Innovative Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Instability: A Non-Randomized Clinical Trial

Yin, Peng; Ding, Yi; Zhou, Lijin; Xu, Chunyang; Gao, Haifeng; Pang, Daming; Hai, Yong; Yang, Jincai

doi:10.2147/jpr.s340004

Cited by 13 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…PTED is a minimally invasive procedure with the advantage of a clear intraoperative view, which reduces intraoperative injuries and complications. It is also possible to achieve effective decompression of the nerve root, relieving clinical symptoms, and with a rapid postoperative recovery, patients can return to work and life early [ 17 , 18 ]. However, the procedure is demanding, and the operator's level of puncture positioning and microscopic manipulation can directly affect postoperative outcomes and associated complications, making the use of PTED for LSS somewhat challenging [ 19 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcome of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression for Multisegment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and the Effect on VAS Scores

Guo

2022

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. To investigate the efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic lumbar decompression (PTED) in the treatment of multisegment lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and its effect on VAS scores. Methods. 126 patients with multisegment LSS admitted between August 2017 and August 2021 were selected and divided into the PTED group and the traditional open surgery group (TOS group) according to the different treatment methods. There were 70 cases in the PTED group, treated with PTED, and 56 cases in the TOS group, treated with traditional open surgery. The clinical outcomes, the preoperative and postoperative pain visual analogue scale (VAS), the Oswestry disability index (ODI), the SF-36 quality of life questionnaire scores, the perioperative indicators (operative time, days in hospital, intraoperative blood loss), the postoperative complications, and imaging data were compared between the two groups. Results. After the operation, the excellent and good rate in the PTED group (91.43%) was significantly higher than that in the TOS group (75.00%) ( P < 0.05 ). At each time after the operation, the VAS and ODI scores of the two groups were lower than those before the operation, and the VAS scores of the PTED group at 1 day and 3 months after operation were lower than those of the TOS group, and the ODI scores of the PTED group at 3 months after operation were lower than those of the TOS group ( P < 0.05 ). 3 months after the operation, the SF-36 scores in both groups were higher than those before the operation, and those in the PTED group were higher than those in the TOS group ( P < 0.05 ). The operation time and days in hospital in the PTED group were shorter than those in the TOS group, and the intraoperative dominant blood loss and recessive blood loss were less than those in the TOS group ( P < 0.05 ). The total incidence of complications in the PTED group (15.71%) was significantly lower than that in the TOS group (32.14%) ( P < 0.05 ). Conclusion. Both PTED and traditional open surgery are effective in treating patients with multisegmental LSS, and both show positive postoperative changes in all indicators, but the former has more promising near -term results in improving lumbar spine pain, function and quality of life than the latter, and has the advantages of less trauma, less bleeding, and fewer complications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcome of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression for Multisegment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and the Effect on VAS Scores

Guo

2022

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The main difference among the approaches is which part of the facet joint is removed. The superior articular process (SAP) is removed to establish a working channel in PE-TLIF ( 30 ). The inferior articular process (IAP) and the medial part of the SAP are removed in PE-PLIF ( 9 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Vs. Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

et al. 2022

Front. Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundEndoscopic lumbar interbody fusion is a new technology that is mostly used for single-segment and unilateral lumbar spine surgery. The purpose of this study is to introduce percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PE-PLIF) with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) for lumbar spondylolisthesis and evaluate the efficacy by comparing it with open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).MethodsTwenty-eight patients were enrolled in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group and the open PLIF group. The perioperative data of the two groups were compared to evaluate the safety of PE-PLIF with ULBD. The visual analog scale (VAS) back pain, VAS leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores of the two groups preoperatively and postoperatively were compared to evaluate clinical efficacy. Preoperative and postoperative imaging data were collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the operation.ResultsNo differences in baseline data were found between the two groups (p > 0.05). The operation time in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group (221.2 ± 32.9 min) was significantly longer than that in the PLIF group (138.4 ± 25.7 min) (p < 0.05), and the estimated blood loss and postoperative hospitalization were lower than those of the PLIF group (p < 0.05). The postoperative VAS and ODI scores were significantly improved in both groups (p < 0.05), but the postoperative VAS back pain score in the PE-PLIF group was significantly lower than that in the PLIF group (p < 0.05). The excellent and good rates in both groups were 96.4% according to MacNab’s criteria. The disc height and cross-sectional area of the spinal canal were significantly improved in the two groups after surgery (p < 0.05), with no difference between the groups (p > 0.05). The fusion rates in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group and the PLIF group were 89.3% and 92.9% (p > 0.05), respectively, the cage subsidence rates were 14.3% and 17.9% (p > 0.05), respectively, and the lumbar spondylolisthesis reduction rates were 92.72 ± 6.39% and 93.54 ± 5.21%, respectively (p > 0.05).ConclusionThe results from this study indicate that ULBD can be successfully performed during PE-PLIF, and the combined procedure is a safe and reliable treatment method for lumbar spondylolisthesis.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the max-CSA in the endo-TLIF group was lower than the PLIF group at 1 week postoperatively but was significantly higher at 3 and 6 months. These results suggest that the PLIF technique may lead to more muscle injury and swelling immediately postoperatively and increased back muscle atrophy, which could be linked to a higher postoperative visual analog scale (back) score and a potential for future failed back surgery syndrome due to paraspinal muscle atrophy causing postoperative low back pain [ 40 - 43 ]. Nonetheless, more comparative studies between endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF are needed to further confirm this hypothesis.…”

Section: Decrease Back Muscle Injurymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review, and Future Perspective

Pholprajug,

Kotheeranurak,

Liu

et al. 2023

Neurospine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lumbar interbody fusion stands as a preferred surgical solution for degenerative lumbar spine diseases. The procedure primarily aims to establish lumbar segment stability, directly addressing patient symptoms associated with spinal complications. Traditional open surgery, though effective, is linked with notable morbidities and extended recovery time. To mitigate these concerns, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has garnered significant popularity, presenting an appealing alternative with numerous benefits such as reduced soft tissue trauma, decreased blood loss, and expedited recovery. Among MIS procedures, full endoscopic spinal surgery, characterized by its minimal invasiveness, holds the potential to further minimize morbidities while enhancing surgical outcomes. Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion, a novel procedure within this paradigm, has gained attention for offering advantages comparable to those of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. However, the safety, efficacy, and associated surgical techniques and instrument design of this method continue to be subjects of ongoing debate. This paper critically reviews current evidence on the safety, efficacy, and advantages of endoscopic lumbar spinal interbody fusion, examining whether it could indeed supersede existing mainstream techniques.

show abstract

Innovative Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Instability: A Non-Randomized Clinical Trial

Cited by 13 publications

References 24 publications

Outcome of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression for Multisegment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and the Effect on VAS Scores

Outcome of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression for Multisegment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and the Effect on VAS Scores

Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Vs. Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

The Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review, and Future Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About