Search

Study Design: Retrospective study. Purpose: This study aimed to propose a method of performing unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE)-assisted interbody cage insertion for fusion using the "insert and revolve" technique and analyze the clinico-radiological outcomes. Overview of Literature: UBE-assisted lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) is a rapidly evolving technique combining the advantages of minimally invasive technique with ease of learning. The limited size of cages was a result of the narrow insertion channel. We propose a technique in which large extreme lateral interbody fusion cages can be inserted through the same opening. Methods: This study included 104 patients who underwent ULIF using the "insert and revolve technique" between July 2019 and September 2022. The patients were followed up for at least 12 months postoperatively. The clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for leg pain and back pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified McNab's criteria. Changes in segmental lordosis (SL), intervertebral disc height (IVDH), segmental coronal alignment (SCA), cage subsidence, and fusion grade were evaluated at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Results: The VAS scores for leg and back pain and ODI score showed significant improvement. Based on the Macnab's criteria, 97 patients showed excellent outcomes and seven demonstrated good outcomes at 12 months. The mean IVDH increased from 6.3±2 to 10±2.1 mm immediately after surgery and 10±1.1 mm at 6 months. SL improved from 9.3°±11.5° to 17.78°±8.1°, while SCA improved from 7.7°±2.1° to 3.4°±1.2° at 1 year. Moreover, 92 and 11 patients showed grade 1 and 2 fusion, respectively, according to the Bridwell grading at 1 year. Conclusions: The "insert and revolve technique" facilitates the successful insertion of large cages, contributing to the restoration of disc height and coronal and sagittal spinal correction with favorable fusion rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Spinal tuberculosis, if not promptly treated, can lead to kyphotic deformity, causing persistent neurological abnormalities and discomfort. Spinal cord compression can occur due to ossification of the ligamentum flavum (OLF) at the apex of kyphosis. Traditional surgical interventions, including osteotomy and fixation, pose challenges and risks. We present a case of thoracic myelopathy in a patient with post-tuberculosis kyphosis, successfully treated with biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS). Method: A 73-year-old female with a history of untreated kyphosis presented with walking difficulties and lower limb pain. Imaging revealed a kyphotic deformity of 120° and OLF-induced cord compression at T8–9. UBE was performed under spinal anesthesia. Using the BESS technique, OLF was successfully removed with minimal damage to the stabilizing structures. Results: The patient exhibited neurological improvement after surgery, walking on the first day without gait instability. Follow-up at 1 year showed no kyphosis progression or recurrence of symptoms. BESS successfully resolved the cord compression lesion with minimal blood loss and damage. Conclusion: In spinal tuberculosis-related OLF, conventional open surgery poses challenges. BESS emerges as an excellent alternative, providing effective decompression with reduced instrumentation needs, minimal blood loss, and preservation of surrounding structures. Careful patient selection and surgical planning are crucial for optimal outcomes in endoscopic procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design Retrospective study. Purpose This study aimed to propose a method of performing unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE)-assisted interbody cage insertion for fusion using the “insert and revolve” technique and analyze the clinico-radiological outcomes. Overview of Literature UBE-assisted lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) is a rapidly evolving technique combining the advantages of minimally invasive technique with ease of learning. The limited size of cages was a result of the narrow insertion channel. We propose a technique in which large extreme lateral interbody fusion cages can be inserted through the same opening. Methods This study included 104 patients who underwent ULIF using the “insert and revolve technique” between July 2019 and September 2022. The patients were followed up for at least 12 months postoperatively. The clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for leg pain and back pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified McNab’s criteria. Changes in segmental lordosis (SL), intervertebral disc height (IVDH), segmental coronal alignment (SCA), cage subsidence, and fusion grade were evaluated at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Results The VAS scores for leg and back pain and ODI score showed significant improvement. Based on the Macnab’s criteria, 97 patients showed excellent outcomes and seven demonstrated good outcomes at 12 months. The mean IVDH increased from 6.3±2 to 10±2.1 mm immediately after surgery and 10±1.1 mm at 6 months. SL improved from 9.3°±11.5° to 17.78°±8.1°, while SCA improved from 7.7°±2.1° to 3.4°±1.2° at 1 year. Moreover, 92 and 11 patients showed grade 1 and 2 fusion, respectively, according to the Bridwell grading at 1 year. Conclusions The “insert and revolve technique” facilitates the successful insertion of large cages, contributing to the restoration of disc height and coronal and sagittal spinal correction with favorable fusion rates.

