Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Kou, Yuanqiao; Chang, Jianjun; Guan, Xiaoming; Chang, Qiang; Feng, Haoyu

doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2021.05.109

Cited by 28 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, on average, patients of PE-LIF had faster functional recovery. A meta-analysis from Kou et al ( 24 ) provided further evidence that the PE-LIF had advantages in terms of less intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital stay.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare postoperative outcomes in surgical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PE-LIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).MethodsWe reviewed a total of 89 patients undergoing single-level surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis from January 2018 to July 2021. The cases were categorized as PE-LIF (Group PE-LIF, 41 cases) or MIS-TLIF (Group MIS-TLIF, 48 cases) approach. Parameters obtained at baseline through at least six months of follow-up were collected. The surgical outcomes involving the operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative bed staying time, and length of hospital stays were analyzed. PROs included the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), modified MacNab standard evaluation, intervertebral fusion rate, and postoperative complications.ResultsA total of 89 patients were included in this analysis involving 41 patients who underwent PE-LIF and 48 patients who underwent MIS-TLIF. The 2 groups were similar in gender, age, body mass index, follow-up time and surgery levels (P > 0.05), and were not significantly different in the length of hospital stays (P > 0.05). PE-LIF had a significantly longer operative time, greater fluoroscopy time, lower estimated blood loss and shorter bed rest time than MIS-TLIF. Both groups improved significantly from baseline for the VAS and ODI scores. PE-LIF was associated with a lower VAS score for back pain at three-day after surgery. There were no significant differences between PE-LIF and MIS-TLIF in the excellent or good rates and intervertebral fusion rates at the last follow-up (P > 0.05). As for related complications, there were no significant complications occurred, and no significant differences were seen in the complications between both groups (P > 0.05).ConclusionsTo summarize, PE-LIF and MIS-TLIF are both safe and effective for LSS. PE-LIF has a definite short-term curative effect with less trauma.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A meta-analysis [ 29 ] compared Endo-LIF and MIS-TLIF. Based on the evidence generated by their study, there was no significant difference in the clinical efficacy and safety between Endo-LIF and MIS-TLIF for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the safety and efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a 1-year follow-up

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To compare the short-term outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (BLIF) and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF). Methods Sixty patients diagnosed with L4/5 spinal stenosis who underwent BLIF and ULIF were included (30 in each group). Clinical evaluation was performed preoperatively and postoperatively in the 1st week, 1st month, and 1st year. Factors such as the visual analogue score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), operative time, surgical complications, and radiological outcomes (fusion rate, screw loosening, and cage subsidence) were compared between the two groups. Results All patients showed improved mean VAS and ODI at all three postoperative follow-ups, and no statistically significant differences were detected between the BLIF and ULIF groups. The mean operative time in the BLIF group was shorter than that in the ULIF group. Nerve root injury occurred in two patients in the BLIF group, while leakage of cerebrospinal fluid occurred in one patient in the ULIF group. All adverse events were treated adequately prior to discharge. The fusion rates with definite and probable grades were significantly higher in the BLIF group than that in the ULIF group. One case of cage subsidence with no screw loosening occurred in each group. Conclusion Both BLIF and ULIF are safe and effective surgical techniques. Compared with ULIF, BLIF has the advantages of shorter operative time and a higher fusion rate. Other merits of BLIF include a wider surgical field, greater maneuverability of instruments, visibility during cage implantation, and transverse orientation of the cage.

show abstract

“…ME-TKT-LIF is an endoscopic TLIF, not a microscope-assisted TLIF. The retractor is more traumatic to the muscle than to the channel [ 24 ]. ME-TKT-LIF utilizes the natural structure of the intervertebral foramen, and the angle and direction of its working channel can be easily adjusted without removing the zygapophyseal joint, thus completing the endplate preparation well.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Percutaneous Bilateral Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note and Preliminary Results

Chen

Zhang

Yang

et al. 2022

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility and clinical efficacy of the percutaneous bilateral endoscopy technique (microendoscopic trans-Kambin’s triangle lumbar interbody fusion + percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal decompression of the lumbar spinal canal, ME-TKT-LIF+ PETD) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods. From May 2016 to September 2018, 29 patients (16 males and 13 females) who suffered from neurologic symptoms due to degenerative lumbar spine disease and underwent percutaneous bilateral endoscopy technique were enrolled. A microendoscope was used for fusion, and a percutaneous endoscope was used for spinal canal decompression. These patients’ perioperative and clinical outcome-related parameters were collected and analyzed. Results. The mean intraoperative blood loss was 72.8 ± 40.6 ml, the operation time was 87.1 ± 10.1 min, the postoperative ambulatory time was 1.69 ± 1.0 days, the hospital stay was 2.6 ± 1.3 days, and the follow-up period was 22.34 ± 4.2 months. The visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) were significantly improved at the early postoperative and last follow-up, respectively. According to the modified MacNab criteria, 11 (11/29) cases were rated as excellent, 15 (15/29) as good, and 3 (3/29) as fair, and the excellent and good rate was 89.7%. Twenty-eight (28/29) cases demonstrated solid fusion, and the fusion rate was 96.6%. Conclusion. The percutaneous bilateral endoscopy technique is safe and feasible in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, with the advantage that more normal anatomical structures are preserved. It is an optional method of lumbar interbody fusion.

show abstract

Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cited by 28 publications

References 41 publications

Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Comparison of the safety and efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a 1-year follow-up

Percutaneous Bilateral Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note and Preliminary Results

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About