Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery Using a 30° Arthroscope for L5-S1 Foraminal Decompression

A case report: Unilateral biportal endoscopic revision for adjacent segmental disease: Case presentations and literature review

RATIONALE

Biportal endoscopic revision surgery for adjacent segmental disease (ASD) after lumbar arthrodesis is seldomly reported. Herein, we present 3 cases of ASD with radiculopathy wherein satisfactory results were obtained using unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) decompression.

PATIENT CONCERNS

Case 1 was of a 56-year-old male who presented with a chief complaint of Intermittent claudication since 2-year. Case 2 involved a 78-year-old female who was admitted to the hospital with a chief complaint of radiating pain and weakness in the left leg for at least 1 year. Case 3 was a 67-year-old woman who visited our hospital because of radiating leg pain for 5 months. All the cases had a history of L4 to L5 lumbar interbody fusion surgery.

DIAGNOSES

Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging showed the spinal epidural lipomatosis at the L3 to L4 level in case 1, the up-migrated lumbar disc herniation at L3 to L4 level in case 2 and unilateral foraminal stenosis at the L5 to S1 level in case 3.

INTERVENTIONS

Under UBE guidance, the ipsilateral approach was used to treat adjacent lumbar stenosis caused by spinal epidural lipomatosis. The contralateral approach was used to remove the up-migrated herniated disc. The paraspinal approach was applied to decompress the foraminal stenosis.

OUTCOMES

Postoperative parameters were improved clinically, and nerve roots were decompressed radiologically. No complications were developed.

LESSONS

UBE revision surgery showed a favorable clinical and radiological result without complications and may be a safe and effective alternative technique for ASD.

Biportal endoscopic paraspinal decompressive foraminotomy for lumbar foraminal stenosis: clinical outcomes and factors influencing unsatisfactory outcomes

BACKGROUND

Lumbar foraminal stenosis (LFS) is an important pathologic entity that causes lumbar radiculopathies. Unrecognized LFS may be associated with surgical failure, and LFS remains challenging to treat surgically. This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of decompressive foraminotomy performed using the biportal endoscopic paraspinal approach for LFS.

METHODS

A total of 102 consecutive patients with single-level unilateral LFS who underwent biportal endoscopic paraspinal decompressive foraminotomy were included. We evaluated the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) before and after surgery. Demographic, preoperative data, and radiologic parameters, including the coronal root angle (CRA), were investigated. The patients were divided into Group A (satisfaction group) and Group B (unsatisfaction group). Parameters were compared between these two groups to identify the factors influencing unsatisfactory outcomes.

RESULTS

In Group A (78.8% of patients), VAS and ODI scores significantly improved after biportal endoscopic paraspinal decompressive foraminotomy (p < 0.001). However, Group B (21.2% of patients) showed higher incidences of stenosis at the lower lumbar level (p = 0.009), wide segmental lordosis (p = 0.021), and narrow ipsilateral CRA (p = 0.009). In the logistic regression analysis, lower lumbar level (OR = 13.82, 95% CI: 1.33-143.48, p = 0.028) and narrow ipsilateral CRA (OR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.86-1.00, p = 0.047) were associated with unsatisfactory outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant improvement in clinical outcomes was observed for a year after biportal endoscopic paraspinal decompressive foraminotomy. However, clinical outcomes were unsatisfactory in 21.2% of patients, and lower lumbar level and narrow ipsilateral CRA were independent risk factors for unsatisfactory outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy compared with microscopic decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and updated meta‑analysis