Background and Objectives: Biportal endoscopic spine surgery (BESS) is a promising technique that can be applied for the treatment of various spinal diseases. However, traditional BESS procedures require multiple, separate incisions. We present, herein, various techniques to reduce the number of incisions in multi-level surgery and their clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: Three different techniques were used to reduce the number of incisions for the preservation of normal tissue associated with BESS: the step-ladder technique, employing a common portal for the scope and instruments; the portal change technique employing a two-level procedure with two incisions; and the tilting technique, employing more than three levels. Pain (Visual Analog Scale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and patient satisfaction were evaluated before and 12 months after the procedure. Results: Among the 122 cases of multilevel spine surgery, 1.43 incisions per level were employed for multilevel BESS. Pain and disability showed significant improvement. Patient satisfaction showed favorable results. Conclusions: Combining multiple techniques during biportal surgery could decrease the number of incisions needed and preserve musculature with favorable clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique and microscopic decompression (MD) technique in lumbar spinal stenosis treatment. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and other databases were used to conduct extensive literature searches. RevMan ver. 5.3 software was used for the statistical analysis. Eleven studies were included with 930 patients, including 449 patients in the UBE group and 521 in the MD group. Both techniques revealed similar operative times at −1.77 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI], −7.59 to 4.05 minutes; p=0.55), the postoperative dural expansion area at −1.27 (95% CI, −19.30 to 16.77; p=0.89), the postoperative complications at 0.76 (95% CI, 0.47 to 1.22; p=0.26), the preoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for leg pain, and the last follow-up (>12 months) VAS for leg pain at −0.04 (95% CI, −0.14 to 0.06; p=0.47), the preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the last follow-up (>12 months) ODI scores at −0.18 (95% CI, −0.76 to 0.40; p=0.54), and patient satisfaction (the modified MacNab score) at 1.15 (95% CI, 0.54 to 2.42; p=0.72). However, intraoperative bleeding was lower following the UBE technique at −52.78 mL (95% CI, −93.47 to −12.08 mL; p=0.01) and was shorter following the UBE technique at −3.06 (95% CI, −3.84 to −2.28; p

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion is a minimally invasive procedure for treating degenerative lumbar disease. Its advantages include correcting coronal and sagittal spinal alignment and indirect neural decompression. However, achieving a successful outcome is limited in some patients who need direct decompression for central canal lesions including hard stenotic lesions (endplate or facet articular osteophytes and ossification of posterior longitudinal ligaments) and sequestration of the disk. Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery is a minimally invasive technique, which directly decompresses the lesion. By taking advantage of two procedures, in a long-level lumbar lesion, alignment correction and direct decompression can be both achieved. Herein, the authors introduce multilevel lumbar fusion through oblique lumbar interbody fusion and selective direct decompression through biportal endoscopic spinal surgery and discuss the surgical indications, surgical pitfalls, and recommendations for application. Consequently, it is regarded as a minimally invasive interbody fusion method for patients with multilevel lumbar degenerative degeneration.

