A Novel Unilateral Bi/Multi-Portal Endoscopic Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Utilizing Uniaxial Spinal Endoscope Instead of Arthroscope: Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Results

Abstract

Background: Currently, traditional UBE surgery, which is based on arthroscope, has been increasingly employed for complex lumbar degenerative diseases. However, this approach is associated with complications such as intraoperative dural sac tears, nerve root injuries, and postoperative epidural hematomas. In response to these challenges, we propose a novel technique utilizing uniaxial spinal endoscope to replace arthroscope—Unilateral Bi/Multi-Portal Endoscopy (UME). This new method has successfully treated complex lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, resulting in improved postoperative outcomes and a reduction in complications. Based on the previous findings, we utilized uniaxial spinal endoscopy as the primary operating method, with the assistance of multi-portal endoscopic techniques (UME-TLIF), to perform transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. The feasibility and preliminary clinical results have been presented in this paper.

Methods: A total of 18 patients (8 men and 10 women, aged 52.6 ± 15.29 years) diagnosed with lumbar degenerative diseases, such as giant lumbar disc herniation, severe lumbar spinal stenosis, or lumbar spondylolisthesis, were included in this study from January 2022 to March 2023. Various parameters including operation time, ambulatory time, intraoperative fluoroscopy times, hospitalization days, and complications were recorded during the perioperative period. Clinically relevant symptoms were evaluated and documented 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for lower back pain and leg pain, as well as the Oswestry disability index (ODI), were measured. The extent of lumbar interbody fusion was assessed using lumbar X-ray and CT scans at the 12-months follow-up. MRI was performed to assess the degree of nerve decompression in patients at the same time points. The paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used as statistical methods.

Results: The single-segment UME-TLIF procedure had an average operation time of 211 ± 53.3 min, and the average number of X-rays taken during the operation was 11.78 ± 5.32. Patients were able to walk and perform functional exercises approximately 35.11 ± 8.41 h post-surgery, and the average duration of hospital stay was 8.5 ± 2.27 days. The VAS and ODI values at each time point post-surgery were significantly lower than the respective pre-surgery values (p < 0.05). Two patients developed postoperative sensory disturbances which significantly improved with conservative treatment. Furthermore, a follow-up CT scan conducted 12 months post-surgery showed 100% fusion rate of the surgical segments in all patients.

Conclusion: UME-TLIF is an endoscopy-assisted fusion procedure that minimizes muscle damage in patients and allows early rehabilitation. This technique broadens the surgical applications of uniaxial spinal endoscope as a surgical tool, particularly benefitingpatients diagnosed with severe lumbar disc herniation and lumbar instability.

Keywords

lumbar disc herniation / lumbar endoscopic interbody fusion / transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion / unilateral bi/multi-portal endoscopy

References

[1] M. Ralph Jasper, L. Jane, S. Praveenan, R. Darryl, and J. R. Prashanth, “Outcomes After Decompressive Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Comparison Between Minimally Invasive Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decompression and Open Laminectomy: Clinical Article,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 21, no. 2 (2014): 179–186.

[2] J. M. Ralph, P. Kevin, M. Greg, S. Kevin, and J. R. Prashanth, “Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Techniques, Indications and Comparison of Interbody Fusion Options Including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF,” Journal of Spine Surgery 1, no. 1 (2016): 2–18.

[3] M. Bin, B. Joshua, B. Douglas, and W. Jinxi, “Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Recent Advances in Surgical Techniques and Bone Healing Strategies,” European Spine Journal 21, no. 2 (2020): 179–186.

[4] Y.-X. Xiao, Q.-X. Chen, and F.-C. Li, “Unilateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of the Technique, Indications and Graft Materials,” Journal of International Medical Research 37, no. 3 (2009): 908–917.

[5] L. Hai, A. Ryan, P. Eileen, et al., “Clinical and Radiographic Comparison Between Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Bilateral Facetectomies,” Global Spine Journal 11, no. 6 (2020): 903–910.

[6] K. Chi Heon, E. Kirk, L. Jun-Seok, et al., “Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Interbody Lumbar Fusion,” Global Spine Journal 10, no. 2 (2020): 143–150.

[7] C. Hao, Z. Goudi, B. Zhenyu, et al., “Comparison of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Retrospective Observational Study,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 18, no. 1 (2023): 389.

[8] H. Dong Hwa, L. Dong Chan, K. Hyeun Sung, P. Choon Keun, and C. Hungtae, “Clinical Results and Complications of Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Meta-Analysis,” World Neurosurgery 145 (2020): 396–404.

