Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with a Tubular Retractor System: A Retrospective Controlled Study

Technical Notes and Clinical Outcomes of Full‐Endoscopic Interbody Fusion Via Transforaminal Approach for Hard Disc Herniations in Thoracolumbar Junction

“…Allogeneic bone combined with rhBMP‐2 has biological properties similar to those of autologous bone and achieves a satisfactory fusion rate in full‐endoscope lumbar interbody fusion 18–20 . They were applied in the thoracolumbar intervertebral fusion and a satisfactory fusion rate was achieved in this study.…”

“…2,[13][14][15][16] To overcome the shortcomings of the aforementioned surgical methods, a combined full-endoscopic decompression and interbody fusion via a transforaminal approach was used to treat hard disc herniation in the thoracolumbar junction, as full-endoscopic thoracic discectomy via the transforaminal approach under local anesthesia has demonstrated high surgical safety and excellent clinical efficacy, 17 and fullendoscopic lumbar interbody fusion via the transforaminal approach for treating lumbar degenerative diseases has also achieved satisfactory interbody fusion rate. [18][19][20] However, this combination of full-endoscopic decompression and interbody fusion via a transforaminal approach for the treatment of hard disc herniation in the thoracolumbar junction has not been reported. The purpose of this study was: (i) to introduce the technical notes of this novel technique; (ii) to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the 1-year follow-up.…”

Is endoscopic technique an effective and safe alternative for lumbar interbody fusion? A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…In our study, Endo-LIF was associated with longer operative time, significant improvement in other hospital-related outcomes and post-operative back pain, with overall similar post-operative leg pain, disability, fusion rates, and complications -suggesting that Endo-LIF may be effective, safe, and comparable in most domains to MIS and open techniques, for the management of LDD. However, for some analyses, we observed substantial heterogeneity, which may Endo-LIF vs MIS-LIF: forest plots with the mean difference for post-operative leg pain (6,15,16,18,21,22,23,29,35,36). https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-23-0167 Spine be explained by differences across studies, including the year of publication, endoscopic technique, and/or approach (uniportal versus biportal and interlaminar versus transforaminal).…”

“…Bedtime and hospital length of stay were significantly longer in the Open-LIF and MIS-LIF groups. Extensive surgical-induced trauma may have an impact on these outcomes -previous works suggested local and systemic effects induced by these surgical techniques, with reported higher levels of systemic inflammatory markers (creatine kinase protein, C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, interleukin-6, and tumor necrosis factor-α) and elevated injury and fatty infiltration rates in multifidus muscles Endo-LIF vs MIS-LIF: forest plots with the mean difference for post-operative disability (6,14,15,16,18,21,22,23,29,35,36,38).…”

“…#Performing leave-one-out sensitivity analyses, omittingJin, 2020 (24), results: −3.6 (−4.1; −3.0;P < 0.001) (50%).CEndo, endoscopic; I 2 , heterogeneity; LIF, lumbar interbody fusion; MD, mean difference; MIS, minimally invasive surgery; QC-P, Q Cochran's P value.Figure 2Endo-LIF vs MIS-LIF: forest plots with the mean difference for surgical-and hospital-related outcomes(6,14,15,16,18,20,21,22,23,25,29,34,35,36,38).Downloaded from Bioscientifica.com at 06/10/2024 06:02:40AM via Open Access. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.…”