Background and Objectives: Biportal endoscopic spine surgery (BESS) is a promising technique that can be applied for the treatment of various spinal diseases. However, traditional BESS procedures require multiple, separate incisions. We present, herein, various techniques to reduce the number of incisions in multi-level surgery and their clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: Three different techniques were used to reduce the number of incisions for the preservation of normal tissue associated with BESS: the step-ladder technique, employing a common portal for the scope and instruments; the portal change technique employing a two-level procedure with two incisions; and the tilting technique, employing more than three levels. Pain (Visual Analog Scale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and patient satisfaction were evaluated before and 12 months after the procedure. Results: Among the 122 cases of multilevel spine surgery, 1.43 incisions per level were employed for multilevel BESS. Pain and disability showed significant improvement. Patient satisfaction showed favorable results. Conclusions: Combining multiple techniques during biportal surgery could decrease the number of incisions needed and preserve musculature with favorable clinical outcomes.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to introduce biportal endoscopic extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-EFLIF), which involves insertion of a cage through a more lateral side as compared to the conventional corridor of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. We described the advantages and surgical steps of 3D-printed porous titanium cage with large footprints insertion through multi-portal approach, and preliminary results of this technique. Methods: This retrospective study included 12 consecutive patients who underwent BE-EFLIF for symptomatic single-level lumbar degenerative disease. Clinical outcomes, including a visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain and the Oswestry disability index (ODI), were collected at preoperative months 1 and 3, and 6 months postoperatively. In addition, perioperative data and radiographic parameters were analyzed. Results: The mean patient age, follow-up period, operation time, and volume of surgical drainage were 68.3 ± 8.4 years, 7.6 ± 2.8 months, 188.3 ± 42.4 min, 92.5 ± 49.6 mL, respectively. There were no transfusion cases. All patients showed significant improvement in VAS and ODI postoperatively, and these were maintained for 6 months after surgery (P < 0.001). The anterior and posterior disc heights significantly increased after surgery (P < 0.001), and the cage was ideally positioned in all patients. There were no incidences of early cage subsidence or other complications. Conclusions: BE-EFLIF using a 3D-printed porous titanium cage with large footprints is a feasible option for minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion. This technique is expected to reduce the risk of cage subsidence and improve the fusion rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biportal endoscopic discectomy has been frequently performed in recent years and has shown acceptable clinical outcomes. However, evidence regarding its efficacy and safety remains limited. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of biportal endoscopic with that of open microscopic discectomy in patients with single-level herniated lumbar discs. Prospective, randomized, multicenter, open-label, assessor-blind, non-inferiority controlled trial. Sixty-four participants suffering from low back and leg pain with a single-level herniated lumbar disc and required discectomy. Outcomes were assessed with the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score for surgical site, low back and lower extremity, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for lumbar disabilities, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions value for quality of life, and painDETECT for neuropathic pain. Surgery-related outcomes such as hospital stay, operation time, and opioid usage were collected. Adverse events occurring during the follow-up period were also noted. All participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo biportal endoscopic (biportal group) or microscopic discectomy (microscopy group). The primary outcome was the difference in ODI scores at 12-months post surgically based on a modified intention-to-treat strategy, with a non-inferiority margin of 12.8 points. The secondary outcomes included PROMs, surgery-related outcomes, and adverse events. The ODI score at the 12-month follow-up was 11.97 in the microscopy group and 13.89 in the biportal group (mean difference, 1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.50 to 7.34), showing the non-inferiority of biportal group. The results for the secondary outcomes were similar to those for the primary outcome. Creatinine phosphokinase ratios were low in the biportal group. Early surgical site pain was slightly lower in the biportal group (mean difference of VAS pain score at 48-hr, -0.98; 95% CI, -1.77 to -0.19). Adverse events including reoperation showed no significant difference between the groups. Biportal endoscopic discectomy was non-inferior to microscopic discectomy over a 12 month period. Biportal endoscopic discectomy is suggested to be a relatively safe and effective surgical technique with the slight advantage of reduced muscle damage. However, the clinical implications of surgical site pain should be carefully considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Objectives: Various minimally invasive surgical techniques have been developed as alternatives to conventional surgery. According to recent studies, endoscopic spinal surgery (ESS) (biportal ESS [BESS] or uniportal ESS [UESS]) is more favorable compared with microscopic spinal surgery (MSS). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the latest evidence on the use of ESS compared with MSS in lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods: A systematic electronic search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Database, and Korea Med was performed until December 2019 to identify studies that compared ESS and MSS in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Results: Overall, 1167 patients were included from three randomized controlled trials, six retrospective cohorts, and two prospective case–control studies. This review only presented 3 direct comparative studies. The study had inherent limitations specifically in terms of the study design. Meta-analysis of hospital stay (days) showed significant difference between BESS and MSS, UESS and MSS, BESS +UESS, and MSS at the final follow-up (95% confidence interval [CI]: −3.66 to −.77; P =.003; I2 = 97%, 95% CI: −2.95 to −1.22; P <.00001; I2 = 90%, and 95% CI: −2.89 to −1.48; P <.00001; I2 = 96%, respectively). However, meta-analysis showed no significant difference in other results. Conclusions: Although a shorter duration of hospital stay was observed in ESS, there were no significant differences in efficacy and safety between ESS and MSS. Further studies are required to validate these results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OsbjectiveSeveral studies have shown that both microscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression (ULBD) and unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) ULBD are effective for treating lumbar canal stenosis (LCS). However, there are different viewpoints as to which surgical technique is superior. Therefore, this meta-analysis investigated the clinical efficacy and side effects of microscopic ULBD and UBE ULBD for treating LCS.MethodsTo identify relevant studies describing the clinical outcomes and complication rates of microscopic ULBD and UBE ULBD for LCS, several databases were systematically searched in the Internet. The visual analog scale score for back and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index were used to assess clinical outcomes. Furthermore, data about perioperative outcomes and complications were documented.ResultsIn total, six studies with 450 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The UBE ULBD was found to be superior to microscopic ULBD in terms of efficacy against early postoperative back and leg pain. However, there was no significant difference between the two procedures in terms of final clinical outcomes and complications. In addition, compared with microscopic ULBD, UBE ULBD was associated with a significant reduction in the length of hospital stay and C-reactive protein levels 2 days after surgery.ConclusionUBE ULBD and microscopic ULBD for the treatment of LCS were similar in terms of final clinical outcomes and complications. However, UBE ULBD has several advantages over microscopic ULBE, including a shorter hospital stay and faster alleviation of postoperative back and leg pain.

