Search

STUDY DESIGN: A meta-analysis of 89 randomized prospective, prospective, and retrospective studies on spinal endoscopic surgery outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to provide familiar Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) back, and VAS leg effect size (ES) data following endoscopic decompression for sciatica-type back and leg pain due to lumbar herniated disc, foraminal, or lateral recess spinal stenosis. BACKGROUND: Higher-grade objective clinical outcome ES data are more suitable than lower-grade clinical evidence, including cross-sectional retrospective study outcomes or expert opinion to underpin the ongoing debate on whether or not to replace some of the traditional open and with other forms of minimally invasive spinal decompression surgeries such as the endoscopic technique. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2019 identified 89 eligible studies on lumbar endoscopic decompression surgery enrolling 23,290 patient samples using the ODI and VAS for back and leg pain used for the ES calculation. RESULTS: There was an overall mean overall reduction of ODI of 46.25 (SD 6.10), VAS back decrease of 3.29 (SD 0.65), and VAS leg reduction of 5.77 (SD 0.66), respectively. Reference tables of familiar ODI, VAS back, and VAS leg show no significant impact of study design, follow-up, or patients’ age on ES observed with these outcome instruments. There was no correlation of ES with long-term follow-up (P = 0.091). Spinal endoscopy produced an overall ODI ES of 0.92 extrapolated from 81 studies totaling 12,710 patient samples. Provided study comparisons to tubular retractor microdiscectomy and open laminectomy showed an ODI ES of 0.9 (2895 patients pooled from 16 studies) and 0.93 (1188 patients pooled from 5 studies). The corresponding VAS leg ES were 0.92 (12,631 endoscopy patients pooled from 81 studies), 0.92 (2348 microdiscectomy patients pooled from 15 studies), and 0.89 (1188 open laminectomy patients pooled from 5 studies). CONCLUSION: Successful clinical outcomes can be achieved with various lumbar surgeries. ESs with endoscopic spinal surgery are on par with those found with open laminectomy and microsurgical decompression. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This article is a meta-analysis on the benefit overlap between lumbar endoscopy, microsurgical decompression, laminectomy, and lumbar decompression fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Regenerative medicine is a subspecialty of medicine that seeks to recruit and enhance the body's own inherent healing armamentarium in the treatment of patient pathology. In regenerative spine care, the intention is to assist in the repair and potentially replace or restore damaged tissue through autologous or allogenic biologics. In the authors' opinion, future spine care will likely evolve into a blend of prevailing strategies from interventional pain management and minimally invasive spine surgery. This form of spine care nowadays is commonly called interventional pain surgery. The interest in regenerative medicine in general and in interventional pain surgery of the spine is growing given the high patient awareness of problems with traditional spine surgery, whose focus is on decompression of pinched nerves and correction of spinal instability and deformity. However, reoperation- and complication rates are high with those open corrective spine surgeries as many of the spine's degenerative conditions are being only treated surgically when the disease has progressed to its end-stage. The sole application of image-based medical necessity criteria for surgical intervention in the spine seems slightly out of step with the growing demand for less aggressive and burdensome procedures that could perhaps be instituted earlier in the disease process where the goal is to heal the spinal injury or repair damage from the degenerative process more naturally. In this chapter, the authors review and discuss the current state of the art in regenerative biologic therapies and interventional pain care of the spine from their perspective as endoscopic spine surgeons. Simplifying therapeutic measures and strategies are at the heart of what patients request of us as surgeons. This field's applications in modern spine care are clearly in their infancy, except for fusion. The authors will discuss potential applications of select advanced biologics technologies and their attempts at integrating them into their endoscopic spinal stenosis surgery program to treat degenerative spinal disease and instability-related symptomatic end-stage degenerative vacuum disc disease in the elderly.