The incidence of lumbar spinal stenosis is increasing annually, and with an ever-aging population and longer life expectancies, this trend will further continue. It is hoped that a more effective treatment can be found so that the patients can be relieved of their pain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery (UBE) and microscopic decompression surgery (MD) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. A literature search of related studies published until April 2022 was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and other databases. After filtering of references, 12 eligible studies were identified that compared UBE with MD as a treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Data were extracted and analysed using R. A total of 12 articles (four randomized controlled and eight cohort studies) were included, with a total of 1,067 patients: 250 men and 249 women in the UBE group and 290 men and 278 women in the MD group. The meta-analysis showed that the mean intraoperative blood loss in the UBE group [standardized mean difference (SMD)=-2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-3.97, -0.23), P=0.03] was lower than that in the MD group. The postoperative Visual analogue scale (VAS) score for back pain [SMD=-0.52, 95% CI (-0.76, -0.27), P<0.01], leg pain [SMD=-0.30, 95% CI (-0.51, -0.08), P<0.01], postoperative Oswestry disability index [(ODI); SMD=-0.25, 95% CI (-0.48, -0.03), P=0.03], and postoperative C-reactive protein [(CRP); odds ratio (OR)=-0.92, 95% CI (-1.80, 0.03), P=0.04] were lower than those in the MD group. Complications (OR=0.60, 95% CI (0.37, 0.98), P=0.04) and hospital stay (SMD=-1.84, 95% CI (-2.85, 0.83), P <0.01] were also lesser in the UBE group than in the MD group. UBE was preferable to that in the MD group according to the modified MacNab score [OR=2.28, 95% CI (1.28, 4.06), P<0.01]. No significant differences were observed in the operation times between the groups. UBE surgery was found to be a better option for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis than MD surgery.

A Comparative Study of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression and Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression for Geriatric Patients with Lumbar Lateral Recess Stenosis

Purpose

The purpose of this research was to compare the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression (UBE) and percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) in the treatment of elderly patients with single-level lumbar lateral recess stenosis (LRS).

Materials and Methods

Data from January 2020 to March 2022 were analyzed. Thirty-eight patients in the PTED group and thirty-nine patients in the UBE group completed the minimum 12-month follow-up. The demographic data and perioperative outcomes were reviewed. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the VAS for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the modified MacNab criteria.

Results

Both groups of patients completed surgery and a one-year follow-up. There was no significant difference between the two groups in demographics data. UBE has the advantage in operative duration and X-ray time; as far as incision length, blood loss, and drainage volume are concerned, PTED is advantageous. Under the modified MacNab criteria, UBE exhibited a good-to-excellent rate similar to that of PTED (84.6% vs 81.6%, P>0.05). There were no significant differences at any point in time between UBE and PTED with respect to ODI, VAS, or back pain scores (P>0.05). UBE and PTED did not differ significantly in terms of complications.

Conclusion

Both PTED and UBE achieved favorable outcomes in single-level LRS. For operative time and X-ray times, UBE is more advantageous, while PTED offers better estimates of blood loss, incision length, and drainage volume.

Complications of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

In recent years, unilateral biportal endoscopic spinal surgery has been used for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with good results. Some investigators counted the total incidence of complications in unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, but none have analyzed the incidence of specific complications. The present study further counted the incidence of specific complications and gave the possible causes of the complications.

METHODS

English databases including PubMed were searched to collect relevant literature on unilateral biportal endoscopic spinal surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. The inquiry period is from January 1, 2015, to July 1, 2022. The literature was screened, information extracted, and risk of bias evaluated by the researchers, followed by Meta analysis using R4.2.1 and RStudio statistical software.

RESULTS

In total, we included 14 studies involving 707 patients. The included studies were retrospective case series, The results of the single-arm rate meta-analysis showed that the total complication rate of unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis was 8.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] [0.060; 0.103]); of which, the highest incidence of dural tear was 4.5% (95% CI [0.030; 0.064]), the incidence of symptomatic postoperative spinal epidural hematoma was approximately 1.1% (95% CI [0.001; 0.027]), the incidence of incomplete decompression was 2.0% (95% CI [0.007; 0.038]), the incidence of transient palsy was 2.6% (95% CI [0.005; 0.057]).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of total complications of unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis was 8.1%, dural tear remained a major complication with an incidence of 4.5%, incomplete decompression was 2.0%, transient palsy was 2.6%, and, unexpectedly, symptomatic postoperative spinal epidural hematoma was only 1.1%.

