Advertisement

Clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): 1-year follow-up

  • Man-Kyu Park
  • Soo-An ParkEmail author
  • Sang-Kyu Son
  • Weon-Wook Park
  • Seung-Hyun Choi
Original Article
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

This study retrospectively compared clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) to those of conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Seventy-one ULIF (age, 68 ± 8 years) and 70 PLIF (66 ± 9 years) patients for one lumbosacral segment followed more than 1 year were selected. Parameters for surgical techniques (operation time, whether transfused), clinical results [visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI)], surgical complications (dural tear, nerve root injury, infection), and radiological results (cage subsidence, screw loosening, fusion) between the two groups were compared. The PLIF group demonstrated a significantly shorter operation time and more transfusions done than the ULIF group. The VAS for leg pain in both groups and for back pain in the ULIF group significantly improved at 1 week, while the VAS for back pain in the PLIF group significantly improved at 1 year. ODI scores improved at 1 year in both groups. Complication rates were not significantly different between groups. Fusion rates with definite and probable grades were not significantly different between groups. However, the ULIF group had significantly (P = 0.013) fewer cases of definite fusion and more cases of probable fusion [43 (74.1%) and 15 (25.9%) cases, respectively] than the PLIF group [58 (92.1%) and 5 (7.9%) cases, respectively]. ULIF is less invasive while just as effective as conventional PLIF in improving clinical outcomes and obtaining fusion. However, ULIF has a longer operation time than PLIF and requires further development to improve the fusion grade.

Keywords

Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion Posterior lumbar interbody fusion Clinical outcome Radiological outcome 

Notes

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Ministry of Health and Welfare in South Korea (P01-201810-21-006).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

Online resource 1

ULIF procedures resecting facet joint and exposing the ipsilateral disc surface (WMV 12427 kb)

Online resource 2

Endplate preparation in ULIF procedures (WMV 13896 kb)

10143_2019_1114_MOESM3_ESM.wmv (10.5 mb)
Online resource 3 Cage inserting procedure while protecting thecal sac in ULIF procedures (WMV 10740 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Basques B, Golinvaux N, Bohl D, Yacob A, Toy J, Varthi A, Grauer J (2014) Use of an operating microscope during spine surgery is associated with minor increases in operating room times and no increased risk of infection. Spine 39:1910–1916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boukebir M, Berlin C, Navarro Ramirez R, Heiland T, Schöller K, Rawanduzy C, Kirnaz S, Jada A, Härtl R (2017) Ten-step minimally invasive spine lumbar decompression and dural repair through tubular retractors. Open Neurosci J 13:232–245Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elkan P, Sten Linder M, Hedlund R, Willers U, Ponzer S, Gerdhem P (2016) Markers of inflammation and fibrinolysis in relation to outcome after surgery for lumbar disc herniation. A prospective study on 177 patients. Eur Spine J 25:186–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gibson JNA, Subramanian A, Scott CEH (2017) A randomised controlled trial of transforaminal endoscopic discectomy vs microdiscectomy. Eur Spine J 26:847–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hara M, Takahashi H, Yokoyama Y, Wada A, Hasegawa K, Iida Y (2015) Comparison of the invasiveness of conventional discectomy and microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: differences in the methods of approach. Asian J Endosc Surg 8:40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heo D, Son S, Eum J, Park C (2017) Fully endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using a percutaneous unilateral biportal endoscopic technique: technical note and preliminary clinical results. Neurosurg Focus 43:E8–E8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hsu H-T, Chang S-J, Yang S, Chai C (2013) Learning curve of full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Eur Spine J 22:727–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hwa Eum J, Hwa Heo D, Son S, Park C (2016) Percutaneous biportal endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a technical note and preliminary clinical results. J Neurosurg Spine 24:602–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jacquot F, Gastambide D (2013) Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: is it worth it? Int Orthop 37:1507–1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jin Tao Q, Yu T, Mei W, Xu Dong T, Tian Jian Z, Guo Hua S, Lei C, Yue H, Zi Tian W, Yue Z (2015) Comparison of MIS vs. open PLIF/TLIF with regard to clinical improvement, fusion rate, and incidence of major complication: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 24:1058–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Komp M, Hahn P, Oezdemir S, Giannakopoulos A, Heikenfeld R, Kasch R, Merk H, Godolias G, Ruetten S (2015) Bilateral spinal decompression of lumbar central stenosis with the full-endoscopic interlaminar versus microsurgical laminotomy technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Pain Physician 18:61–70Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee C, Choi M, Ryu D, Choi I, Kim C, Kim H, Sohn M (2018) Efficacy and safety of full-endoscopic decompression via interlaminar approach for central or lateral recess spinal stenosis of the lumbar spine: a meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43:1756–1764.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002708 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee K, Yue W, Yeo W, Soehamo H, Tan S (2012) Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 21:2265–2270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee S, Lee J, Yeom J, Kim K-J, Kim H-J, Chung S, Kang H (2010) A practical MRI grading system for lumbar foraminal stenosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:1095–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rasouli MR, Rahimi-Movaghar V, Shokraneh F, Moradi-Lakeh M, Chou R (2014) Minimally invasive discectomy versus microdiscectomy/open discectomy for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4. John Wiley &Sons, Ltd, New York.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010328.pub2
  16. 16.
    Ruan W, Feng F, Liu Z, Xie J, Cai L, Ping A (2016) Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy versus open lumbar microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a metaanalysis. Int J Surg 31:86–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Torudom Y, Dilokhuttakarn T (2016) Two portal percutaneous endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: preliminary study. Asian Spine J 10:335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang M, Grossman J (2016) Endoscopic minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion without general anesthesia: initial clinical experience with 1-year follow-up. Neurosurg Focus 40:E13–E13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Youn MS, Shin JK, Goh TS, Lee JS (2018) Full endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (FELIF): technical note. Eur Spine J 27:1949–1955.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5521-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019
corrected publication 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryParkweonwook HospitalBusanSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryParkweonwook HospitalBusanSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryChung General HospitalSeongnam-siSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations