Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Research Articles

Biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with large cage: a technique without additional spacer portal

BackgroundLarge spacers offer numerous advantages such as higher fusion rates and lower subsidence rates. However, due to the anatomical constraints of the approach, the use of large spacers in biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(BE-TLIF) necessitates an additional incision and special instruments for spacer implantation leading to less frequent use.MethodsThis study has refined several techniques within BE-TLIF. We insert the cage and impact the cage transverse with a special design instrument in the same working portal. This allows for the use of large spacers during BE-TLIF procedures without the need for an auxiliary cage-inserting incision.ConclusionThe technique is a straightforward, safe, and minimally invasive method for inserting large cages in the treatment of lumbar instability.

P239. Comparative study of clinical & radiological outcomes between tubular retractor and biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using double cages

P239. Comparative study of clinical & radiological outcomes between tubular retractor and biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using double cages

Evaluation of Traversing Nerve Root Injuries During Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Observation of Traversing Root via an Accessory Portal

Evaluation of Traversing Nerve Root Injuries During Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Observation of Traversing Root via an Accessory Portal

Unilateral biportal endoscopic versus microscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a retrospective study

BackgroundIn the past decade, Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) with a microscopic tubular technique has become a surgical procedure that reduces surgical-related morbidity, shortens hospital stays, and expedites early rehabilitation in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD). Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) has emerged as a novel surgical technique. The present study aims to compare the clinical outcomes and postoperative complications of MIS-TLIF and Endo-TLIF for treating LDD.MethodsA retrospective analysis of LLD patients undergoing either Endo-TLIF or MIS-TLIF was performed. Patient demographics, operative data (operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization), and complications were recorded. The visual analog scale (VAS) score for leg and back pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes.ResultsThis study involved 80 patients, 56 in the MIS-TLIF group and 34 in the Endo-TLIF group. The Endo-TLIF group showed a more substantial improvement in the VAS for back pain at 3 weeks post-surgery compared to the MIS-TLIF group. However, at the 1-year mark after surgery, there were no significant differences between the groups in the mean VAS for back pain and VAS for leg pain. Interestingly, the ODI at one year demonstrated a significant improvement in the Endo-TLIF group compared to the MIS-TLIF group. Additionally, the MIS-TLIF group exhibited a shorter operative time than the Endo-TLIF group, with no notable differences in estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, and complications between the two groups.ConclusionEndo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF are both safe and effective for LDD. In surgical decision-making, clinicians may consider nuances revealed in this study, such as lower early postoperative back pain with Endo-TLIF and shorter operative time with MIS-TLIF.

Prospective comparative study of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis

To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Between November 2019 and May 2023, a total of 81 patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis who met the selection criteria were enrolled. They were randomly divided into UBE-TLIF group (39 cases) and Endo-TLIF group (42 cases). There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups ( P>0.05), including gender, age, body mass index, surgical segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and serum markers including creatine kinase (CK) and C reactive protein (CRP). Total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss, hidden blood loss (HBL), postoperative drainage volume, and operation time were recorded and compared between the two groups. Serum markers (CK, CRP) levels were compared between the two groups at 1 day before operation and 1, 3, and 5 days after operation. Furthermore, the VAS scores for low back and leg pain, and ODI at 1 day before operation and 1 day, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation, and intervertebral fusion rate at 12 months after operation were compared between the two groups. All surgeries were completed successfully without occurrence of incision infection, vascular or nerve injury, epidural hematoma, dural tear, or postoperative paraplegia. The operation time in UBE-TLIF group was significantly shorter than that in Endo-TLIF group, but the intraoperative blood loss, TBL, and HBL in UBE-TLIF group were significantly more than those in Endo-TLIF group ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative drainage volume between the two groups ( P>0.05). The levels of CK at 1 day and 3 days after operation and CRP at 1, 3, and 5 days after operation in UBE-TLIF group were slightly higher than those in the Endo-TLIF group ( P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in the levels of CK and CPR between the two groups at other time points ( P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12 months. VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI at each time point after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation in the two groups ( P<0.05); there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI between the two groups at each time point after operation ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the intervertebral fusion rate between the two groups at 12 months after operation ( P>0.05). UBE-TLIF and Endo-TLIF are both effective methods for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, compared to Endo-TLIF, UBE-TLIF requires further improvement in minimally invasive techniques to reduce tissue trauma and blood loss.