Global and Current Research Trends of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy/Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Bibliometric and Visualization Study

The study aimed to make a bibliometric analysis of the current research situation in unilateral biportal endoscopy/biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (UBE/BESS). Research data sets were acquired from the Web of Science database. The study chosed “biportal endoscopic spinal surgery” OR “two portal endoscopic spinal surgery” OR “percutaneous biportal endoscopic decompression” OR “unilateral biportal endoscopy” OR “irrigation endoscopic discectomy” as the search terms. The literature search was limited to articles published before March 5, 2021. We only included original articles and reviews. VOS viewer and Citespace software were used to analyze the data and generate visualization knowledge maps. Annual trend of publications, distribution, H‐index status, co‐authorship status, and research hotspots were analyzed. A total of 74 publications met the requirement. The sum number of citations was 31,204, in which 19,336 were no self‐citations. The average citation of all the papers was 21.84 times. The H‐index of all the publications was 85. South Korea's total number of articles was far higher than that of other countries and regions (61, 82.4%), followed by United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Peoples Republic of China (three, ranking second, accounting for 12.2% of the total). For the most productive authors, Choi ranked first with 21 articles, Kim ranked second with 16 articles, and Heo ranked third with 12 articles. The journal with the greatest number of publications was World Neurosurgery, with a total of 18 (39.1%) papers. Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery ranked second with six (13.0%) papers. In third place, there were fix articles published by Asian Spine Journal and Neurospine, accounting for 21.8% of the total articles. These top three journals accounted for 73.9% of all the papers. Spondylolisthesis and endoscopic decompression were the research hotspots in recent years. The number of publications has showed an upward trend with a stable rise in recent years. South Korea is the country with the highest productivity, not only in quality, but also in quantity. Barun Hosp and Leon Wiltse Mem Hosphave published most articles. Choi is the most productive author. World Neurosurgery is the most productive journal. Spondylolisthesis and endoscopic decompression are the research hotspots in recent years. Indeed, this study provides new insight into the growth and development of UBE/BESS.

Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Technical Note and an Outcome Comparison with the Conventional Minimally Invasive Fusion

Background

In the past few decades, the minimally invasive technique for spine surgery has developed extensively from the scope of decompression until fusion surgeries to reduce damages to the normal anatomical structure. Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) is one of the fusion options which is readily available without a sophisticated minimal invasive instrument. Our aim is to introduce ULIF experience in our center and comparing the result with conventional minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of 145 lumbar spondylolisthesis cases that underwent fusion surgery with either ULIF or the conventional MIS-TLIF. All of the patients were observed within a 12-month follow-up period to evaluate the back pain and leg pain Visual Analogue Score (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and fusion rate.

Results

The leg pain VAS was similarly improved in both groups. ULIF has a significant back pain improvement on direct post operation and at the 3-months follow-up (p value 0.032 and 0.046 respectively). ULIF group also had a significantly better improvement of ODI scores on the early post-operative period (p=0.045). However, both groups similarly showed improvement of ODI score and the SF-36 at the 3-, 6-, and 12- months follow up.

Conclusion

Full endoscopic fusion surgery with ULIF offers a comparable long-term outcome and a significantly better back pain VAS reduction in short-term follow up compared to the conventional MIS-TLIF. ULIF, with further improvement, can be the next gold standard in managing degenerative lumbar spine conditions.

Incorporating New Technologies to Overcome the Limitations of Endoscopic Spine Surgery: Navigation, Robotics, and Visualization

Recently, spine surgery has gradually evolved from conventional open surgery to minimally invasive surgery, and endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) has become an important procedure in minimally invasive spine surgery. With improvements in the optics, spine endoscope, endoscopic burr, and irrigation pump, the indications of ESS are gradually widening from lumbar to cervical and thoracic spine. ESS was not only used previously for disc herniations that were contained without migration but is also used currently for highly migrated disc herniations and spinal stenosis; thus, the indications of ESS will be further expanded. Although ESS has certain advantages such as less soft tissue dissection and muscle trauma, reduced blood loss, less damage to the epidural blood supply and consequent less epidural fibrosis and scarring, reduced hospital stay, early functional recovery, and improvement of quality of life as well as better cosmesis, several obstacles remain for ESS to be widespread because it has a steep learning curve and surgical outcome is strongly dependent on the surgeon's skillfulness. A solid surgical technique requires reproducibility and ensured safety in addition to surgical outcomes. In this review article, how to improve ESS was investigated by grafting novel technologies such as navigation, robotics, and 3-dimensional and ultraresolution visualization.

