Clinical Results and Complications of Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Heo, Dong Hwa; Lee, Jun Young; Kim, Hyeun Sung; Park, Choon Keun; Chung, Hungtae

doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2020.10.033

Cited by 47 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found both ETLIF approaches to be as proficient in correction of coronal wedge angle, disc height, improving clinical parameters of VAS pain score and ODI score with statistical improvement within each cohort compared to pre and postoperative parameters but no statistical difference was found between the two cohorts. These findings are concordant with earlier studies and meta-analysis [ 16 , 19 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Such benefits lead to an increasing trend in the number of endoscopic spine procedures performed and a corresponding increased volume of publications on endoscopic decompression and KLIF type of endoscopic fusion; there was paucity of literature in ETLIF [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 25 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent metanalysis of endoscopic fusion showed ODI significantly improved by twice as much as the MCID and the VAS for back and leg pain showed significant improvements over the MCID. The perioperative complications were usually minor [ 16 ]. We found similar findings within each cohort of ETLIF (I) and ETLIF (O) respectively with improvement in VAS and ODI at all time points of the study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Facet sacrificing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion is a good standard popular technique in the open, minimally invasive tubular approach and is recently becoming more popular in biportal endoscopic assisted fusion [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. However, there is limited literature on uniportal endoscopic posterolateral lumbar interbody fusion with complete facet resection [ 16 ]. Kim and Wu et al described the uniportal full endoscopic approach to perform posterolateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ETLIF) with facet resection in grade 2 spondylolisthesis, scoliosis of less than 30° curve and severe foraminal stenosis patients [ 17 , 18 , 19 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of Two Methods (Inside-Out/Outside-In) Inferior Articular Process Resection for Uniportal Full Endoscopic Posterolateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note

Kim

et al. 2021

Brain Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: There is limited literature comparing the uniportal full endoscopic posterolateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion outside-in approach (ETLIF (O)) with the inside-out approach (ETLIF (I)). Methods: Radiological evaluation was performed on disc height restoration and coronal wedging angle, and operation time (inferior articular process resection time/total operation time) and clinical evaluation were made. Result: 48 cases of inside-out and 38 cases of outside-in cases were included. Compared to inside-out, the outside-in approach had significantly less operative time required to resect inferior articular process: 36.55 ± 10.37, and total operative time: 87.45 ± 20.14 min compared to 49.83 ± 23.97 and 102.56 ± 36.53 min, respectively, for the inside-out approach, p < 0.05. Compared to the preoperative state, both cohorts achieved significant improvement of VAS and ODI at post-operative 1 week, 3 months and at final follow up. Both cohorts achieved statistically significant increased disc height with 5.00 ± 2.87 mm, 5.49 ± 2.33 mm and statistically significant improvement in coronal wedge angle with 1.76 ± 1.63°, 3.24 ± 2.92° in the inside-out and outside-in approaches respectively. Conclusions: Complete removal of inferior articular process is the key part of endoscopic fusion with two methods that can be applied: an inside-out approach or an outside-in approach. Comparing both techniques, the outside-in approach has a shorter operative time required for inferior articular process resection and total length of operation with similar good clinical and radiological outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of Two Methods (Inside-Out/Outside-In) Inferior Articular Process Resection for Uniportal Full Endoscopic Posterolateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note

Kim

et al. 2021

Brain Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[4][5][6] Recently, endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion has been attempted as minimally invasive surgery. 7 MIS-TLIF procedures may have better functional recovery for patients with spinal disabilities. 8 Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion procedures by uniportal or biportal endoscopic approaches have also been attempted for faster recovery after surgery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biportal Endoscopic Technique for Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Review of Current Research

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There are many types of minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion procedures. Among them is the recently introduced biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion surgery. Biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) might combine the advantages of minimally invasive TLIF and endoscopic spine approaches. However, clinical evidence in support of biportal endoscopic TLIF remains insufficient.Methods: A comprehensive review of English-language literature on biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion was performed. Articles on biportal endoscopic TLIF in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched using the terms "unilateral biportal endoscopy," "biportal endoscopic spine surgery," "transforaminal," and "lumbar interbody fusion" as well as their combinations. The clinical and radiological outcomes of biportal endoscopic TLIF were analyzed and are summarized here. The biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion surgical techniques are then described.Results: There are 3 biportal endoscopic TLIF techniques. In the available literature, the postoperative 1-year outcomes of biportal endoscopic TLIF were comparable to those of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and minimally invasive (MIS)-TLIF. Clinical parameters were significantly improved after biportal endoscopic TLIF. Compared to PLIF or MIS-TLIF, biportal endoscopic-TLIF may have the advantage of a faster recovery. Biportal endoscopic TLIF showed no inferiority in fusion rates compared to PLIF or MIS-TLIF. The postoperative complications were usually minor.Conclusions: The postoperative 1-year clinical and radiological outcomes of biportal endoscopic TLIF were favorable compared to those of PLIF and MIS-TLIF. However, long-term outcomes should be investigated through prospective, randomized controlled trials in the future.Clinical Relevance: This review article outlines the most current evidence-based medicine with regard to spinal surgery with an aim to introduce a new technique.

show abstract

Clinical Results and Complications of Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Cited by 47 publications

References 27 publications

Evaluation of Two Methods (Inside-Out/Outside-In) Inferior Articular Process Resection for Uniportal Full Endoscopic Posterolateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note

Evaluation of Two Methods (Inside-Out/Outside-In) Inferior Articular Process Resection for Uniportal Full Endoscopic Posterolateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note

Biportal Endoscopic Technique for Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Review of Current Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About