Degenerative lumbar foraminal stenosis is relatively common condition in which the circumferential narrowing of the space available for the nerve root leads to back pain and radicular symptoms. The preferred surgical treatment to relieve the compression of the nerve root has not been established yet. Recently, several reports have shown good clinical outcomes in patients who underwent biportal endoscopic decompression for the treatment of degenerative lumbar foraminal stenosis. The floating-type biportal endoscopic technique could be used with various surgical instruments without docking in the narrowed foramen, unlike the full-endoscopic technique. Multiple sites can be accessed with more freedom in the approaching angle through triangulation and portal switching. We reviewed articles to understand putative outcome factors and discuss the appropriate indications for biportal endoscopic foraminal decompression. Lumbar lordosis, degenerative lumbar scoliosis, height of the posterior intervertebral disc and level of procedure were all related to clinical outcomes. The best indications and contraindications to the endoscopic foraminal decompression still depends on the surgeon’s skill level and evolving experience. However, we could suggest that biportal endoscopic spinal surgery is supposed to be an alternative treatment for foraminal decompression preserving motion and stability, and decreasing the need for fusion surgery in various lumbar degenerative disease.

Lumbar decompressive surgery is the gold standard treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Minimally invasive surgical techniques have been introduced with the aim of reducing the morbidity associated with open surgery. The purpose of the present study was to systematically search the literature and perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing the outcomes between biportal endoscopic technique and microscopic technique for lumbar canal stenosis decompression. A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify relevant articles up to 15th of December 2019. Eligible studies were retrieved, data were extracted by two authors independently and risks of bias were assessed. A total of six studies involving 438 patients were selected for review. The results of the pooled analysis indicated similar operative times [mean difference (MD), -3.41; 95% CI, -10.78-3.96; P<0.36], similar complications (MD, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.33-1.46; P=0.34), similar visual analogue scale scores for back and leg pain at the time of the final follow-up and similar Oswestry disability indexes (MD, -0.28; 95% CI, -1.25-0.69; P=0.58) for the two procedures. In conclusion, biportal endoscopic technique is a viable alternative to microscopic technique for lumbar canal stenosis decompression with similar operative time, clinical outcomes and complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent studies have shown that the clinical outcome in patients treated with the unilateral biportal endoscopic technique, also known as biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression (ULBD) in the context of this study, is more favorable compared with those treated with microscopic ULBD. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assess the latest evidence on the use of BESS ULBD compared with microscopic ULBD in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. We performed a systematic literature search of studies that compared BESS and microscopic ULBD from several databases. There were 383 patients from 5 unique studies. Meta-analysis of visual analog scale score for low back pain showed no significant difference at baseline (P = 0.49), at 2–3 months (P = 0.69), and at the final follow-up (P = 0.26). There was no significant difference in visual analog scale score for leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index between the groups preoperatively (P = 0.76 and P = 0.95), at 2–3 months (P = 0.46 and P = 0.92), and at the final follow-up (P = 0.88 and P = 0.58). The mean operation time was similar in the BESS and microsurgery groups (P = 0.36). The BESS group was associated with shorter length of stay (mean difference –2.60 days [–3.39, –1.81]; P < 0.001; I 2 = 65%). Complications were similar in both groups (P = 0.26). Individual studies have shown that BESS was associated with early ambulation and less need for opioids. Current evidence shows a lack of significant differences in terms of efficacy and safety between BESS and microsurgery. Further studies are required before drawing a definite conclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: Biportal endoscopic decompressive laminectomy is a widely performed procedure and shows acceptable clinical outcomes. However, the evidence regarding the advantages of biportal endoscopic surgery is weak, a randomized controlled trial is therefore warranted.Purpose: To compare the clinical efficacies