Best management practices of complications resulting from outpatient transforaminal endoscopic decompression surgery for lumbar foraminal and lateral recess stenosis are not established. Recent advances in surgical techniques allow for endoscopically assisted bony decompression for neurogenic claudication symptoms due to spinal stenosis. These broadened indications also produced a higher incidence of postoperative complications ranging from dural tears, recurrent disc herniations, nerve root injuries, foot drop, facet and pedicle fractures, or infections. Postoperative sequelae such as dysesthetic leg pain, and infiltration of the surgical access and spinal canal with irrigation fluid causing spinal headaches and painful wound swelling, as well as failure to cure, are additional common postoperative problems that can lead to hospital readmissions and contribute to lower patient satisfaction with the procedure. In this chapter, the authors focus on analyzing the incidence of such problems and, more importantly, how to manage them. While the incidence of these problems is recogniz-ably low, knowing the art of managing them in the postoperative recovery period can make the difference between a flourishing endoscopic outpatient spinal surgery program and one that will continue to struggle with replacing traditional open spinal surgeries.

BACKGROUND: Incidental dural tears during lumbar endoscopy can be challenging to manage. There is limited literature on their appropriate management, risk factors, and the clinical consequences of this typically uncommon complication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To improve the statistical power of studying durotomy with lumbar endoscopy, we performed a retrospective survey study among endoscopic spine surgeons by email and chat groups on social media networks, including WhatsApp and WeChat. Descriptive and correlative statistics were done on the surgeons' recorded responses to multiple-choice questions. Surgeons were asked about their clinical experience with spinal endoscopy, training background, the types of lumbar endoscopic decompression they perform by approach, the decompression instruments they use, and incidental durotomy incidence with routine lumbar endoscopy. RESULTS: There were 689 dural tears in 64 470 lumbar endoscopies, resulting in an incidental durotomy incidence of 1.07%. Seventy percent of the durotomies were reported by 20.4% of the surgeons. Eliminating these 19 outlier surgeons yielded an adjusted durotomy rate of 0.32. Endoscopic stenosis decompression (54.8%; P < .0001), rather than endoscopic discectomy (44.1%; 41/93), was significantly more associated with durotomy. Medium-sized dural tears (1–10 mm) were the most common (52.2%; 48/93). Small pinhole durotomies (less than 1 mm) were the second most common type (46.7%; 43/93). Rootlet herniations were seen by 46.2% (43/93) of responding surgeons. The posterior dural sac injury during the interlaminar approach (57%; 53/93) occurred more frequently than traversing nerve-root injuries (31.2%) or anterior dural sac (23.7%; 22/93). Exiting nerve-root injuries (10.8%;10/93) were less common. Over half of surgeons did not attempt any repair or closure (52.2%; 47/90). Forty percent (36/90) used sealants. Only 7.8% (7/90) of surgeons attempted an endoscopic repair or sutures (11.1%; 10/90). DuralSeal was the most commonly used brand of commercially available sealant used (42.7%; 35/82). However, other sealants such as Tisseal (15.9%; 13/82), Evicel (2.4%2/82), and additional no-brand sealants (38; 32/82) were also used. Nearly half of the patients (48.3%; 43/89) were treated with 24–48 hours of bed rest. The majority of participating surgeons (64%; 57/89) reported that the long-term outcome was unaffected. Only 18% of surgeons reported having seen the development of a postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-fistula (18%;16/89). However, the absolute incidence of CSF fistula was only 0.025% (16/64 470). Severe radiculopathy with dysesthesia; sensory loss; and motor weakness in association with an incidental durotomy were reported by 12.4% (11/89), 3.4% (3/89), and 2.2% (2/89) of surgeons, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of dural tears with lumbar endoscopy is about 1%. The incidence of durotomy is higher with the use of power drills and the interlaminar approach. Stenosis decompression that typically requires the more aggressive use of these power instruments has a slightly higher incidence of dural tears than does endoscopic decompression for a herniated disc. Most dural tears are small and can be successfully managed with mechanical compression with Gelfoam and sealants. Two-thirds of patients with incidental dural tears had an entirely uneventful postoperative course. The remaining one-third of patients may develop a persistent CSF leak, radiculopathy with dysesthesia, sensory loss, or motor function loss. Patients should be educated preoperatively and reassured. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Background The indications and contraindications to the endoscopic transforaminal approach for lumbar spinal stenosis are not well defined. Methods We performed a Kaplan-Meier durability survival analysis of patients with the following types of spinal stenosis: type I, central canal; type II, lateral recess; type III, foraminal; and type IV, extraforaminal. The 304 patients comprised 140 men and 164 women, with an average age of 51.68 ± 15.78 years. The average follow-up was 45.3 years (range, 18–90 years). The primary clinical outcome measures were the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale, and the modified Macnab criteria. Results Of 304 study patients, 70 had type I (23.0%) stenosis, 42 type II (13.7%), 151 type III (49.7%), and 41 type IV (13.5%). Excellent outcomes were obtained in 114 patients (37.5%), good in 152 (50.0%), fair in 33 (10.9%), and poor in 5 (1.6%). Kaplan-Meier durability analysis of the clinical treatment benefit with the endoscopic transforaminal decompression surgery showed statistically significance differences (P Conclusions We recommend stratifying patients based on the underlying compressive disease and the skill level of the endoscopic spine surgeon to decide preoperatively whether more difficult central or complex foraminal stenotic lesions should be considered for alternative endoscopic approaches.