Robotic endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A single institution case series

BackgroundRobotic-assisted, endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (RE-TLIF) is a promising, minimally invasive surgical option for degenerative lumbar spondylosis/spondylolisthesis; however, outcomes data and efficacy are limited, especially in multilevel disease. Here, we present the first reported series of patients that underwent either single or multilevel RE-TLIF. MethodsA retrospective review was performed on 23 consecutive patients who underwent a single level or multilevel RE-TLIF by a single surgeon. Variables included demographics, perioperative results, pain scores, and functional outcome scores. ResultsEighteen patients (78.3 %) underwent single level RE-TLIF and 5 patients (21.7 %) underwent multilevel RE-TLIF. The median reduction of visual analog scale (VAS) for low back pain (LBP) of all subjects was 6 (IQR = 4.5, 6.5) with no significant difference between single level and multilevel RE-TLIF (p = 0.565). The median reduction of VAS for leg pain of all subjects 7 (IQR = 6, 8) with no significant difference between single level and multilevel RE-TLIF (p = 0.702). Median blood loss was 25 cc (IQR = 25, 25) and 50 cc (IQR = 25, 100) for single and multilevel RE-TLIF, respectively (p = 0.025), whereas median length of stay was 1 (IQR = 1, 1; mean = 1.0 ± 00.18) days and 1 (IQR = 1, 2; mean = 1.4 ± 00.54) days, respectively (p = 0.042). One major complication was observed requiring reoperation for demineralized bone matrix migration resulting in an L5 radiculopathy. ConclusionsSingle and multi-level RE-TLIF appears to be a safe and efficacious approach with comparable outcomes to open and other minimally invasive approaches. Additionally, we observed favorable accuracy in robot-assisted pedicle screw, endoscope, and interbody device placement.

Effect of Tranexamic Acid on Hidden Blood Loss in Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Study.

Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) has become one of the most popular minimally invasive surgeries today. However, the issue of hidden blood loss (HBL) in this surgery has received little attention. This study aims to examine the HBL in PE-TLIF surgery and the effect of tranexamic acid (TXA) on blood loss. In our research, We conducted a retrospective analysis of 300 patients who underwent PE-TLIF from September 2019 to August 2023. They were divided into 2 groups based on whether they received intravenous TXA injection before surgery. The variables compared included: demographic data, pre-and postoperative hemoglobin (HB), hematocrit (HCT), platelets (PLT), red blood cells (RBC), total blood loss (TBL), visible blood loss (VBL), HBL, operation time, postoperative hospital stay, inflammatory markers, coagulation parameters, and adverse events. Regarding demographic characteristics, besides the operation time, no significant differences were observed between the two groups. Compared with the control group, the TXA group showed a significant reduction trend in TBL, HBL, and VBL (P < 0.05). On the first day after surgery, there were significant differences in prothrombin (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), and D-dimer (D-D) levels between the two groups. Similarly, HCT also found similar results on the third day after surgery. No adverse events occurred in either group. Research has found that there is a significant amount of HBL in patients undergoing PE-TLIF. Intravenous injection of TXA can safely and effectively reduce perioperative HBL and VBL. Additionally, compared to the control group, the TXA group shows a significant reduction in operation time.

Systemic Inflammatory Markers and Clinical Outcomes of Open versus Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

The purpose of this study is to preliminarily assess the change in perioperative systemic inflammatory markers and clinical outcomes between open TLIF and BE-TLIF procedures. In total, 38 patients who underwent single-level lumbar fusion surgery (L4-5 or L5-S1) were retrospectively reviewed. 19 patients were treated by the BE-TLIF technique, while the other patients were managed using open TLIF. The perioperative serum C-reactive protein (CRP), neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lymphocyte/monocyte ratio (LMR), and platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR) of the two groups were compared to determine if there was a statistical difference. Meanwhile, clinical evaluations were conducted to assess various factors including operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), drainage catheter stay, length of hospitalization, visual analogue scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores. The perioperative analysis revealed that BE-TLIF cases experienced a longer operative duration than open TLIF cases (open TLIF: 138.63 ± 31.59 min, BE-TLIF: 204.58 ± 49.37 min, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, the EBL showed an increased trend in the BE-TLIF group (260.7 ± 211.9 mL) in comparison with the open TLIF group (200.9 ± 211.9 mL) (p =0.485). In terms of systemic inflammatory markers, the mean postoperative CRP, NLR, LMR, and PLR were lower in the BE-TLIF group than in the open TLIF group, although these differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The VAS and ODI scores in both groups were significantly improved after surgery (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference found between BE-TLIF and open TLIF in terms of systemic inflammatory markers, and clinical outcomes. Overall, BE-TLIF can be considered a viable choice for lumbar canal decompression and interbody fusion for less invasion. It is worth noting that BE-TLIF does have a longer operation time, indicating that there is still potential for further improvement in this technique.

Biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a large cage for degenerative spondylolisthesis with stenosis.

Recently, biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has been used to treat lumbar degenerative diseases, such as lumbar instability and spondylolisthesis. Biportal endoscopic TLIF may have the advantages of endoscopic spine approaches and minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgeries. In this biportal endoscopic TLIF, large cages similar to oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) cages have been used. Biportal endoscopic TLIF using a large cage can be successfully performed in the lower lumbar area. The author presents the surgical technique of biportal endoscopic TLIF using a large cage. The video can be found here: https://stream.cadmore.media/r10.3171/2024.1.FOCVID23231.

Evaluation of the learning curve and complications in unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: cumulative sum analysis and risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis

PurposeTo evaluate the learning curve and complications in unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) using the Cumulative Sum (CUSUM) analysis and Risk-adjusted Cumulative Sum (RA-CUSUM) analysis.MethodsThis study retrospectively analyzed 184 consecutive patients who received ULIF in our hospital, including 104 males and 80 females. CUSUM analysis and RA-CUSUM analysis were used to evaluate the learning curve of ULIF based on the operation time and surgical failure rate, respectively. All postoperative complications were defined as surgical failure. Variables of different phases were compared based on the learning curve.ResultsThe CUSUM analysis showed the cutoff point for ULIF was 29 cases, and the RA-CUSUM analysis showed the cutoff point for ULIF was 41 cases. Operating time and hospital stay were significantly decreased as the learning curve progressed (P < 0.05). Visual analogue score (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at the last follow-up were significantly lower than preoperatively. At the last follow-up, a total of 171 patients reached intervertebral fusion, with a fusion rate of 92.9% (171/184). A total of eleven complications were observed, and RA-CUSUM analysis showed that the incidence of complications in the early phase was 17.07% and in the late phase was 2.6%, with a significant difference (P < 0.05).ConclusionULIF is an effective minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgical technique. But a learning curve of at least 29 cases will be required to master ULIF, while 41 cases will be required to achieve a stable surgical success rate.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) versus endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis along with intervertebral disc herniation: a retrospective analysis

ObjectiveThis study aims to compare the clinical effects and imaging data of patients who underwent endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) with those who received unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF).MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 69 patients presenting with typical intermittent claudication and signs and symptoms indicative of unilateral lower extremity nerve root compression, meeting inclusion criteria between April 2022 and June 2022. Among the cohort, 35 patients underwent ULIF group, while 34 patients underwent Endo-TLIF group. We compared perioperative parameters, including intraoperative blood loss, duration of hospital stay, and operation time between the two groups. Pre-operative and post-operative changes in the height and cross-sectional area of the target intervertebral space were also compared between the groups. Finally, we evaluated bone graft size and interbody fusion rates at 6 and 12 months post-surgery using the Brantigan scoring system.ResultsThe ULIF group had significantly shorter operative times compared to the Endo-TLIF group (P < 0.05). Conversely, the Endo-TLIF group exhibited significantly shorter hospital stays compared to the ULIF group (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in intraoperative bleeding between the two groups (P > 0.05). Furthermore, both groups exhibited postoperative increases in vertebral canal volume compared to baseline (P < 0.05), with no significant difference in the change in the cross-sectional area of the target intervertebral space between the two surgical methods (P > 0.05). Interbody fusion rates were comparable between the two groups at both 6 and 12 months after surgery (P > 0.05). Lastly, the ULIF group had a significantly larger area of bone graft than the Endo-TLIF group (P < 0.05).ConclusionIn summary, the ULIF technique, as a novel spinal endoscopy approach, is a safer and more effective minimally invasive surgical method for addressing lumbar spinal stenosis and intervertebral disc herniation in patients. Both surgical methods have their own advantages and drawbacks. With the development of technology and related instruments, the limitations of both techniques can be mitigated for to a certain extent, and they can be applied by more doctors in diverse medical fields in the future.