of biportal endoscopic and microscopic decompressive laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.Study Design: Randomized controlled trial.Patient Sample: Sixty-four participants suffering from low back and leg pain with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis who required decompressive laminectomy.Outcome Measures: Outcomes were assessed with the use of patient-reported outcome measures, visual analog scale (VAS) score for low back and lower extremity radiating pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) score, and painDETECT for neuropathic pain. Surgery-related outcomes including operation time, length of hospital stay, postoperative drainage, and serum creatine phosphokinase were evaluated. Perioperative (<30 days) and late (1-12 months) complications were also noted.Methods: All participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo biportal endoscopic or microscopic decompressive laminectomy. The primary outcome was the ODI score at 12 months after surgery based on a modified intention-to-treat strategy. The secondary outcomes included VAS score for low back and lower extremity radiating pain, ODI scores, EQ-5D score, and painDETECT score. There were no sources of funding and no conflicts of interest associated with this study.Results: There was no significant difference between groups in the mean ODI score at 12 months after surgery (30 in the microscopy vs. 29 in the biportal endoscopy group, p=.635). There were also no significant differences in low back and lower extremity pain VAS scores, ODI, EQ-5D scores, and painDETECT scores at the 3-, 6-, or 12-month follow-up. Operation time, length of hospital stay, serum creatine phosphokinase, and perioperative complications, such as durotomies and symptomatic hematoma, showed no significant differences between the groups; however, one participant underwent additional revision surgery 9 months after the index surgery in the microscopy group.Conclusions: Despite the study design limitation of relatively short duration of follow-up, this trial suggests that biportal endoscopic decompressive laminectomy is an alternative to and offers similar clinical outcomes as microscopic open surgery in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to assess the radiological status of the multifidus muscles (MFMs) after biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and evaluated the extent of MFM injury and atrophy. A total of 88 patients who had met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled in the present study. T2-weighted signal intensity MRI was performed 3 times: preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at the final follow-up examination. We measured the cross-sectional area of the MFM on both sides (ipsilaterally and contralaterally) and recorded the operative times. The association between the interval from surgery to the final follow-up MRI and changes in the MFMs and between the operative time and changes in the MFMs were analyzed. For the group comparisons, the patients were divided into 3 groups according to the follow-up interval. Group 1 was followed up within 2 weeks, group 2 within 2–4 weeks, and group 3 after 4 weeks. The MFM changes were recorded. The operative time correlated significantly with the percentage of change in the T2-weighted signal intensity ratio (SIR) for both sides (P < 0.01). At the final follow-up examination, the SIR of the ipsilateral side had decreased in group 3 (P = 0.002). The percentage of change in the SIR was smallest in group 3 (P = 0.004). The MFM change on MRI after BESS became significant on both sides as the operative time increased. However, the change showed a tendency to reverse within several months, and no substantial change in the MFM cross-sectional area was found. We have concluded that MFM changes after BESS might correlate with an increased operative time but will resolve over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although postoperative spinal epidural hematoma is a rare complication, it can cause severe neurologic complications. Studies regarding biportal endoscopic spinal surgery, a type of minimally invasive spinal surgery technique, have been recently reported. The purpose of our study is to report the incidence and risk factors of postoperative hematoma after biportal endoscopic spinal surgery. The subjects included 310 patients that underwent biportal endoscopic spinal surgery from 2015 to 2017. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed in all patients before surgery, and also after surgery to identify epidural hematoma. Using electronic medical records, perioperative factors such as age, sex, operation name, operation level, water infusion pump usage, thrombin-containing hemostatic agent, and anticoagulant medication were statistically analyzed in the aspect of postoperative hematoma. The overall occurrence rate of postoperative hematoma was 23.6% (n = 94). A total of 304 levels (76.4%) were without hematoma according to the postoperative MRI among the total 398 levels. Six patients underwent revision surgery of hematoma evacuation. Female sex, old age (>70 years), preoperative anticoagulation medication, and usage of intraoperative water infusion pump were significantly correlated to the occurrence of postoperative hematoma. Although symptomatic postoperative hematoma was extremely rare at 1.9%, radiologic hematoma confirmed by postoperative MRI was higher at 23.6%. The perioperative risk factors of postoperative hematoma after biportal endoscopic spinal surgery include female sex, older age (>70 years), preoperative anticoagulation medication, usage of intraoperative water infusion pump, and surgery requiring more bone work (laminectomy or interbody fusion). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The purpose of the present study was to determine the learning curve for biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) for decompressive laminectomy in lumbar spinal stenosis using a learning curve cumulative summation test (LC-CUSUM). Methods The surgeon was proficient in open and microscopic decompressive laminectomy in lumbar spinal stenosis but did not have any experience with BESS or other endoscopic surgery techniques. The learning curve of BESS was investigated using LC-CUSUM analysis. Procedure success was defined as an operative time <75 minutes, the mean operative time with microscopic decompression laminectomy. Results The present study included the first 60 patients who had undergone single-level decompressive laminectomy using BESS by a single orthopedic surgeon. The mean operative time for decompressive laminectomy by BESS was 83.8 ± 37.9 minutes. The mean operative time in the early learning period (≤30 cases) and late learning period (second 30 cases) was 105.3 ± 39.7 minutes and 62.4 ± 19.9 minutes, respectively. The overall complication rate was ∼10%. The LC-CUSUM signaled competency for surgery at the 58th operation, indicating that sufficient evidence had accumulated to prove that the surgeon was competent. Thus, a trainee with no experience with BESS had reached adequate performance at 58 cases. Conclusions The results of the present study have demonstrated that a substantial learning period could be needed before adequate performance can be achieved with lumbar decompressive laminectomy using BESS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background context: Lumbar foraminal stenosis or extraforaminal stenosis is a common cause of spinal cord radiculopathy. Recently, several authors have introduced an endoscopy-based spinal surgery technique. Purpose: The study aimed to introduce far lateral approach of biportal arthroscopic technique using 30° arthroscopy for foraminal decompression of L5-S1. Study design: Technical note. Patient sample: 12 consecutive patients. Outcome measures: The leg VAS with modified Macnab criteria was measured. Result: The leg VAS improved from VAS 7.5 to 1.8. Conclusion: Far lateral approach of BASS with 30° arthroscopy is an alternative method that can decompress foraminal stenosis minimally invasively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique and microscopic decompression (MD) technique in lumbar spinal stenosis treatment. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and other databases were used to conduct extensive literature searches. RevMan ver. 5.3 software was used for the statistical analysis. Eleven studies were included with 930 patients, including 449 patients in the UBE group and 521 in the MD group. Both techniques revealed similar operative times at -1.77 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI], -7.59 to 4.05 minutes; p =0.55), the postoperative dural expansion area at -1.27 (95% CI, -19.30 to 16.77; p =0.89), the postoperative complications at 0.76 (95% CI, 0.47 to 1.22; p =0.26), the preoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for leg pain, and the last follow-up (>12 months) VAS for leg pain at -0.04 (95% CI, -0.14 to 0.06; p =0.47), the preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the last follow-up (>12 months) ODI scores at -0.18 (95% CI, -0.76 to 0.40; p =0.54), and patient satisfaction (the modified MacNab score) at 1.15 (95% CI, 0.54 to 2.42; p =0.72). However, intraoperative bleeding was lower following the UBE technique at -52.78 mL (95% CI, -93.47 to -12.08 mL; p =0.01) and was shorter following the UBE technique at -3.06 (95% CI, -3.84 to -2.28; p <0.01). UBE and MD technology have no significant differences in efficacy or safety in the treatment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis based on this meta-analysis. However, the UBE technique has less intraoperative bleeding and a shorter hospital stay. It has a slight advantage and is a better surgical option than the MD technique. It can be an alternative minimally invasive spinal surgery method.