Personalized care models are dominating modern medicine. These models are rooted in teaching future physicians the skill set to keep up with innovation. In orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery, education is increasingly influenced by augmented reality, simulation, navigation, robotics, and in some cases, artificial intelligence. The postpandemic learning environment has also changed, emphasizing online learning and skill- and competency-based teaching models incorporating clinical and bench-top research. Attempts to improve work–life balance and minimize physician burnout have led to work-hour restrictions in postgraduate training programs. These restrictions have made it particularly challenging for orthopedic and neurosurgery residents to acquire the knowledge and skill set to meet the requirements for certification. The fast-paced flow of information and the rapid implementation of innovation require higher efficiencies in the modern postgraduate training environment. However, what is taught typically lags several years behind. Examples include minimally invasive tissue-sparing techniques through tubular small-bladed retractor systems, robotic and navigation, endoscopic, patient-specific implants made possible by advances in imaging technology and 3D printing, and regenerative strategies. Currently, the traditional roles of mentee and mentor are being redefined. The future orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons involved in personalized surgical pain management will need to be versed in several disciplines ranging from bioengineering, basic research, computer, social and health sciences, clinical study, trial design, public health policy development, and economic accountability. Solutions to the fast-paced innovation cycle in orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery include adaptive learning skills to seize opportunities for innovation with execution and implementation by facilitating translational research and clinical program development across traditional boundaries between clinical and nonclinical specialties. Preparing the future generation of surgeons to have the aptitude to keep up with the rapid technological advances is challenging for postgraduate residency programs and accreditation agencies. However, implementing clinical protocol change when the entrepreneur–investigator surgeon substantiates it with high-grade clinical evidence is at the heart of personalized surgical pain management.

Background: This study aimed to analyze the motivators and obstacles to the implementation of minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques (MISST) by spinal surgeons. Motivators and detractors may impact the availability of MISST to patients and drive spine surgeons’ clinical decision-making in the treatment of common degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. Methods: The authors solicited responses to an online survey sent to spine surgeons by email, and chat groups in social media networks including Facebook, WeChat, WhatsApp, and Linkedin. Descriptive statistics were employed to count the responses and compared to the surgeon's training. Kappa statistics and linear regression analysis of agreement were performed. Results: A total of 430 surgeons accessed the survey. The completion rate was 67.4%. A total of 292 surveys were submitted by 99 neurosurgeons (33.9%), 170 orthopaedic surgeons (58.2%), and 23 surgeons of other postgraduate training (7.9%). Personal interest (82.5%) and patient demand (48.6%) were the primary motivators for MISST implementation. High equipment (48.3%) and disposables (29.1%) cost were relevant obstacles to MISST implementation. Local workshops (47.6%) and meetings in small groups (31.8%) were listed as the primary knowledge sources. Only 12% of surgeons were fellowship trained, but 46.3% of surgeons employed MISST in over 25% of their cases. Conclusions: The rate of implementation of MISST reported by spine surgeons was found to be high but impeded by the high cost of equipment and disposables. The primary motivators for spine surgeons’ desire to implement were personal interest and patient demand.

