Enhanced recovery after surgery pathway with modified biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a large cage. Comparative study with minimally invasive microscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion


doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-07747-9.


Online ahead of print.

Affiliations

Item in Clipboard

Dong Hwa Heo et al.


Eur Spine J.


.

Abstract


Purpose:

Studies about the clinical efficacy of endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway are insufficient. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate clinical usefulness of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using an ERAS compared with microscopic TLIF.


Methods:

Prospectively collected data were retrospectively analyzed. Patients who received modified biportal endoscopic TLIF with ERAS were grouped into an endoscopic TLIF group. Those who received microscopic TLIF without ERAS were grouped into a microscopic TLIF group. Clinical and radiologic parameters were compared between two groups. Fusion rate was evaluated using sagittal reconstruction images of postoperative computed tomographic (CT) scan.


Results:

There were 32 patients in the endoscopic TLIF group with ERAS and 41 patients in the microscopic TLIF group without ERAS. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back pain preoperatively at day one and day two were significantly (p < 0.05) higher in the non-ERAS microscopic TLIF group than in the ERAS endoscopic TLIF group. Preoperative Oswestry Disability Index were significantly improved at the last follow-up in both groups. The fusion rate at postoperative one year was 87.5% in the endoscopic TLIF group and 85.4% in the microscopic TLIF group.


Conclusion:

Biportal endoscopic TLIF with ERAS pathway may have good aspect to accelerate recovery after surgery. There was no inferiority of fusion rate of endoscopic TLIF comparing to microscopic TLIF. Biportal endoscopic TLIF using a large cage with ERAS pathway may be a good alternative treatment for lumbar degenerative disease.


Keywords:

Biportal; Endoscopy; Fusion; Lumbar; Recovery.

References

    1. Fehlings MG, Tetreault L, Nater A, Choma T, Harrop J, Mroz T, Santaguida C, Smith JS (2015) The aging of the global population: the changing epidemiology of disease and spinal disorders. Neurosurgery 77(Suppl 4):S1-5. https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000000953



      DOI



      PubMed

    1. Debono B, Wainwright TW, Wang MY, Sigmundsson FG, Yang MMH, Smid-Nanninga H, Bonnal A, Le Huec JC, Fawcett WJ, Ljungqvist O, Lonjon G, de Boer HD (2021) Consensus statement for perioperative care in lumbar spinal fusion: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations. Spine J 21:729–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2021.01.001



      DOI



      PubMed

    1. Heo DH, Park CK (2019) Clinical results of percutaneous biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion with application of enhanced recovery after surgery. Neurosurg Focus 46:E18. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.1.Focus18695



      DOI



      PubMed

    1. Heo DH, Ha JS, Jang JW (2023) Biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy for adjacent 2-level foraminal lesions using a single approach (sliding technique). Neurospine 20:92–98. https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.2346144.072



      DOI



      PubMed



      PMC

    1. Heo DH, Eum JH, Jo JY, Chung H (2021) Modified far lateral endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a biportal endoscopic approach: technical report and preliminary results. Acta Neurochir 163:1205–1209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-021-04758-7



      DOI



      PubMed

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on vk
VK
Share on pinterest
Pinterest
Close Menu