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion is a minimally invasive procedure for treating degenerative lumbar disease. Its advantages include correcting coronal and sagittal spinal alignment and indirect neural decompression. However, achieving a successful outcome is limited in some patients who need direct decompression for central canal lesions including hard stenotic lesions (endplate or facet articular osteophytes and ossification of posterior longitudinal ligaments) and sequestration of the disk. Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery is a minimally invasive technique, which directly decompresses the lesion. By taking advantage of two procedures, in a longlevel lumbar lesion, alignment correction and direct decompression can be both achieved. Herein, the authors introduce multilevel lumbar fusion through oblique lumbar interbody fusion and selective direct decompression through biportal endoscopic spinal surgery and discuss the surgical indications, surgical pitfalls, and recommendations for application. Consequently, it is regarded as a minimally invasive interbody fusion method for patients with multilevel lumbar degenerative degeneration.

Osbjective: Several studies have shown that both microscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression (ULBD) and unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) ULBD are effective for treating lumbar canal stenosis (LCS). However, there are different viewpoints as to which surgical technique is superior. Therefore, this meta-analysis investigated the clinical efficacy and side effects of microscopic ULBD and UBE ULBD for treating LCS., Methods: To identify relevant studies describing the clinical outcomes and complication rates of microscopic ULBD and UBE ULBD for LCS, several databases were systematically searched in the Internet. The visual analog scale score for back and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index were used to assess clinical outcomes. Furthermore, data about perioperative outcomes and complications were documented., Results: In total, six studies with 450 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The UBE ULBD was found to be superior to microscopic ULBD in terms of efficacy against early postoperative back and leg pain. However, there was no significant difference between the two procedures in terms of final clinical outcomes and complications. In addition, compared with microscopic ULBD, UBE ULBD was associated with a significant reduction in the length of hospital stay and C-reactive protein levels 2 days after surgery., Conclusion: UBE ULBD and microscopic ULBD for the treatment of LCS were similar in terms of final clinical outcomes and complications. However, UBE ULBD has several advantages over microscopic ULBE, including a shorter hospital stay and faster alleviation of postoperative back and leg pain., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2022 Lin, Yao, Xin, Kim, Chen and Hu.)

Background: To determine the clinical and radiological outcomes of full-endoscopic (FE) versus microscopic (MI) lumbar decompression laminectomy in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), we performed a meta-analysis to explore the best choice for patients with LSS requiring surgical relief., Methods: Literature searches of the PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases were performed. The searches covered all indexed studies published between 2008 and 2020, using keywords identifying the patient group (lumbar spine stenosis) and the interventions (full-endoscopic lumbar decompression laminectomy and microscopic lumbar decompression laminectomy). A total of 1,727 patients were included in 10 studies. The primary outcomes of the analysis were visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for leg and back pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score., Results: The meta-analysis of the VAS score for low back pain showed that in the first 24 hours postoperatively, participants who underwent FE had better pain control than those who underwent MI [FE: mean difference (MD) =-0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.11, -0.45; MI: MD =-1.53, 95% CI: -1.94, -1.12]. In all subgroup analyses, the VAS score for back pain was lower in the FE group than in the MI group (MD =-0.71, 95% CI: -0.96, -0.47). Regarding the VAS score for leg pain, the FE group had a significantly lower score than the MI group in the first 24 hours (Total: MD =-1.02, 95% CI: -1.31, -0.73). The meta-analysis demonstrated that the FE group had a significantly lower ODI score than the MI group (MD =-1.03, 9% CI: -1.54, -0.51). At 6 months, the MI group had a significantly lower score than the FE group (MD =1.09, 95% CI: 0.53, 1.64), but at 12 months, the FE group had a significantly lower score than the MI group (MD =-2.40, 95% CI: -3.12, -1.67)., Discussion: Compared to MI decompression, the FE decompression method resulted in better pain control in the early postoperative period, both in the lower back and legs, as well as shorter operative and shorter hospitalization times.

Background Context: Lumbar foraminal stenosis or extraforaminal stenosis is a common cause of spinal cord radiculopathy. Recently, several authors have introduced an endoscopy-based spinal surgery technique., Purpose: The study aimed to introduce far lateral approach of biportal arthroscopic technique using 30° arthroscopy for foraminal decompression of L5-S1., Study Design: Technical note., Patient Sample: 12 consecutive patients., Outcome Measures: The leg VAS with modified Macnab criteria was measured., Result: The leg VAS improved from VAS 7.5 to 1.8., Conclusion: Far lateral approach of BASS with 30° arthroscopy is an alternative method that can decompress foraminal stenosis minimally invasively.