Objective: In Brazil, there are no studies comparing endoscopic treatment of lumbar disc herniation with the conventional open technique in SUS (Unified Health System) with regard to hospitalization time and complications occurring within one year, which is the objective of this study. Methods: A survey of 32 surgeries performed in 2019 (11 open and 21 endoscopic) to evaluate pain parameters before and after surgery (VAS), days of hospitalization, and complications. The data were submitted to statistical analysis (ANOVA) using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: Fourteen patients were female and eighteen were male, with a mean age of 41.35 years (p> 0.05 between sexes). The pre- and postoperative VAS for pain radiating to the lower limb were similar between the groups: 8.5 ± 0.82 with the open technique and 8.19 ± 1.15 with endoscopic technique. In both groups there was an improvement in the pain pattern with a significant reduction in the VAS (p < 0.05) and there was no statistical relevance between the groups in terms of pain improvement. There was statistical relevance between the groups in the comparison of days of hospitalization required, with the group submitted to endoscopic surgery having a lower number of days. The complications reported were compatible with those found in the literature (postoperative dysesthesia, new herniation). Conclusions: The endoscopic technique resulted in an important reduction in the number of days of hospitalization, a factor with a high impact on the costs of any surgical procedure, which can be a determining factor in the feasibility of minimally invasive techniques. Level of evidence IV; Therapeutic Study.

Surgical management has traditionally been accomplished via open approaches. Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (MISS)...

Background New onset of acute dysethetic leg pain due to irritation of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) following uneventful recovery from an expertly executed lumbar transforaminal endoscopic decompression is a common problem. Its incidence and relation to any risk factors that could be mitigated preoperatively are not well understood. Methods We performed a multicenter frequency analysis of DRG irritation dysesthesia in 451 patients who underwent lumbar transforaminal endoscopic decompression for herniated disc and foraminal stenosis. The 451 patients consisted of 250 men and 201 women with an average age of 55.77 ± 15.6 years. The average follow-up of 47.16 months. The primary clinical outcome measures were the modified Macnab criteria. Chi-square testing was employed to analyze statistically significant associations between increased dysesthesia rates, preoperative diagnosis, the surgical level(s), and surgeon technique. Results At final follow-up, Excellent (183/451; 40.6 %) and Good (195/451; 43.2 %) Macnab outcomes were observed in the majority of patients (378/451; 83.8 %). The majority of study patients (354; 78.5 %) had an entirely uneventful postoperative recovery without any DRG irritation, but 21.5 % of patients were treated for it in the immediate postoperative recovery period with supportive care measures including activity modification, transforaminal epidural steroid injections, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, gabapentin, or pregabalin. There was no statistically significant difference in dysesthesia rates between lumbar levels from L1 to S1, or between single (DRG rate 21.8 %) or two-level (DRG rate 20.2 %) endoscopic decompression (p = 0.742). A statistically significantly higher incidence of postoperative dysesthesia was observed in patients who underwent decompression for foraminal stenosis (38/103; 27 %), and recurrent herniated disc (7/10; 41.2 %; p = 0.039). There were also statistically significant variations in dysesthesia rates between the seven participating clinical study sites ranging from 11.6%–33% (p = 0.002). Unrelenting postoperative dysesthetic leg pain due to DRG irritation was statistically associated with less favorable long-term clinical outcomes with DRG rates as high as 45 % in patients with a Fair and 61.3 % in patients with Poor Macnab outcomes (p Conclusions Postoperative dysesthesia following transforaminal endoscopic decompression should be expected in one-fifth of patients. There was no predilection for any lumbar level. Foraminal stenosis and recurrent herniated disc surgery are risk factors for higher dysesthesia rates. There was a statistically significant variation of dysesthesia rates between participating centers suggesting that the surgeon skill level is of significance. Severe postoperative dysesthesia may be a predictor of Fair of Poor long-term Macnab outcomes.