Short-term and mid-term evaluation of three types of minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgery for treatment of L4/L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis

This was a single-centre retrospective study. Minimally invasive techniques for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), and percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) have been extensively used for lumbar degenerative diseases. The present study analyses the short-term and mid-term clinical effects of the above three minimally invasive techniques on L4/L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis. In this retrospective study, 98 patients with L4/L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis received MIS-TLIF, 107 received OLIF, and 114 received Endo-TLIF. All patients were followed up for at least one year. We compared patient data, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analogue scale of low back pain (VAS-B), visual analogue scale of leg pain (VAS-L), surgical time, blood loss, drainage volume, hospital stay, complications, and neurological status. Moreover, we performed imaging evaluations, including lumbar lordosis angle (LLA), disc height (DH) and intervertebral fusion status. No significant differences were noted in age, sex, BMI, preoperative ODI, preoperative VAS-B, preoperative VAS-L, preoperative LLA, or preoperative DH. Patients who underwent OLIF had significantly decreased blood loss, a lower drainage volume, and a shorter hospital stay than those who underwent MIS-TLIF or Endo-TLIF (P < 0.05). The VAS-B in the OLIF group significantly decreased compared with in the MIS-TLIF and Endo-TLIF groups at 6 and 12 months postoperatively (P < 0.05). The VAS-L in the Endo-TLIF group significantly decreased compared with that in the MIS-TLIF and OLIF groups at 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.05). The ODI in the OLIF group was significantly better than that in the MIS-TLIF and Endo-TLIF groups at 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences in the incidence of complications and healthcare cost were found among the three groups. Follow-up LLA and DH changes were significantly lower in the OLIF group than in the other groups (P < 0.05). The intervertebral fusion rate was significantly higher in the OLIF group than in the other groups at 6 and 12 months postoperatively (P < 0.05). In conclusion, while MIS-TLIF, OLIF, and Endo-TLIF techniques can effectively treat patients with L4/5 degenerative spondylolisthesis, OLIF has more benefits, including less operative blood loss, a shorter hospital stay, a smaller drainage volume, efficacy for back pain, effective maintenance of lumbar lordosis angle and disc height, and a higher fusion rate. OLIF should be the preferred surgical treatment for patients with L4/5 degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Comparative Analysis of Uniportal and Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Early Learning Stage: Technical Considerations and Radiological Outcomes

Objective: This study compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of uniportal endoscopic and biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for lumbar degenerative disease during the early learning stage of the technique.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent uniportal endoscopic TLIF (n=15) and biportal endoscopic TLIF (n=19) between January and October 2021 during the first year of adoption of these techniques. Radiological parameters, including Bridewell fusion and subsidence grading, were evaluated by x-ray and computed tomography (CT) at 3-month, 6-month, and 1-year follow-up visits. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).Results: Uniportal endoscopic TLIF showed significantly higher frequencies of intraoperative endplate injuries (uniportal [20%] vs. biportal [0%], p=0.01) and 1-year cage subsidence (uniportal [60%] vs. biportal [26.3%], p=0.04) than biportal endoscopic TLIF. The 1-year fusion rates did not differ significantly between the 2 surgical groups (uniportal [93.3%] vs. biportal [89.5%], p=0.37). Neural complications such as postoperative dysesthesia and dural tears occurred in uniportal endoscopic TLIF. There were no significant differences in the VAS for back and leg pain or ODI.Conclusion: Complete endplate preparation under endoscopic guidance improved interbody fusion, and this procedure may be feasible in the early learning stage, regardless of the type of endoscope. Both endoscopic TLIF techniques achieved good clinical outcomes and fusion rates. However, unskilled use of the cage guide device caused endplate breakage and neural injury during uniportal endoscopic cage insertion. Uniportal endoscopic TLIF may require more experience for appropriate cage insertion.

A narrative review of current and future of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

With the ongoing development of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) spine surgery, it has become standard of care at many centers across the globe for lumbar decompressions and discectomies due to minimal muscle damage, minimal postoperative back pain and early recovery. In UBE, the separation of viewing portal and working portal allows greater freedom of movement for the surgical instruments as the camera and instruments move independently providing unrestricted vision. Moreover, the continuous irrigation fluid pressure decreases bleeding and helps to irrigate out the bone debris. Hence, UBE spine surgery has become quite popular and has expanded its indications to lumbar spinal fusion. The adoption of UBE for conventional spine surgeons into their routine practice is relatively easier than uniportal endoscopy because of use of standard arthroscopic lenses, familiar view of anatomy, and use of conventional open spinal instruments. In this article, we review the current literature and discuss the indications, contraindications, clinical outcomes, complications and compare it with existing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Clinical comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion verse 3D microscope-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis with lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study with 24-month follow-up

ObjectiveTo explore the safety and the mid-term efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and 3D microscope-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MMIS-TLIF) for treating single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis with lumbar spinal stenosis (DLS-LSS).MethodsThe clinical data of 49 patients who underwent UBE-TLIF or MMIS-TLIF in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed, including 26 patients who underwent the UBE-TLIF and 23 patients who underwent the MMIS-TLIF. The demographic and perioperative outcomes of patients before and after surgery were reviewed. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients before surgery and at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery. The lumbar lordosis angle (LL), disc height (DH) and lumbar intervertebral fusion rate were assessed before surgery and at the last follow-up.ResultsThe VAS and ODI scores of the two groups were improved compared with those before surgery. The ODI of UBE-TLIF group was lower than that of MMIS-TLIF group at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery, and there were no significant differences between the two groups at other time points (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in VAS between the two groups at each time point (P > 0.05). However, the UBE-TLIF group had more advantages in blood loss and hospital stay. The complications between the UBE-TLIF group (11.54%) and the MMIS-TLIF group (17.39%) were comparable (P > 0.05). Radiographic outcomes showed that the LL and DH of the two groups were improved compared with those before surgery, and the difference before and after surgery was not significant (P > 0.05). The fusion rate was 96.2% in the UBE-TLIF group and 95.7% in the MMIS-TLIF group. There was no significant difference in the fusion rate between the two groups (P > 0.05).ConclusionsBoth UBE-TLIF and MMIS-TLIF have favorable outcomes for treating single-segment DLS-LSS. Both groups have the advantages of clear surgical vision, high surgical efficiency, and favorable mid-term efficacy. In addition, compared with MMIS-TLIF, UBE-TLIF causes less intraoperative bleeding and faster postoperative recovery.

Comparison of Outcomes Between Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients With Single-Level Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Retrospective Study

ObjectiveTo compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). MethodsThis retrospective study included 110 patients with single-level lumbar degenerative disease who underwent Endo-TLIF or MIS-TLIF between January 2019 and December 2021. Patients were divided into Endo-TLIF (n = 55) and MIS-TLIF groups (n = 55). Perioperative, clinical, and radiological outcomes were assessed. ResultsThe Endo-TLIF group had significantly lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. However, the operation time was significantly longer and there was more X-ray exposure than in the MIS-TLIF group. There were no significant differences in complications between the groups. The Endo-TLIF group showed significantly lower creatine kinase (CK) levels than the MIS-TLIF group at 3 days postoperatively (p<0.05), but not at 7 days postoperatively (p>0.05). Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores were significantly reduced in both groups at different time points post-operation compared to pre-operation. The VAS score in the Endo-TLIF group was lower than that in the MIS-TLIF group at 3 days postoperatively. Moreover, no significant differences were found in fusion rates, lumbar lordosis (LL), and lumbar segmental lordosis (SL) between the two groups (p>0.05). ConclusionsEndo-TLIF might be considered as an effective and reliable treatment option for single-level lumbar degeneration. It results in less trauma and faster postoperative recovery, but a longer operative time and more X-ray exposure than MIS-TLIF. Endo-TLIF has effects on clinical and radiological outcomes that are comparable to those of MIS-TLIF.

Different lumbar fusion techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo comprehensively compare and assess the effects of different lumbar fusion techniques in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to December 24, 2022 in this network meta-analysis. Outcomes were pain (pain, low back pain, and leg pain), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), complications, reoperation, and fusion. Network plots illustrated the direct and indirect comparisons of different fusion techniques for the outcomes. League tables showed the comparisons of any two fusion techniques, based on both direct and indirect evidence. The efficacy of each fusion technique for LSS was ranked by rank probabilities.ResultsTotally 29 studies involving 2,379 patients were eligible. For pain, percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) was most likely to be the best technique, followed by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PLIF) had the greatest likelihood to be the optimal technique for low back pain, followed sequentially by MIS-TLIF, minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-PLIF), XLIF, Endo-TLIF, TLIF, oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). MIS-PLIF was ranked the most effective technique concerning leg pain, followed by Endo-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, TLIF, Endo-PLIF, PLIF, OLIF, PLF, and XLIF. As regards JOA scores, Endo-TLIF had the maximum probability to be the best technique, followed by MIS-TLIF and TLIF. Endo-PLIF had the greatest likelihood to be the optimum technique for complications, followed by TLIF, MIS-TLIF, Endo-TLIF, OLIF, and XLIF.ConclusionMinimally invasive fusion techniques may be effective in the treatment of LSS, compared with traditional techniques. Minimally invasive techniques were likely non-inferior with regards to postoperative complications.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus conventional interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThis meta-analysis compares the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) to conventional interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD).MethodsAn extensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Research related to UBE-TLIF published up to November 2022 was reviewed. The relevant articles were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as an evaluation of the quality of the data extraction literature. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software.ResultsThis meta-analysis included six high-quality case–control trials (CCTs) involving 621 subjects. The clinical outcomes assessment showed no statistical differences in complication rates, fusion rates, leg pain VAS scores, or ODI scores. After UBE-TLIF, low back pain VAS scores were significantly improved with less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter hospital stay. A longer time was required for UBE-TLIF, however.ConclusionDespite the lack of sufficient high quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in this study, the results of this meta-analysis suggest that UBE-TLIF is more effective than open surgery in terms of length of stay, blood loss reduction during surgery, and improved low back pain after surgery. Nevertheless, the evidence will be supplemented in the future by more and better quality multicenter randomized controlled trials.

