Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Research Articles

Comparison of results among UBE-TLIF, MIS-TLIF and open TLIF for Meyerding grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis: a retrospective study.

The unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) technique has garnered significant attention for its little paraspinal iatrogenic damage, expedited recovery, and low complication rates. This method is also applicable to open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Therefore, this study aimed to conduct a comparative analysis of the outcomes associated with unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF), minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), and TLIF for Meyerding grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis. The study examined the outcomes of 79 patients with Meyerding grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent single-level intervertebral fusion. Clinical assessments included the measurement of pain levels using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for low back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), surgical data, and demographic information. Imaging techniques were utilized to evaluate the fusion rate. The VAS-Back demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in Group UBE-TLIF compared to the other groups at the one-week postoperative evaluation (p < .05). Additionally, the UBE-TLIF group exhibited a significantly longer total operative time compared to the other groups (p < .05). However, it was noted that the Postop Hemovac drain were significantly greater in the MIS-TLIF and TLIF groups compared to the UBE-TLIF group (p < .05). The present research demonstrated the effectiveness of UBE-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, and TLIF as surgical approaches for treating Meyerding grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis. Among these methods, UBE-TLIF demonstrated a reduction in Postop Hemovac drain, and an increase in operative duration.

Biportal Endoscopic TLIF With an Expandable Cage: Technical Note and Preliminary Results in Terms of Segmental Lordosis Achievement and Disc Height Elevation.

Biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) is a minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF) technique, commonly performed with various cage types. Expandable cages are particularly effective in achieving segmental lordosis (SL) and disc height (DH) elevation in minimally invasive TLIF. However, the published literature lacks details regarding how these outcomes can be accomplished using BE-TLIF with an expandable cage. Nine cases (10 levels) of BE-TLIF with an expandable cage were reviewed. Procedures including unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression, cage expansion trials, and bilateral facetectomies were carried out under biportal endoscopy to achieve SL and DH elevation. Postoperative standing x-ray images at 3 months and reconstructed computed tomography images were analyzed. The sublaminar decompression angle-measured as the angle between the spinous process and the sublaminar decompression line on axial computed tomography-was used to evaluate contralateral sublaminar decompression. All procedures were completed without changes to the surgical methods. Eight patients underwent single-level fusion, with 4 of them receiving additional decompression at adjacent levels. One patient underwent a 2-level fusion. Four cases utilized 12° lordotic cages, while the rest employed 20° hyperlordotic cages. The total time for each fusion was 152.5 ± 38.5 minutes. Segmental lordosis increased by 5.1°, with anterior and posterior DH elevations of 4.8 ± 1.7 mm and 3.1 ± 1.8 mm, respectively. No endplate injuries or early cage subsidence occurred. The mean sublaminar decompression angle was 31.8° ± 7.0°. BE-TLIF with an expandable cage may offer benefits in SL correction and DH elevation. These advantages are attributed to the use of more lordotic expandable cages, combined with contralateral facetectomies and careful endplate preparation-key features of the BE-TLIF technique. SL correction and DH elevation can be achieved through BE-TLIF, which helps to reduce the recurrence of symptoms and improves the lumbar lordotic curve.

Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: The Double-Cage Technique

Biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BETLIF) is a novel spinal fusion procedure using the unilateral biportal endoscopic technique. The hydrostatic pressure of saline irrigation suppresses bleeding, enabling us to perform delicate surgery in a crystal-clear and magnified surgical field with almost no bleeding. Adequate neural decompression, disc space preparation, and bony endplate preservation can be achieved safely. The sturdy endplate reduces the incidence of cage subsidence and provides good initial stability. We use 2 interbody fusion cages and a large amount of bone graft to promote fusion. Reduction of the spondylolisthesis can also be achieved using a modern pedicle screw system. This article presents a step-by-step demonstration of the BETLIF technique in a 68-year-old patient with degenerative scoliosis and spondylolisthesis at L4-5, including his clinical presentation and treatment results. BETLIF is a safe, effective, and revolutionary minimally invasive solution for spinal fusion. Its advantages include a magnificent surgical field, direct decompression, minimum blood loss, radical discectomy, meticulous endplate preparation, cage insertion under direct visual control, and excellent treatment results with a high fusion rate and few complications.

Effect of Cage Material and Size on Fusion Rate and Subsidence Following Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) is an emerging, minimally invasive technique performed under biportal endoscopic guidance. However, concerns regarding cage subsidence and sufficient fusion during BE-TLIF necessitate careful selection of an appropriate interbody cage to improve surgical outcomes. This study compared the fusion rate, subsidence, and other radiographic parameters according to the material and size of the cages used in BE-TLIF. In this retrospective cohort study, patients who underwent single-segment BE-TLIF between April 2019 and February 2023 were divided into 3 groups: group A, regular-sized three-dimensionally (3D)-printed titanium cages; group B, regular-sized polyetheretherketone cages; and group C, large-sized 3D-printed titanium cages. Radiographic parameters, including lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis, anterior and posterior disc heights, disc angle, and foraminal height, were measured before and after surgery. The fusion rate and severity of cage subsidence were compared between the groups. No significant differences were noted in the demographic data or radiographic parameters between the groups. The fusion rate on 1-year postoperative computed tomography was comparable between the groups. The cage subsidence rate was significantly lower in group C than in group A (41.9% vs. 16.7%, p=0.044). The severity of cage subsidence was significantly lower in group C (0.93±0.83) than in groups A (2.20±1.84, p=0.004) and B (1.79±1.47, p=0.048). Cage materials did not affect the 1-year postoperative outcomes of BE-TLIF; however, subsidence was markedly reduced in large cages. Larger cages may provide more stable postoperative segments.

Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: How to Improve Fusion Rate?

Biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) is a minimally invasive surgical technique for treating degenerative lumbar spine conditions. It offers advantages such as reduced soft tissue trauma and lower infection rates, but certain technical aspects may be challenging. The current study aims to identify strategies to enhance the fusion rate in BE-TLIF by addressing these specific challenges. A literature review was conducted on techniques to improve fusion rates in BE-TLIF. The review suggests that lateral-based portals supplemented with medial portals allowed for safe insertion of interbody cages with large footprint. Direct visualization of the disc space with a 30° endoscope assisted with better disc space preparation. Facetectomies performed with osteotomes, rather than burrs, ensured maximum retrieval of autologous bone graft. Utilizing bone morphogenetic proteins with sustained release carriers such as hydroxyapatite can be useful to increase fusion rates of BE-TLIF. To our knowledge, the current literature is the first comprehensive review of strategies to enhance fusion rates in BE-TLIF. The proposed techniques and biological adjuncts are effective means to address key challenges associated with the procedure, and such strategies would potentially shorten the learning curve and improve clinical outcomes. Further clinical studies are required to validate these findings and establish standardized protocols. These findings provide practical solutions to overcome common challenges in BE-TLIF. The suggested techniques would reduce the incidence of pseudarthrosis, improve patient outcomes, and ultimately offer a safer and more reliable option for lumbar interbody fusion patients.

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.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic versus microscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis in China: study protocol for a prospective, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial

IntroductionDegenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is a common cause of low back or leg pain and disability in the elderly population. Patients with spinal stenosis who fail to respond to conservative...

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

A Cadaveric Comparison of Discectomy Performance During Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Approach Using an Endoscopic Technique versus a Minimally Invasive Tubular Approach.

Cadaveric study. Compare discectomy performance between transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) done via an endoscopic versus a tubular technique. Performance of an adequate discectomy is essential to lumbar fusion when performing a TLIF. Previous cadaveric studies comparing open and minimally invasive techniques have reported 36.6%-80% discectomy. There is controversy whether an endoscopic TLIF (E-TLIF) can allow for an adequate discectomy. An E-TLIF was performed on 14 discs (T12-L5) and a minimally invasive tubular TLIF (T-TLIF) was performed on 15 discs (T12-L4, L5-S1). Fellowship trained surgeons performed the TLIFs. Each disc was transected after discectomy and a digital image was analyzed using an imaging processing software to determine the percent of discectomy. Each quadrant of the discectomy was compared. Quadrant one was defined as the left posterior-ipsilateral quadrant of the disc, with each quadrant numbered 2-4 clockwise around the disc. The time to perform the discectomy was compared. Pedicle screws were placed contralaterally to the TLIF and the change in interpedicular distance was compared between techniques after expandable cage implantation as a marker for indirect decompression. A student's t-test was used to determine statistical significance. There was no difference in discectomy performance between techniques (48.86%+/-6.98% T-TLIF vs. 50.26%+/-7.38% E-TLIF, P=0.61). There was no statistical difference between T-TLIF vs E-TLIF at quadrants 1, 3 and 4. There was a difference in discectomy performance at quadrant 2 (39.02%+/-10.18% T-TLIF vs 50.13%+/-14.00% E-TLIF, P=0.02). There was no statistical difference between interpedicular distance created (2.20mm+/-1.97mm T-TLIF vs 1.36mm+/-1.82mm E-TLIF, P=0.24). E-TLIF took less time than MIS-TLIF (20.00min+/-7.12min vs 15.22min+/-4.42min, P=0.048). Our cadaveric study demonstrates that an adequately performed E-TLIF discectomy may be comparable to a T-TLIF discectomy. Further research is required to maximize the efficiency and instrumentation of this technique.

Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Adjacent Segment Disease: An Illustrative Case and Literature Review

Posterior lumbar fusion surgery is a well-established procedure for treating degenerative lumbar spine diseases. Despite its surgical success over the decades, adjacent segment degeneration persisted as a problem, causing significant morbidity in patients. Various surgical fusion techniques, including open and minimally invasive procedures, have been reported for treating adjacent segment disease. Recently, endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion, including fully endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion through the uniportal approach and biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF), has been attempted as a minimally invasive surgical technique for lumbar fusion. This study describes the BE-TLIF technique and presents a review of the literature on this technique for treating adjacent segment disease. Our case illustration demonstrates that BE-TLIF could be a viable minimally invasive technique for addressing adjacent segment disease in revision lumbar spinal fusion surgery.

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

Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Percutaneous Instrumentation: A Technical Note

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) has gained popularity in recent years due to its effectiveness and minimal invasiveness. In addition to decompression surgery, ESS has been used in lumbar fusion surgery to minimize tissue trauma and improve the fusion rate due to its ability to facilitate better endplate preparation under an endoscope. Biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BETLIF) has recently been proven to be a safe and efficient method with good clinical outcomes. We have adopted BETLIF to treat patients since 2021 and have experienced satisfactory results. In this article, we introduce our surgical steps and techniques for BETLIF with percutaneous instrumentation.

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.