Warning: mkdir(): Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 87 Warning: chmod() expects exactly 2 parameters, 3 given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 88 Warning: fopen(/home/virtual/e-kjs/journal/upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-12.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 95 Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 96
Neurospine > Volume 21(3); 2024 > Article |
|
|
Funding/Support
This study received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author Contribution
Conceptualization: BIB, CAI, ONK, GE, RH; Formal analysis: BIB, CAI, SI; Data curation: BIB, CAI, SI, MO; Methodology: BIB, CAI, SI, RB, GE; Project Administration: GE, RH; Writing – original draft: BIB, CAI, SI, GD, ONK, GE, RH; Writing – review & editing: BIB, CAI, SI, GD, RB, MO, ONK, GE, RH.
Study | Study title | Study type | No. of patients | Avg. age (yr) | Sex, M:F | Level(s) | Surgery | Complications (no., % of cohort) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Vaishnav et al. [84] | A review of time-demand, radiation exposure and outcomes of skin-anchored intraoperative 3D navigation in minimally invasive lumbar spinal surgery | Retrospective | 326 | 55 | 171:155 | L | Tubular | Tubular: UTI (1, 1.1%), Postoperative sensory or motor deficit (2, 2.4%) respiratory depression (1, 1.3%) cardiac arrhythmia (1, 1.5%) nausea & vomiting (2, 2.7%), urinary retention requiring catheterization (7, 9.8%) incision-site edema (1, 1.3%) durotomy (1, 1.3%) |
Lee et al. [85] | A Beginner’s perspective on biportal endoscopic spine surgery in single-level lumbar decompression: a comparative study with a microscopic surgery | Retrospective | 47 | 60.1 | 27:20 | L | Biportal | Biportal: Dural tear (2, 4.26%), conversion to open surgery (2.13%) |
Cahill et al. [86] | A comparison of acute hospital charges after tubular versus open microdiskectomy | Retrospective | 48 | 45 | 25:23 | L | Tubular | Tubular: Durotomy (1, 2.08%), postoperative diskitis (1, 2.08%) |
Patel et al. [87] | A decade with micro-tubular decompression: peri-operative complications and surgical outcomes in single and multilevel lumbar canal stenosis | Retrospective | 625 | 69.1 | 353:272 | L | Tubular | Tubular: Intraoperative major building (1, 0.16%), dural tear (10, 1.6%), conversion to open surgery (3, 0.48%), UTI, prolonged catheterization (11, 1.76%), SIADH (7, 1.2%), new neurological deficit (7, 1.12%), paresthesia (11, 1.76%), pneumonia (2, 0.32%), ARDS (1, 0.16%), volume overload (transfusion related) (1, 0.16%), IHD (1, 0.16%), DVT (1, 0.16%), superficial infection (10, 1.6%), deep infection (2, 0.32%), wound dehiscence (1, 0.16%), fever (12, 1.92%) |
Kumar et al. [88] | A hospital based prospective outcome assessment of minimally invasive spine decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis and intervertebral disc prolapse | Prospective | 20 | N/S, 21–40 | 12:8 | L | Tubular | Tubular: CSF leak (1, 5%), superficial surgical site infection (1, 5%) |
Dai et al. [89] | A new method for establishing operative channels in unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery: technical notes and preliminary results | Retrospective | 50 | 34.48 | 34:16 | L | Uniportal | Revision: 1 (2.0%), dura tear 1 (2.0%) |
Wang et al. [90] | A single-arm retrospective study of the clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis | Retrospective | 73 | 60.78 | 29:44 | L | Biportal | Biportal: Postoperative epidural hematoma (3, 4.11%), dural tear (2, 2.74%), transient pain in the buttocks (2, 2.74%), temporary dysesthesia (1, 1.37%), transient muscle paralysis of both lower limbs (9, 12.33%) |