Comparison of effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis combined with intervertebral disc herniation

To compare the effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis combined with intervertebral disc herniation. A clinical data of 64 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and intervertebral disc herniation, who were admitted between April 2020 and November 2021 and met the selection criteria, was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 30 patients were treated with ULIF (ULIF group) and 34 patients with Endo-TLIF (Endo-TLIF group). There was no significant difference in baseline data such as gender, age, disease duration, lesion segment, preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), spinal canal area, and intervertebral space height between the two groups ( P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stays, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups, as well as the VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, ODI, and imaging measurement indicators (spinal canal area, intervertebral bone graft area, intervertebral space height, and degree of intervertebral fusion according to modified Brantigan score). Compared with the Endo-TLIF group, the ULIF group had shorter operation time, but had more intraoperative blood loss and longer hospital stays, with significant differences ( P<0.05). The cerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred in 2 cases of Endo-TLIF group and 1 case of ULIF group, and no other complication occurred. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups ( P>0.05). All patients in the two groups were followed up 12 months. The VAS scores of lower back pain and leg pain and ODI in the two groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between different time points after operation ( P>0.05). And there was no significant difference between the two groups at each time point after operation ( P>0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups in the change of spinal canal area, the change of intervertebral space height, and intervertebral fusion rate at 6 and 12 months ( P>0.05). The intervertebral bone graft area in the ULIF group was significantly larger than that in the Endo-TLIF group ( P<0.05). For the patients with lumbar spinal stenosis combined with intervertebral disc herniation, ULIF not only achieves similar effectiveness as Endo-TLIF, but also has advantages such as higher decompression efficiency, flexible surgical instrument operation, more thorough intraoperative intervertebral space management, and shorter operation time.

In vivo Comparison of Positive Microbial Culture by Wound Irrigation Methods: Biportal Endoscopic versus Open Microscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors and prevalence of intraoperative contamination (IoC) through the microbial culture of superficial and deep samples obtained during surgery. Surgical site infection (SSI) in spinal surgery is a serious complication. The prevalence of IoC may differ based on surgical approach and technique, even in the setting of the same procedure. In this in-vivo study, microbial cultivation was performed with superficial (ligamentum flavum, LF) and deep (nucleus pulposus, NP) surgical specimens to evaluate IoC in 132 patients undergoing single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Biportal endoscopic (BE) TLIF was performed under continuous wound irrigation (group A, n=66), whereas open microscopic (OM) TLIF was performed under intermittent wound irrigation (group B, n=66). LF and NP specimens were homogenized, gram-stained, and cultured in aerobic and anaerobic media for 14 days. Microbial culture results and occurrence of SSI in the two groups were assessed. The Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test were used to determine significant differences among categorical variables. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the influence of patient characteristics on the prevalence of positive microbial cultures. Of the 132 patients, 34 (25.8%) had positive microbial cultures, and positive culture required an incubation period of 72 h to 2 weeks in all these patients except for three. Overall positive culture was significantly higher in group B than in group A (P=0.029). The subgroups of LF- and NP-positive cultures were 18.18% (n=24) and 12.88% (n=17), respectively; the SSI was 0.76% (n=1). Group A had a significantly lower subgroup of NP-positive culture than group B (P=0.035). OM technique was an independent risk factor associatd with overall positive culture (P<0.05). The most common microorganism was Cutibacterium acnes (C. acnes). BE-TLIF with continuous wound irrigation showed significantly lower overall, and NP-positive cultures, than OM-TLIF with intermittent irrigation. The most common strain of positive culture was C. acnes. II.