0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Double Cages: Surgical Techniques and Treatment Outcomes

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To describe the surgical techniques and the treatment outcomes of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BETLIF) using double cages.

          Methods

          This study included 89 patients with 114 fusion segments between July 2019 and May 2021. One pure polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage and 1 composite titanium-PEEK cage were used for interbody fusion. Clinical outcomes measures included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for lower back pain and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores. Computed tomography (CT) of the lumbar spine 1 year postoperatively was used to evaluate the Bridwell interbody fusion grades.

          Results

          There were significant improvement in VAS for lower back pain from 5.2±3.1 to 1.7±2.1, VAS for leg pain from 6.3±2.5 to 1.7±2.0, ODI from 46.7±17.0 to 12.7±16.1, and JOA score from 15.6±6.3 to 26.4±3.2. The p-values were all <0.001. The average hospital stay was 5.7±1.1 days. The CT studies available for 60 fusion segments showed successful fusion (Bridwell grade I or grade II) in 56 segments (93.3%). Significant cage subsidence of more than 2 mm was only noted in 3 segments (5.0%). Complications included 1 dural tear, 2 pedicle screws malposition, and 2 epidural hematomas, in which 2 patients required reoperations.

          Conclusion

          BETLIF with double cages provided good neural decompression and a sound environment for interbody fusion with a big cage footprint, a large amount of bone graft, endplate preservation, and segmental stability.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF.

          Degenerative disc and facet joint disease of the lumbar spine is common in the ageing population, and is one of the most frequent causes of disability. Lumbar spondylosis may result in mechanical back pain, radicular and claudicant symptoms, reduced mobility and poor quality of life. Surgical interbody fusion of degenerative levels is an effective treatment option to stabilize the painful motion segment, and may provide indirect decompression of the neural elements, restore lordosis and correct deformity. The surgical options for interbody fusion of the lumbar spine include: posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF), oblique lumbar interbody fusion/anterior to psoas (OLIF/ATP), lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). The indications may include: discogenic/facetogenic low back pain, neurogenic claudication, radiculopathy due to foraminal stenosis, lumbar degenerative spinal deformity including symptomatic spondylolisthesis and degenerative scoliosis. In general, traditional posterior approaches are frequently used with acceptable fusion rates and low complication rates, however they are limited by thecal sac and nerve root retraction, along with iatrogenic injury to the paraspinal musculature and disruption of the posterior tension band. Minimally invasive (MIS) posterior approaches have evolved in an attempt to reduce approach related complications. Anterior approaches avoid the spinal canal, cauda equina and nerve roots, however have issues with approach related abdominal and vascular complications. In addition, lateral and OLIF techniques have potential risks to the lumbar plexus and psoas muscle. The present study aims firstly to comprehensively review the available literature and evidence for different lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) techniques. Secondly, we propose a set of recommendations and guidelines for the indications for interbody fusion options. Thirdly, this article provides a description of each approach, and illustrates the potential benefits and disadvantages of each technique with reference to indication and spine level performed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            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?

            This was a prospective study of 24 adult patients with kyphosis or anterior column spinal defects treated with anterior fresh frozen allograft for anterior column defects and posterior instrumentation and autogenous grafting. The objectives of the study were to assess the effectiveness of the anterior allograft in maintaining sagittal correction and to assess anterior incorporation. Twenty-four patients were followed for a minimum of 2 years (range, 2 + 0-5 + 4 years). Upright radiographs were analyzed before surgery, immediately after surgery, and at the final follow-up examination to assess success of anterior fusion and maintenance of correction. A strict four-point grading system was used. Two independent observers analyzed the radiographic results. Only two patients showed some collapse of their anterior allograft. The other 22 patients maintained correction, attaining a Grade I or Grade II fusion. Semiconstrained instrumentation ws used posteriorly in the two patients who had graft collapse. Anterior structural allograft worked effectively to maintain correction of kyphosis if combined with posterior instrumentation and autogenous grafting. Rigid forms of posterior instrumentation were preferred.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Fully endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using a percutaneous unilateral biportal endoscopic technique: technical note and preliminary clinical results

              Minimally invasive spine surgery can minimize damage to normal anatomical structures. Recently, fully endoscopic spine surgeries have been attempted for lumbar fusion surgery. In this study, the authors performed a percutaneous unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) technique as a minimally invasive surgery for lumbar fusion. The purpose of this study is to present the UBE technique of fully endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) and to analyze the clinical results. Patients who were to undergo single-level fusion surgery from L3–4 to L5–S1 were enrolled. Two channels (endoscopic portal and working portal) were used for endoscopic lumbar fusion surgery. All patients underwent follow-up for more than 12 months. Demographic characteristics, diagnosis, operative time, and estimated blood loss were evaluated. MRI was performed on postoperative Day 2. Clinical evaluations (visual analog scale [VAS] for the leg and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] scores) were performed preoperatively and during the follow-up period. A total of 69 patients (24 men and 45 women) were enrolled in this study. The mean follow-up period was 13.5 months. Postoperative MRI revealed optimal direct neural decompression after fully endoscopic fusion surgery. VAS and ODI scores significantly improved after the surgery. There was no postoperative neurological deterioration. Fully endoscopic LIF using the UBE technique may represent an alternative minimally invasive LIF surgery for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. Long-term follow-up and larger clinical studies are needed to validate the clinical and radiological results of this surgery.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Neurospine
                Neurospine
                NS
                Neurospine
                Korean Spinal Neurosurgery Society
                2586-6583
                2586-6591
                March 2023
                31 March 2023
                : 20
                : 1
                : 80-91
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Far-Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan
                [2 ]Longhwa University of Science and Technology, Taoyuan, Taiwan
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author Jwo-Luen Pao Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Far-Eastern Memorial Hospital, 21, Section 2, Nanya South Road, Banqiao District, New Taipei 22060, Taiwan Email: jwoluenpao@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2000-5146
                Article
                ns-2346036-018
                10.14245/ns.2346036.018
                10080423
                37016856
                5d2c447f-5054-4b86-a355-2667a1c22ff9
                Copyright © 2023 by the Korean Spinal Neurosurgery Society

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 14 January 2023
                : 28 February 2023
                : 3 March 2023
                Categories
                Original Article
                NASS/Neurospine Endoscopic Spine Surgery Special Issue

                minimally invasive surgery,biportal endoscopy,interbody fusion,fusion cage,computed tomography,treatment outcomes

                Comments

                Comment on this article