Kim et al. [91] | Advantages of new endoscopic unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression (Ulbd) over conventional microscopic Ulbd | Retrospective | 60 | 64.23 | 13:17 | L | Biportal | Biportal: Cerebrospinal fluid leak (1, 3.33%) |
Wu et al. [92] | Ambulatory uniportal versus biportal endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis-cohort study using a prospective registry | Prospective | 62 | 31.08 | 29:32 | L | Uniportal, biportal | Uniportal: Conversion to open surgery due to bleeding (4, 13.8%), Incidental durotomy (3, 10.3%), one durotomy required conversion to open surgery (3.44%) |
Thavara et al. [93] | Analysis of the surgical technique and outcome of the thoracic and lumbar intradural spinal tumor excision using minimally invasive tubular retractor system | Retrospective | 12 | 48 | 5:7 | T (8), L (4) | Tubular | Tubular: Surgical site infection (1, 8.33%), CSF leak (1, 8.33%), Pseudo meningocele (1, 8.33%) |
Wu et al. [94] | Awake unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression under local anesthesia for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly: a feasibility study with technique note | Retrospective | 31 | 70.49 | 13:18 | L | Biportal | Biportal: Intraoperative neck pain (1, 3.23%), Transient lower limb numbness (3, 9.68%) |
Wang et al. [95] | Biologics and minimally invasive approach to TLIFs: what is the risk of radiculitis? | Retrospective | 174 | 58.39 | 92:92 | L | Tubular | Tubular: radiculitis (22, 12.64%), infection/wound complication (2, 1.15%), pseudoarthrosis (7, 4.02%), unspecified postoperative complication (56, 32.18%) |
Park et al. [96] | Biportal endoscopic approach for lumbar degenerative disease in the ambulatory outpatient vs inpatient setting: a comparative study | Retrospective | 84 | 60 | 59:25 | L | Biportal | Outpatient: postoperative radiculitis (10, 17.0%), postoperative weakness (1, 1.7%), wound drainage (1, 1.7%), reherniation (1, 1.7%), Inpatient: postoperative radiculitis (5, 19%), postoperative weakness (1, 3.8%), reherniation (1, 3.8%) |
Wang et al. [97] | Biportal endoscopic decompression, debridement, and interbody fusion, combined with percutaneous screw fixation for lumbar brucellosis spondylitis | Retrospective | 13 | 52 | 10:3 | L | Biportal | Superficial incision infection (1, 76.9%) |
Choi et al. [98] | Biportal endoscopic discectomy versus tubular microscopic discectomy for treating single-level lumbar disc herniation in obese patients: a multicenter, retrospective analysis | Retrospective | 73 | 45.71 | 39:34 | L | Tubular, biportal | Tubular: Asymptomatic hematoma (9, 25.6%), wound dehiscence (3, 6.9%), symptom aggravation due to remnant or recurrent disc herniation (18, 41.9%), reoperation due to remnant or recurrent disc herniation (8, 18.6%), Biportal: incidental durotomy (1, 3.3%), asymptomatic hematoma (6, 20.0%), symptom aggravation due to remnant or recurrent disc herniation (7, 23.3%), reoperation due to remnant or recurrent disc herniation (8, 18.6%) |
Heo et al. [99] | Biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy for adjacent 2-level foraminal lesions using a single approach (sliding technique) | Retrospective | 12 | 57.8 | 10:2 | C | Biportal | Temporary numbness of forearm (recovered spontaneously) (1, 8.33%), small bullae on chin area after surgery (1, 8.33%) |
Pérez et al. [100] | Biportal endoscopic spine surgery: clinical results for 163 patients | Retrospective | 163 | 53 | 88:75 | L | Biportal | Insufficient decompression (6, 3.7%), durotomy (2, 1.2%), CSF fistula (1, 0.6%), infection (1, 0.6%) |
Jung et al. [101] | Biportal endoscopic spine surgery for cervical disk herniation: a technical notes and preliminary report | Retrospective | 109 | 54.5 | 84:25 | C | Biportal | One case of postoperative motor weakness of shoulder abduction and elbow flexion rated as MRC grade 2 from initial rating of grade 4 (resolved after 4 weeks) |