[9] R. Sebastian, K. Martin, M. Harry, and G. Georgios, “Full-Endoscopic Interlaminar and Transforaminal Lumbar Discectomy Versus Conventional Microsurgical Technique: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33, no. 9 (2008): 931–939.

[10] L. Guang-Xun, H. Peng, K. Vit, et al., “A Systematic Review of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery: Preliminary Clinical Results and Complications,” World Neurosurgery 125 (2019): 425–432.

[11] A. Dong Ki, L. Jung Soo, S. Won Shik, K. San, and J. Jin, “Postoperative Spinal Epidural Hematoma in a Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery,” Medicine (Baltimore) 100, no. 6 (2021): e24685.

[12] G. L. Clementz, R. H. Lee, and A. M. Barclay, “Tic Disorders of Childhood,” American Family Physician 38, no. 2 (1988): 163–170.

[13] Y. Liyu, Z. Long, W. Guanqi, et al., “Unilateral Bi/Multi-Portal Endoscopy for the Treatment of Complicated Lumbar Degenerative Diseases With Utilization of Uniaxial Spinal Endoscope, Instead of Arthroscope: Technique Note and Clinical Results,” Clinical Interventions in Aging 18 (2023): 1295–1308.

[14] K. H. Bridwell, L. G. Lenke, K. W. McEnery, C. Baldus, and K. Blanke, “Anterior Fresh Frozen Structural Allografts in the Thoracic and Lumbar Spine. Do They Work If Combined With Posterior Fusion and Instrumentation in Adult Patients With Kyphosis or Anterior Column Defects?,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20, no. 12 (1995): 1410–1418.

[15] M. Xiaoping, Y. Chengqiang, W. Chenglong, O. Yufu, W. Jianxun, and H. Zhian, “Comparison of Extreme Lateral Approach With Posterior Approach in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical and Imaging Findings,” Surgeon 19, no. 5 (2020): 268–278.

[16] K. Parviz, K. T. Foley, L. T. Holly, and J. D. Schwender, “Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29, no. 5 (2004): 598–599.

[17] J. Mengran, Z. Jun, S. Haiyu, L. Jianwen, and H. Yazeng, “Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Diseases: A Consecutive Case Series With Mean 2-Year Follow-Up,” Pain Physician 23, no. 2 (2020): 165–174.

[18] H. Dong Hwa, S. Sang Kyu, E. Jin Hwa, and K. P. Choon, “Fully Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Percutaneous Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Technique: Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Results,” Neurosurgical Focus 43, no. 2 (2017): E8.

[19] K. Ju-Eun and C. Dae-Jung, “Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Arthroscopy,” Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 10, no. 2 (2018): 248–252.

[20] Y. Qi, L. Hui Gen, P. Xue Kang, S. Zhong Hai, R. Peng, and Q. H. Xu, “Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Conventional Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 24, no. 1 (2023): 838.

[21] L. Jiachang, L. Lirong, L. Shaotian, et al., “Efficacy and Complications of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review,” World Neurosurgery 159 (2021): e91–e102.

[22] J. Chang Il and M. L. Seung, “Complications and Management of Endoscopic Spinal Surgery,” Neurospine 20, no. 1 (2023): 56–77.

[23] L. Jiayu, Z. Yehan, and L. Yang, “Primary Proximal Epithelioid Sarcoma of the Lung: A Case Report and Review of the Literature,” Histology and Histopathology 39, no. 1 (2023): 49–56.

[24] P. Sang-Min, K. Ho-Joong, K. Gang-Un, et al., “Learning Curve for Lumbar Decompressive Laminectomy in Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery Using the Cumulative Summation Test for Learning Curve,” World Neurosurgery 122 (2018): e1007–e1013.

[25] C. Dae-Jung, C. Chang-Myong, J. Je-Tea, L. Sang-Jin, and K. Yong-Sang, “Learning Curve Associated With Complications in Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery: Challenges and Strategies,” Asian Spine Journal 10, no. 4 (2016): 624–629.

[26] B. Wang, P. He, X. Liu, Z. Wu, and B. Xu, “Complications of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis of Single-Arm Studies,” Orthopaedic Surgery 15, no. 1 (2023): 3–15.

[27] H. Tan, L. Yu, X. Xie, et al., “Consecutive Case Series of Uniportal Full-Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Relationship Between Decompression Range and Functional Outcomes,” Orthopaedic Surgery 15, no. 12 (Dec 2023): 3153–3161.

[28] W. Xiangbin, T. Zheng, M. Maiwulan, et al., “A Single-Arm Retrospective Study of the Clinical Efficacy of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” Frontiers in Surgery 9 (2023): 9.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.