with a medium effect size. Considering the increasing incidence of anxiety caused by long COVID, the widespread application of acupressure appears feasible. However, the results were inconsistent regarding improvements on physiological indicators, calling for more stringent reporting procedures, including allocation concealment, to solidify the findings.

Immune response to foreign materials in spinal fusion surgery

Spinal fusion surgery is a common procedure used to stabilize the spine and treat back pain. The procedure involves the use of foreign materials such as screws, rods, or cages, which can trigger a foreign body reaction, an immune response that involves the activation of immune cells such as macrophages and lymphocytes. The foreign body reaction can impact the success of spinal fusion, as it can interfere with bone growth and fusion. This review article provides an overview of the cellular and molecular events in the foreign body reaction, the impact of the immune response on spinal fusion, and strategies to minimize its impact. By carefully considering the use of foreign materials and optimizing surgical techniques, the impact of the foreign body reaction can be reduced, leading to better outcomes for patients.

Development of an Endoscopic Spine Surgery Program: Overview and Basic Considerations for Implementation

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is an innovative technique allowing for minimally invasive, direct visualization of spinal abnormalities. The growth of ESS in the United States has been stunted by high start-up costs, low reimbursement rates, and the steep learning curve associated with mastering endoscopic techniques. Hergrae, we describe the current state and future direction of ESS and provide key action items for ESS program implementation.

Efficacy of Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy in Elderly Patients Over 65 Years of Age Compared to Young Adults

OBJECTIVE

Spine surgery rates are increasing in the elderly population due to social aging, and it is known that prognoses related to surgery are worse for the elderly compared to younger individuals. However, minimally invasive surgery, such as full endoscopic surgery, is considered safe with low complication rates due to minimal damage to surrounding tissues. In this study, we compared outcomes of transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD) in elderly and younger patients with disc herniation in the lumbosacral region.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 249 patients who underwent TELD at a single center between January 2016 to December 2019, with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. Patients were allocated to 2 groups: a young group aged ≤ 65 years (n = 202) or an elderly group aged > 65 years (n = 47). We evaluated baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, surgery-related outcomes, radiological outcomes, perioperative complications, and adverse events during the 3-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics, including age, general condition based on American Society of Anesthesiologist physical status classification grade, age-Charlson Comorbidity Index, and disc degeneration, were worse in elderly group (p < 0.001). However, except for leg pain at 4 weeks after surgery, overall outcomes, including pain improvement, radiological change, operation time, blood loss, and hospital stay, were not different between the 2 groups. Furthermore, the rates of perioperative complications (9 patients [4.46%] in the young group and 3 patients [6.38%] in the elderly group, p = 0.578) and adverse events over the 3-year follow-up period (32 patients [15.84%] in the young group and 9 patients [19.15%] in the elderly group, p = 0.582) were comparable in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that TELD produces similar outcomes in both elderly and younger patients with a herniated disc in the lumbosacral region. TELD can be considered a safe option for appropriately selected elderly patients.

Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF) are both minimally invasive interbody fusion procedures for lumbar degenerative diseases. In this study, we attempted to compare the clinical efficacy and postoperative outcomes of MIS-TLIF and Endo-LIF for lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

The study cohort comprised 99 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases treated by MIS-TLIF or Endo-LIF from January 2019 to July 2021. The clinical outcomes (visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and MacNab criteria) preoperatively, 1 month postoperatively, 3 months postoperatively, and 1 year postoperatively were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in sex, age, disease duration, affected spine segment, and complications (P > 0.05). The operation time was significantly longer in the Endo-LIF group than the MIS-TLIF group (155.25 ± 12.57 vs. 123.14 ± 14.50 min; P < 0.05). However, the Endo-LIF group had a significantly smaller blood loss volume (61.79 ± 10.09 vs. 259.97 ± 14.63 ml) and shorter hospital stay (5.46 ± 1.11 vs. 7.06 ± 1.42 days) than the MIS-TLIF group. In both groups, the ODI and VAS scores for lower back pain and leg pain were significantly lower at each postoperative timepoint than preoperatively (P < 0.05). Although there were no significant differences between the two groups in the ODI and VAS scores for lower back pain and leg pain (P > 0.05), the VAS for lower back pain was lower in the Endo-LIF group than the MIS-TLIF group at each postoperative timepoint. The MacNab criteria showed that the improvement rate was 92.2% in the MIS-TLIF group and 91.7% in the Endo-LIF group, with no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in short-term surgical outcomes between the MIS-TLIF and Endo-LIF groups. Compared with the MIS-TLIF group, the Endo-LIF group incurred less damage to surrounding tissues, experienced less intraoperative blood loss, and had less lower back pain, which is more conducive to recovery.

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.

Comparison of the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Retrospective Matched Case-Control Study

OBJECTIVE

We compared the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients who underwent single-segment Mis-TLIF or Endo-TLIF between June 2016 and June 2019 at our hospital. The patients in each treatment group were matched 1:1 for sex, age, and type of lumbar degenerative disease, and their clinical outcomes were compared at discharge and at 1 and 2 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

Our study included 64 patients, with 32 patients in each treatment group. Operative time and fluoroscopy time were significantly higher in the Endo-TLIF versus Mis-TLIF groups, whereas estimated blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and the low back pain visual analog scale score at discharge were significantly lower. Both treatments achieved exact interbody fusion at the final-follow up. There was no significant difference in the visual analog scale score or Oswestry Disability Index between the groups at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Complication rates were higher in the Endo-TLIF group (21.9%) than in the Mis-TLIF group (6.2%), although the difference was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was no difference in the long-term outcomes between the treatments, Endo-TLIF had less blood loss and a lower postoperative drainage volume and low back pain visual analog scale score at discharge than Mis-TLIF. However, the longer operative time and potentially higher complication rate of Endo-TLIF suggest that surgeons may need to overcome the steeper learning curve than the procedure of Mis-TLIF.