Background: Training of spine surgeons may impact the availability of contemporary minimally invasive spinal surgery (MIS) to patients and drive spine surgeons’ clinical decision-making when applying minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques (MISST) to the treatment of common degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. Training requirements and implementation of privileges vary in different parts of the world. The purpose of this study was to analyze the training in relation to practice patterns of surgeons who perform lumbar endoscopic spinal surgery the world over. Methods: The authors solicited responses to an online survey sent to spine surgeons by email, and chat groups in social media networks including Facebook, WeChat, WhatsApp, and Linkedin. Surgeons were asked the following questions: (I) please indicate your training? (II) What type of MISST spinal surgery do you perform? (III) How would you rate your experience in MIS lumbar spinal surgery and what percentage of your practice is MISST? And (IV) which avenue did you use to train for the MISST you currently employ in your clinical practice today? Descriptive statistics were applied to count responses and cross-tabulated them to the surgeon’s training. Pearson Chi-square measures, kappa statistics, and linear regression analysis of agreement or disagreement were performed by analyzing the distribution of variances using statistical package SPSS version 25.0. Results: A total of 430 surgeons accessed the survey. The completion rate was 67.4%. Analyzing the responses of 292 surveys submitted by 97 neurosurgeons (33.2%), 161 orthopaedic surgeons (55.1%), and 34 surgeons of other postgraduate training (11.6%) showed that only 14% (41/292) of surgeons had completed a fellowship. Surgeons rated their skill level 33.5% of the time as master and experienced surgeon, and 35.6% of the time as novice or surgeon with some experience. There were more master (64.6% versus 29.2%) and experienced (52% versus 40%) surgeons amongst orthopaedic surgeons than amongst neurosurgeons at a statistically significant level (P=0.11). There were near twice as many orthopaedic surgeons (54.3%) using endoscopic procedures in the lumbar spine as their favorite MISST than neurosurgeons (35.4%; P=0.096). Endoscopic spine surgeons’ main sources of knowledge acquisition were (I) learning in small meetings (57.3%), (II) attending workshops (63.1%), and (III) national and international conferences (59.8%). Conclusions: The majority of spine surgeons reported more than half of their cases employing MISST at a high skill level. Very few MISST surgeons are fellowship trained but attend workshops and various meetings suggesting that many of them are self-thought. Orthopaedic surgeons were more likely to implement endoscopic spinal surgery into the routine clinical practice. As endoscopic spine surgery gains more traction and patient demand, minimal adequate training will be part of the ongoing debate.

Background: The indications of different endoscopic and endoscopically assisted translaminar approaches for lumbar spinal stenosis are not well-defined, and validated protocols for the use of the transforaminal over the interlaminar approach are lacking. Methods: We performed a retrospective study employing an image-based patient stratification protocol of stenosis location (type I—central canal, type II—lateral recess, type III—foraminal, type IV—extraforaminal) and clinical outcomes on 249 patients consisting of 137 (55%) men and 112 (45%) women with an average age of 56.03±16.8 years who underwent endoscopic surgery for symptomatic spinal stenosis from January 2013 to February 2019. The average follow-up of 38.27±27.9 months. The primary clinical outcome measures were the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and modified Macnab criteria. Results: The frequency of stenosis configuration in decreasing order was as follows: type I—121/249; 48.6%, type III—104/249; 41.8%, type II—15/249; 6%, and type IV—9/249; 3.6%. The transforaminal approach (137/249; 55.0%) was used in most type II to IV lesions followed by the interlaminar approach (78/249; 31.3%), and the full endoscopic approach (12/249; 4.8%), and the endoscopically assisted translaminar approach (8/249; 3.2%) which was exclusively used for type I lesions. Macnab outcomes analysis showed Excellent in 47 patients (18.9%), Good in 178 (71.5%), Fair in 18 (7.2%) and Poor in 6 (2.4%), respectively. Paired two-tailed t -test showed statistically significant VAS (5.46±2.1; P