Pao et al. [102] | Biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using double cages: surgical techniques and treatment outcomes | Retrospective | 89 | 64.7 | 17:72 | L | Biportal | Dural tear (1, 1.1%), pedicle screw malposition (2, 2.2%), epidural hematoma (2, 2.2%), reoperation (2, 2.2%) |
Park et al. [103] | Biportal endoscopic versus microscopic lumbar decompressive laminectomy in patients with spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial | Retrospective | 34 | 66.2 | 18:14 | L | Biportal | Biportal: Incidental durotomy (2, 7%), symptomatic hematoma with revision surgery (1, 3%) |
Yuan et al. [104] | Clinical analysis of minimally invasive percutaneous treatment of severe lumbar disc herniation with UBE two-channel endoscopy and foraminal single-channel endoscopy technique | Retrospective | 22 | 40 | 10:12 | L | Biportal | Biportal: CSF leak (2, 9.09%) |
Min et al. [105] | Clinical and radiological outcomes between biportal endoscopic decompression and microscopic decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis | Retrospective | 54 | 65.74 | 27:27 | L | Biportal | Biportal: Dural tear (2, 3.70%), postoperative epidural hematoma (1, 1.85%) |
Kim and Choi [106] | Clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression by 30degree arthroscopy in lumbar spinal stenosis: minimum 2-year follow-up | Retrospective | 55 | 70.7 | 26:29 | L | Biportal | Biportal: Dural tear (2, 3.64%), epidural hematoma (1, 1.82%) |
Park et al. [15] | Clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): 1-year follow-up | Retrospective | 71 | 68 | 26:45 | L | Biportal | Biportal: Dural tear (3, 4.2%), hematoma (1, 1.4%), infection (1, 1.4%) |
Hao et al. [107] | Clinical comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for single l4/5-level lumbar disk herniation | Retrospective | 20 | 58.2 | 14:6 | L | Biportal | Biportal: CSF leak (1, 5%), postoperative headache (1, 5%) |
Ito et al. [108] | Clinical comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic laminectomy versus microendoscopic laminectomy for single-level laminectomy: a single-center, retrospective analysis | Retrospective | 139 | 68 | 18:14 | L | Biportal | Biportal: Dural injury (2, 8.33%) |
Kim et al. [109] | Clinical comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic technique versus open microdiscectomy for single-level lumbar discectomy: a multicenter, retrospective analysis | Retrospective | 60 | 65.74 | 37:23 | L | Biportal | Biportal: Conversion to open surgery (3, 5%) |
Guo et al. [110] | Clinical comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion verse 3D microscope-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis with lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study with 24-month follow-up | Retrospective | 26 | 64.15 | 12:14 | L | Biportal | Biportal: Dural tear (2, 7.69%), Intracranial hypertension (1, 3.85%) |
Hu et al. [111] | Clinical efficacy and imaging outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopy with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression in the treatment of severe lumbar spinal stenosis | Retrospective | 50 | 68.52 | 20:30 | L | Biportal | Dural tear (2, 4%) |
Liu et al. [112] | Clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) | Prospective | 27 | 63.89 | 12:15 | L | Biportal | Biportal: Dural tear (1, 1.67%) |
Heo and Park [41] | Clinical results of percutaneous biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion with application of enhanced recovery after surgery | Prospective | 23 | 61.4 | 7:16 | L | Biportal | Biportal: Postoperative epidural hematoma (1, 2.17%), cage subsidence (1, 2.17%) |
Lee et al. [113] | Comparative analysis between three different lumbar decompression techniques (Microscopic, tubular, and endoscopic) in lumbar canal and lateral recess stenosis: preliminary report | Retrospective | 198 | 54.68 | 62:136 | L | Uniportal, tubular | Uniportal: Dural tear (4, 2.44%), dysthesia (7, 4.27%), motor weakness (1, 0.61%), disc recur (1, 0.61%), Tubular: post-op hematoma (1, 2.94%), dysthesia (1, 2.94%), disc recur (1, 2.94%) |
Kim et al. [114] | Comparative analysis of 3 types of minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy for foraminal stenosis, uniportal-, biportal endoscopy, and microsurgery: radiologic and midterm clinical outcomes | Retrospective | 118 | 56.49 | 80:38 | C | Uniportal, biportal, tubular | Uniportal: transient nerve root palsy (2, 5.26%), recurrence (1, 2.63%), Biportal: recurrence (2, 6.67%), transient nerve root palsy (1, 3.33%), Tubular: recurrence (2, 4%), hematoma (2, 4%), dural tear (1, 3.33%), revision (1, 3.33%) |
Heo et al. [115] | Comparative analysis of three types of minimally invasive decompressive surgery for lumbar central stenosis: biportal endoscopy, uniportal endoscopy, and microsurgery | Retrospective | 64 | 66.95 | 26:38 | L | Uniportal, biportal | Uniportal: Durotomy (1, 3.70%), transient weakness (1, 3.70%), postop hematoma (1, 3.70%), Biportal: Durotomy (1, 2.70%), postop hematoma (1, 2.70%) |
Kim et al. [116] | Comparative clinical and radiographic cohort study: uniportal thoracic endoscopic laminotomy with bilateral decompression by using the 1-block resection technique and thoracic open laminotomy with bilateral decompression for thoracic ossified ligamentum flavum | Retrospective | 31 | 64 | 15:16 | T | Uniportal, open | Uniportal: Incomplete decompression (1, 3.23%), incidental durotomy (1, 3.23%) |
Antony et al. [117] | Case series of tubular retractor assisted minimally invasive extraforaminal l5/s1 microdiskectomy | Prospective | 28 | 62 | 15:13 | L | Tubular | Tubular: 2 (7.1%) (persistent or recurrent radicular pain (2)) |
He et al. [118] | Comparison of biportal endoscopic technique and uniportal endoscopic technique in Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decompression (ULBD) for lumbar spinal stenosis | Retrospective | 65 (biportal, 33; uniportal, 32) | Biportal, 67.72; uniportal, 62.50 | Biportal, 20:13; uniportal, 15:17 | L | Uniportal, biportal | Uniportal: 3 (9.4%) (dural tear (1), transient leg numbness (2), infection (0)), Biportal: 1 (3.0%) (dural tear (0), transient leg numbness (1), infection (0)) |
Jung et al. [21] | Comparison of cervical biportal endoscopic spine surgery and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in patients with symptomatic cervical disc herniation | Retrospective | 162 | 54 | 113:49 | C | Biportal | Biportal: 3 (1.9%) (motor weakness: 2, muscle soreness: 1) |
Wang et al. [119] | Comparison of clinical outcomes and muscle invasiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy for lumbar disc herniation at L5/S1 level | Retrospective | 51 | 43.8 | 22:29 | L | Biportal | Biportal: 3 (5.9%) (dura tear (1), nerve root injury (1), intervertebral infection (1)) |
Wu et al. [120] | Comparison of clinical outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy for migrated lumbar disc herniation at lower lumbar spine: a retrospective controlled study | Retrospective | 31 | 58.5 | 16:15 | L | Biportal | Biportal: 1 (3.2%) (dural tear (1)) |
Zhang et al. [121] | Comparison of endoscope-assisted and microscope-assisted tubular surgery for lumbar laminectomies and discectomies: minimum 2-year follow-up results | Retrospective | 145 | 49.74 | 79:66 | L | Tubular | Tubular: 14 (9.7%) (dural tear (8), wound infection (1), repeated surgery within 2 years (5)) |
Kotheer- anurak et al. [122] | Comparison of full-endoscopic and tubular-based microscopic decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial | Prospective | 30 | 55.73 | 13:17 | L | Tubular | Tubular: 6 (20.0%) (dural tear (1), infection (1), ipsilateral dysesthesia (1), contralateral dysesthesia (2), instability at 12 months postsurgery (1)) |
Özer et al. [123] | Comparison of lumbar microdiscectomy and unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy outcomes: a single-center experience | Retrospective | 54 | Not available | 30:24 | L | Biportal | Biportal: 2 (3.7%) (temporary blindness in one eye due to retinal hemorrhage (1), dural tear (1)) |
Librianto et al. [124] | Comparison of microscopic decompression and biportal endoscopic spinal surgery in the treatment of lumbar canal stenosis and herniated disc: a one-year follow-up | Retrospective | 102 (biportal, 54; tubular, 48) | Biportal, 46.33; tubular, 44.93 | Biportal, 34:20; tubular, 27:19 | Biportal, tubular | Biportal: 0 (0%), Tubular: 10 (27.8%) (residual leg pain (3), recurrent leg pain (6), segment instability (1)) | |
Kim et al. [125] | Comparison of minimal invasive versus biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar disease | Retrospective | 87 (biportal, 32; tubular, 55) | Biportal, 70.5; tubular, 67.3 | Biportal, 17:15; tubular, 25:30 | Biportal, tubular | Biportal: 2 (6.3%) (transient palsy (1), postoperative hematoma (1)), Tubular: 3 (5.5%) (transient palsy (2), postoperative hematoma (1)) | |
Wang et al. [126] | Comparison of outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic and percutaneous posterior endoscopic cervical keyhole surgeries | Retrospective | 89 | 58.28 | 42:47 | C | Biportal | Biportal: 3 (3.37%) (dural tear (2), nucleus pulposus residue (1)) |
Liu et al. [127] | Comparison of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and microscope-assisted tubular discectomy for lumbar disc herniation | Retrospective | 60 | 53.4 | 32:28 | L | Tubular | Tubular: 12 (20%) (dural tear (2), paresthesia (10)) |
Kang et al. [128] | Comparison of primary versus revision lumbar discectomy using a biportal endoscopic technique | Retrospective | 81 | 50.56 | 46:35 | L | Biportal | Biportal: 6 (7.4%) (incidental durotomy (3), epidural hematoma (2), local recurrence (1)) |
Huang et al. [129] | Comparison of surgical invasiveness, hidden blood loss, and clinical outcome between unilateral biportal endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a retrospective cohort study | Retrospective | 38 | 60.13 | 22:16 | L | Biportal | Biportal: 2 (5.4%) (dural tear (2)) |
Xie et al. [130] | Comparison of the safety and efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a 1-year follow-up | Retrospective | 60 (biportal, 30; uniportal, 30) | Biportal, 49.1; uniportal, 51.2 | Biportal, 17:13; uniportal, 16:14 | L | Uniportal, biportal | Uniportal: 1 (3.3%) (CSF leak (1)), Biportal: 2 (6.7%) (nerve root injury (2)) |
Süner et al. [131] | Comparison of the tubular approach and uniportal interlaminar full-endoscopic approach in the treatment of lumbar spinal ste- nosis: our 3-year results | Prospective | 20 (tubular, 10; uniportal, 10) | Tubular, 69.7; uniportal, 73.5 | Tubular, 4:6; uniportal, 4:6 | L | Uniportal, tubular | Uniportal: 2 (20%) (incidental durotomy (2)), Tubular: 2 (20%) (wound dehiscence (1), postop epidural hematoma (1)) -- > no infection or CSF fluid fistula in either group |
Ross [19] | Complications of minimally invasive, tubular access surgery for cervical, thoracic, and lumbar surgery | Retrospective | 1,231 (cervical, 262; thoracic, 40; lumbar, 929) | 53 (only overall avg age is available) | NA | C, T, L | Tubular | Tubular: C: 5 (1.9%) (durotomy (0), C5 nerve root palsy (3), transient increased hypesthesia in the dermatomal distribution of an operated nerve root (2), infection (0)), T: 1 (2.5%) (durotomy (1), infection (0)), L: 33 (3.6%) ((durotomy (32), postop epidural hematoma (1), infection (0)) |
Cheng et al. [132] | Contralateral translaminar endoscopic approach for highly down-migrated lumbar disc herniation using percutaneous biportal endoscopic surgery: original research | Retrospective | 32 | 56 | 17:15 | L | Biportal | Biportal: 1 (3.1%) (postoperative dysesthesia (1), nerve root injury (0), dural tear (0)) |
Sonawane et al. [133] | Conventional versus tubular microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective randomized study | Prospective | 31 | 42.8 | 20:11 | L | Tubular | Tubular: 5 (16.1%) (dural tear (2), urinary tract infection (1), recurrent disc herniation at same level (2)) |
Kuo et al. [134] | Cortical bone trajectory-based dynamic stabilization | Retrospective | 40 | 66 | 17:23 | L | Tubular | Tubular: 20 (50%) (Incidental durotomy (2), intraoperative anterior migration of the cage without a neurological deficit (1), gradual posterior cage migration and had undergone revision surgery (1), radiographic adjacent segment disease: 24, screw loosening (16)) |
Tan et al. [135] | Decompression via unilateral biportal endoscopy for severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study with decompression via open discectomy | Retrospective | 50 | 64.8 | 29:21 | L | Biportal | Biportal: 1 (2%) (Dural sac tearing (1), incision infection (0)) |
Sharma et al. [136] | Does a high BMI affect the outcome of minimally invasive TLIF? A retrospective study of 207 patients | Retrospective | 207 | 53.16 | 128:79 | L | Tubular | Tubular: 31 (14.9%) (accidental durotomies (20), superficial infections (2), urinary tract infection (1), pneumonia (1), worsening of symptoms within a month of surgery (2), postoperative neurological deficit (2), developed recurrent symptoms after 6 months of surgery (3)) |
Altshuler et al. [137] | Does minimally invasive spine surgery reduce the rate of perioperative medical complications? A retrospective single-center experience of 1435 degenerative lumbar spine surgeries | Retrospective | 961 | 60.34 | 427:534 | L | Tubular | Tubular: 25 (2.6%) (Decompression: DVT (6), Pulmonary embolism (2), UTI (13), pneumonia (4)) |
Yu et al. [138] | Early efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion versus minimal invasive in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases | Retrospective | 29 | 64.62 | 13:16 | L | Biportal | Biportal: 1 (3.4) (durotomy (1)) |
Ariffin et al. [139] | Early experience, setup, learning curve, benefits, and complications associated with exoscope and three-dimensional 4k hybrid digital visualizations in minimally invasive spine surgery | Prospective | 35 | NA | NA | L | Tubular | Tubular: 4 (11.4%) (dural tear (4)) |
Foocharoen et al. [140] | Early outcomes: a comparison between biportal endoscopic spine surgery and open lumbar discectomy for single-level lumbar disc herniation | Retrospective | 43 | 39.1 | 17:26 | L | Biportal | Biportal: 1 (2.3%) (postoperative spinal epidural hematoma (1)) |
Kim et al. [141] | Effect of dorsal root ganglion retraction in endoscopic lumbar decompressive surgery for foraminal pathology: a retrospective cohort study of interlaminar contralateral endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy and discectomy versus transfo- raminal endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy and discectomy | Retrospective | 100 | 61.97 | 48:52 | L | Uniportal | Uniportal: 23 (23%) (incidental durotomy (3), postoperative dysesthesia (20)) |