The biomechanical effect on the adjacent L4/L5 segment of S1 superior facet arthroplasty: a finite element analysis for the male spine

Background

The superior facet arthroplasty is important for intervertebral foramen microscopy. To our knowledge, there is no study about the postoperative biomechanics of adjacent L4/L5 segments after different methods of S1 superior facet arthroplasty. To evaluate the effect of S1 superior facet arthroplasty on lumbar range of motion and disc stress of adjacent segment (L4/L5) under the intervertebral foraminoplasty.

Methods

Eight finite element models (FEMs) of lumbosacral vertebrae (L4/S) had been established and validated. The S1 superior facet arthroplasty was simulated with different methods. Then, the models were imported into Nastran software after optimization; 500 N preload was imposed on the L4 superior endplate, and 10 N⋅m was given to simulate flexion, extension, lateral flexion and rotation. The range of motion (ROM) and intervertebral disc stress of the L4-L5 spine were recorded.

Results

The ROM and disc stress of L4/L5 increased with the increasing of the proportions of S1 superior facet arthroplasty. Compared with the normal model, the ROM of L4/L5 significantly increased in most directions of motion when S1 superior facet formed greater than 3/5 from the ventral to the dorsal or 2/5 from the apex to the base. The disc stress of L4/L5 significantly increased in most directions of motion when S1 superior facet formed greater than 3/5 from the ventral to the dorsal or 1/5 from the apex to the base.

Conclusion

In this study, the ROM and disc stress of L4/L5 were affected by the unilateral S1 superior facet arthroplasty. It is suggested that the forming range from the ventral to the dorsal should be less than 3/5 of the S1 upper facet joint. It is not recommended to form from apex to base.

Level of evidence

Level IV

The biomechanical effects of graded upper articular process arthroplasty on lumbar spine: A finite element study

BACKGROUND

Superior articular process arthroplasty is important for intervertebral foramen microscopy but may lead to spinal instability. Currently, there has been no relevant study in relation to the biomechanical analysis of superior articular process arthroplasty. Hence, this study is intended to verify biomechanical effects after unilateral S1 superior articular process arthroplasty.

METHODS

Eight finite element (FE) models of lumbosacral vertebrae (L4-S) were constructed, and the superior articular process formation was simulated with the help of Geomagic studio. Then, the models were imported into Nastran software after optimization. Normal load and appropriate torque were applied to simulate forward flexion, back extension, lateral flexion and lateral rotation. In the end, changes of lumbar range of motion (ROM) and structural stress were compared with those of normal model.

RESULTS

Compared with the normal model, formed from ventral to dorsal (Longitudinal), the larger motion of lumbar spine and the greater larger stress of articular process showed statistical significance (P < 0.05) in most of directions when the forming range was greater than 3/5. Formed from the apex to the base (transverse), the larger motion of lumbar spine and the greater stress of articular process showed statistical significance (P < 0.05) in most of directions when the forming range was great than 1/5.

CONCLUSION

When conducting unilateral S1 articular process arthroplasty from ventral to dorsal, the forming range is recommended to be less than 3/5 of the superior articular process. Notably, it is not advisable to form from the apex to the base.