BACKGROUND: Regional differences in acceptance and utilization of MISST by spine surgeons may have an impact on clinical decision-making and the surgical treatment of common degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. The purpose of this study was to analyze the acceptance and utilization of various minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques (MISST) by spinal surgeons the world over. METHODS: The authors solicited responses to an online survey sent to spine surgeons by email, and chat groups in social media networks including Facebook, WeChat, WhatsApp, and Linkedin. Surgeons were asked the following questions: (I) Do you think minimally invasive spinal surgery is considered mainstream in your area and practice setting? (II) Do you perform minimally invasive spinal surgery? (III) What type of MIS spinal surgery do you perform? (IV) If you are performing endoscopic spinal decompression surgeries, which approach do you prefer? The responses were cross-tabulated by surgeons’ demographic data, and their practice area using the following five global regions: Africa & Middle East, Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Pearson Chi-Square measures, Kappa statistics, and linear regression analysis of agreement or disagreement were performed by analyzing the distribution of variances using statistical package SPSS Version 25.0. RESULTS: A total of 586 surgeons accessed the survey. Analyzing the responses of 292 submitted surveys regional differences in opinion amongst spine surgeons showed that the highest percentage of surgeons in Asia (72.8%) and South America (70.2%) thought that MISST was accepted into mainstream spinal surgery in their practice area (P=0.04) versus North America (62.8%), Europe (52.8%), and Africa & Middle East region (50%). The percentage of spine surgeons employing MISST was much higher per region than the rate of surgeons who thought it was mainstream: Asia (96.7%), Europe (88.9%), South America (88.9%), and Africa & Middle East (87.5%). Surgeons in North America reported the lowest rate of MISST implementation globally (P

BACKGROUND: To demonstrate the feasibility of an endoscopically assisted minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and to study clinical outcomes with the use of a static oblique bullet-shaped cannulated poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) lumbar interbody fusion cage in conjunction with platelet enriched plasma infused allograft cancellous chips and posterior supplemental fixation. METHODS: In this retrospective study of 43 patients who underwent endoscopically assisted MIS-TLIF for spondylolisthesis (53.5%) and stenosis (46.3%), the Oswestry Disability Index, the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, and the modified Macnab criteria were used as primary clinical outcome measures. Clinical outcomes were cross-tabulated against fusion grade using the Bridwell classification of interbody fusion. RESULTS: The majority of patients (90.7%) had excellent (8/43; 18.6%) and good (31/43; 72.1%) Macnab outcomes. There were significant VAS back score reductions from an average preoperative values of 8.9070 to a postoperative VAS score of 3.8605, and a score of 2.7674 at final follow-up (P < .0001). The reductions in the VAS leg scores were also significant from preoperative score of 5.58 to a postoperative value of 2.16, and a final follow-up score of 1.67 (P < .0001); the Oswestry Disability Index score went from a preoperative value of 54.4 to 23.3 postoperatively and 18.5 at the final follow-up (P < .0001). The vast majority of patients (92.9%) with Bridwell grade I fusion had excellent and good Macnab outcomes (P = .027). CONCLUSIONS: The authors recommend the use of an endoscope as an adjunct to MIS-TLIF, a minimally invasive spinal surgery technique in which many surgeons may be well versed and have a great deal of experience. Clinical outcomes with the endoscopic interbody fusion procedure with a static PEEK cage in conjunction with platelet-enriched bone allograft were favorable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Feasibility study.