Hsieh et al. [142] | Effectiveness of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in geriatric patients | Retrospective | 138 | 66.12 | 57:81 | L | Tubular | Tubular: 10 (7.2%) (incidental durotomy with cerebrospinal fluid leakage (5), postoperative spinal epidural hematoma (1), superficial surgical wound infection (4)) |
Choi et al. [143] | Efficacy of biportal endoscopic spine surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis | Retrospective | 35 | 65.4 | 14:21 | L | Biportal | Biportal: 3 (8.6%) (dural tear (2), root injury (1),infection (0)) |
Kostysyn et al. [144] | Efficiency of interlaminar uniportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy | Prospective | 95 | 41.6 | 53:42 | L | Uniportal | Uniportal: 9 (9.5%) (reoperation: 6 (6.3%), haematoma: 0 (0%), surgical site infection: 0 (0%), CSF leakage: 1 (1.1%), sensory lesions: 2 (2.1%), motor deficit: 0 (0%)) |
Claus et al. [145] | Elderly as a predictor for perioperative complications in patients undergoing multilevel minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a regression modeling study | Retrospective | 467 | 65.61 | 220:247 | L | Tubular | Tubular: 201 (43.0%) (urinary tract infection (11), urinary retention (40), anemia requiring transfusion (59), confusion (22), ileus (12), hypotensive episodes (7), durotomy (6), deep venous thrombosis (1), arrhythmias (6), transient hypoxia (11), fracture (1), pneumonia (8), respiratory distress (2), acute kidney injury (6), epidural abscess/osteomyelitis (0), pulmonary embolism (2), wound seroma/hematoma (7)) |
Rao et al. [146] | Endoscopic lumbar discectomy vs microdiscectomy: early results, complications and learning curve an Australian perspective | Retrospective | 30 | 53.6 | 21:9 | L | Uniportal | Uniportal: 3 (10%) (dural tear (1), recurrent disc prolapse (1), recurrence at 20 weeks postop requiring reoperation (1)) |
Heo et al. [147] | Endoscopic treatment of extraforaminal entrapment of l5 nerve root (far out syndrome) by unilateral biportal endoscopic approach: technical report and preliminary clinical results | Retrospective | 14 | 59.5 | 4:10 | L | Biportal | Biportal: 3 (21.4%) (abdominal pain (2), perirenal fluid collection (1)) |
Guo et al. [148] | Evaluation of the learning curve and complications in unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: cumulative sum analysis and risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis | Retrospective | 184 | 65.53 | 104:80 | L | Biportal | Biportal: 11 (6.0%) (cage subsidence (2), dural tear (3), epidural hematomas (2), nerve root injury (1), residual symptom (3)) |
Ahn et al. [149] | Extraforaminal approach of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery: a new endoscopic technique for transforaminal decompression and discectomy | Retrospective | 21 | 64.2 | 10:11 | L | Biportal | Biportal: 1 (4.8%) (dural tear (1)) |
Wang et al. [150] | Feasibility and efficacy of spinal microtubular technique for resection of lumbar dumbbell-shaped tumors | Retrospective | 46 | 49 (median) | 24:22 | L | Tubular | Tubular: CSF leakage (2, 4.3%), wound infection (3, 6.5%), cavity effusion (5, 10.9%) |
Kulkarni and Das [151] | Feasibility and outcomes of tubular decompression in extreme stenosis | Retrospective | 325 | 61.8 | 175:150 | L | Tubular | Tubular: 8 (2.5%) (incidental dural tears (4), urinary retention (3), Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion (1)) |
Huang et al. [152] | Full endoscopic uniportal unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: highlight of ligamentum fla- vum detachment and survey of efficacy and safety in 2 years of follow-up | Prospective | 106 | 70.2 | 45:61 | L | Uniportal | Uniportal: 4 (3.8%) (residual stenosis (1), iatrogenic durotomy (1), delay wound healing (2)) |