Biportal endoscopic versus microscopic lumbar decompressive laminectomy in patients with spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Biportal endoscopic decompressive laminectomy is a widely performed procedure and shows acceptable clinical outcomes. However, the evidence regarding the advantages of biportal endoscopic surgery is weak, a randomized controlled trial is therefore warranted.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical efficacies of biportal endoscopic and microscopic decompressive laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Sixty-four participants suffering from low back and leg pain with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis who required decompressive laminectomy.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes were assessed with the use of patient-reported outcome measures, visual analog scale (VAS) score for low back and lower extremity radiating pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) score, and painDETECT for neuropathic pain. Surgery-related outcomes including operation time, length of hospital stay, postoperative drainage, and serum creatine phosphokinase were evaluated. Perioperative (<30 days) and late (1-12 months) complications were also noted.

METHODS

All participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo biportal endoscopic or microscopic decompressive laminectomy. The primary outcome was the ODI score at 12 months after surgery based on a modified intention-to-treat strategy. The secondary outcomes included VAS score for low back and lower extremity radiating pain, ODI scores, EQ-5D score, and painDETECT score. There were no sources of funding and no conflicts of interest associated with this study.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between groups in the mean ODI score at 12 months after surgery (30 in the microscopy vs. 29 in the biportal endoscopy group, p=.635). There were also no significant differences in low back and lower extremity pain VAS scores, ODI, EQ-5D scores, and painDETECT scores at the 3-, 6-, or 12-month follow-up. Operation time, length of hospital stay, serum creatine phosphokinase, and perioperative complications, such as durotomies and symptomatic hematoma, showed no significant differences between the groups; however, one participant underwent additional revision surgery 9 months after the index surgery in the microscopy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the study design limitation of relatively short duration of follow-up, this trial suggests that biportal endoscopic decompressive laminectomy is an alternative to and offers similar clinical outcomes as microscopic open surgery in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.

Endoscopy-Assisted Diagnosis and Revision of a Malpositioned Screw

BACKGROUND

Pedicle screw insertion is a common procedure in spine surgery, and freehand, fluoroscopic, and robotic-assisted techniques all are used. These are indirect methods that use fluoroscopy, and direct visualization of canal involvement has not been possible. However, owing to the development of high-definition imaging modalities, delicate procedures that use endoscopy are possible.

CASE DESCRIPTION

A 47-year-old man presented with severe radiating pain in his leg after undergoing L5-S1 level endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and percutaneous pedicular screw fixation. The patient then underwent an endoscopy-assisted technique for violated spinal canal and screw revision in which the misplaced screw was directly visualized using endoscopy and the trajectory of the misplaced screw was changed. With 30° endoscopy, we directly visualized the screw thread and root compression. Then with 0° endoscopy, we changed the screw trajectory inside the pedicle with an anatomic landmark. The patient's radiating pain was completely relieved after revision of the malpositioned screw. Postoperative imaging showed the revised screw trajectory inside the pedicle.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion does not require an additional incision, and early recovery after the procedure is possible. Accurate diagnosis of canal pathology and treatment are possible with direct visualization using endoscopy.

Endoscopic Lumbar Surgery: The State of the Art in 2019

This study was aimed to provide a brief historical perspective to facilitate appreciation of current techniques, describe outcomes of endoscopic lumbar surgery relative to those of existing techniques, and identify topics in need of study and future directions for the field of endoscopic lumbar surgery. Using the PubMed database, a comprehensive search was conducted to identify peer-reviewed English language articles pertaining to endoscopic lumbar surgery. Lack of focus on pertinent techniques or lack of outcome measures constituted exclusion criteria. A majority of included articles were published from 2015–2019. A context with which to appreciate the application of endoscopic lumbar techniques is established. An abundance of case series and several recent comparison studies have documented the benefits and potential pitfalls of these methods in the past two decades. The advantages of endoscopic lumbar spine surgery are widely touted to include reduced perioperative morbidity, including blood loss, operative time and immediate postoperative recovery, minimal structural trauma resulting from surgery, generally positive patient report outcome scores and the potential to contain costs. Additional high-quality research assessing outcomes of endoscopic lumbar surgery are certainly needed and currently expected given the rapid expansion of the field in recent years.