The authors investigated the feasibility of a transforaminal endoscopic decompression and un-instrumented lumbar interbody fusion procedures with cancellous bone allograft in patients painful with end-stage degenerative vacuum disc disease.Twenty-nine patients who underwent endoscopic transforaminal foraminal and lateral recess decompression and direct intraoperative endoscopic visualization of a painful, hollow collapsed, rigid intervertebral disc space were grafted with cancellous allograft chips. In addition to the radiographic assessment of fusion, patients were followed for a minimum of 2 years postoperatively, and clinical outcomes were evaluated with VAS, ODI, and modified MacNab criteria.At the final follow, mean VAS and ODI scores reduced from 7.34 ± 1.63 and 50.03 ± 10.64 preoperatively to 1.62 ± 1.741 and 6.69 ± 4.294 postoperatively (p0.0001). Excellent and Good clinical outcomes, according to Macnab criteria, were obtained in 34.5 % and 62.1 % of patients, respectively. Only one patient had minimal improvement from "Poor" preoperatively to "Fair" postoperatively. This female patient was treated for lumbar disc herniation L5/S1 and had an incomplete fusion at the final follow up. Computed tomography assessment of interbody fusion at the last follow-up showed successful fusion in 91.4 % of patients.Un-instrumented interbody fusion by packing a hollow interspace with cancellous bone allograft chips can be considered as an adjunct to endoscopic foraminal and lateral recess decompression in select patients with validated painful, collapsed, and rigid motion segments. It can be safely done in an outpatient setting at a low burden to patients.

Objective To evaluate the clinical and functional results of transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Materials and Methods From August 2015 to January 2017, 101 patients with lumbar disc hernia refractory to clinical treatment underwent endoscopic discectomy. Through clinical evaluation by the Visual Analogue Scale and functional evaluation by the Oswestry Disability Index questionnaire, the patients were analyzed in the preoperative period, the immediate postoperative period, at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year after surgery. Results The mean age of the participants was 48.1 years. The most affected disc levels were L4-L5 and L5-S1. A total of 29 patients were treated at 2 disc levels. After 1 month of postoperative follow-up, the mean scores on the questionnaires (VAS and ODI) decreased significantly (p < 0.001). Conclusion Transforaminal endoscopic Lumbar discectomy has been shown to be a safe, effective and minimally-invasive alternative for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. The procedure has advantages, such as short hospital stay, surgery performed under local anesthesia and sedation, early return to daily activities, and low rate of complications. Resumo Objetivo Avaliar os resultados clínicos e funcionais da discectomia endoscópica transforaminal lombar. Materiais e Métodos De agosto de 2015 a janeiro de 2017, 101 pacientes portadores de hérnia de disco lombar refratária ao tratamento clínico foram submetidos a discectomia endoscópica. Por meio de avaliação clínica pela Escala Visual Analógica e análise funcional pelo questionário Oswestry Disability Index, os pacientes foram analisados no período pré-operatório, no pós-operatório imediato, com 1 mês, 3 meses, 6 meses e 1 ano após a cirurgia. Resultados A média de idade dos participantes foi de 48.1 anos. Os níveis discais mais acometidos foram L4-L5, seguidos de L5-S1. Um total de 29 pacientes foram abordados em 2 níveis discais. Após 1 mês de seguimento pós-operatório, a média das pontuações nos questionários (EVA e ODI) diminuiu significativamente (p < 0.001). Conclusão A discectomia endoscópica transforaminal lombar mostrou ser uma alternativa segura, eficaz e minimamente invasiva para o tratamento de hérnia de disco lombar. O procedimento tem vantagens, como curto período de internação hospitalar, cirurgia realizada sob anestesia local e sedação, retorno precoce às atividades diárias, e baixa taxa de complicações.