Ruetten et al. [22] | Full-endoscopic uniportal decompression in disc herniations and stenosis of the thoracic spine using the interlaminar, extraforaminal, or transthoracic retropleural approach | Prospective | 55 | 56 | 23:32 | T | Uniportal | Uniportal: 10 (19%) (dural tear (2), epidural hematoma (2), transient arm dysesthesia (1), transient intercostal neuralgias (2), deterioration of myelopathy (1), transient deterioration of myelopathy (1), transient leg dysesthesia (1)) |
Vasilikos et al. [153] | How safe is minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for octogenarians?: a perioperative complication analysis | Retrospective | 21 | 84.1 | 13:8 | L | Tubular | Tubular: 14 (66.6%) patients with complications, total of 30 individual complication events (cage dislocation (1), cage subsidence with stenosis (1), abscess (1), pulmonary embolism (2), sepsis (1), postoperative confusion (5), anemia requiring transfusion (5), sacroiliac joint syndrome (3), minor neurologic deficit (3), durotomy (2), urinary tract infection (2), transient mild hypoxia (2), liver insufficiency (1), depressive episode (1)) |
Kruger et al. [154] | Impact of morbid obesity (BMI > 40 kg/m2) on complication rate and outcome following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) | Retrospective | 28 | 60.4 | 10:18 | L | Tubular | Epidural hemorrhage (2, 7.1%) |
Goertz et al. [155] | Impact of obesity on complication rates, clinical outcomes, and quality of life after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion | Retrospective | 71 | 64.6 | 21:50 | L | Tubular | Dural tear (9, 12.7%), Wound infection (1, 1.4%), rebleeding (1, 1.4%), neurological deficits (4, 5.6%), cage migration (5, 5.5%), screw avulsion or breakage (5, 7.0%), Both (2, 2.8%), revision surgery (13, 18.3%) |
Martens et al. [156] | Implantation of a bone-anchored annular closure device in conjunction with tubular minimally invasive discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study | Retrospective | 60 | 42 | 25:35 | L | Tubular | Symptomatic reherniation (2, 3%), reoperation (3, 5%) |
Kim et al. [157] | Learning curve and clinical outcome of biportal endoscopic-assisted lumbar interbody fusion | Retrospective | 57 | 68.5 | 28:29 | L | Biportal | Post op spinal epidural hematoma (1, 1.7%), cage subsidence (1, 1.7%), transient paralysis (1, 1.7%) |
Xu et al. [158] | Learning curve and complications of unilateral biportal endoscopy: cumulative sum and risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis | Retrospective | 197 | 64.8 | 107:90 | L | Biportal | Residue (3, 1.5%), dural tear (4, 2.0%), epidural hematoma (2, 1.2%), nerve root injury (3, 1.5%) |
Choi et al. [159] | Learning curve associated with complications in biportal endoscopic spinal surgery: challenges and strategies | Retrospective | 68 | 58 | 28:40 | L | Biportal | Dural tear (2, 2.9%), nerve root injury (1, 1.5%), incomplete decompression (4, 5.9%) |
Kang et al. [160] | Learning curve for biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy determined using the cumulative summation test | Retrospective | 50 | 52.68 | 36:14 | C | Biportal | incomplete decompression (2, 4%), epidural hematoma (2, 4%) |
Park et al. [161] | Learning curve for lumbar decompressive laminectomy in biportal endoscopic spinal surgery using the cumulative summation test for learning curve | Retrospective | 60 | 67.6 | 31:29 | L | Biportal | Dural tear (3, 5%), hematoma (1, 2%), incomplete decompression (2, 3%) |
Jain et al. [162] | Learning curve of microendoscopic discectomy in single-level prolapsed intervertebral disc in 120 patients | Retrospective | 120 | 42.5 | 75:45 | L | Tubular | Dural tear (4, 3.3%), guidewire migration (5, 4.2%), postoperative leg pain (4, 3.3%), foot drop (1, 0.8%), post-op wound infection (2, 1.7%), recurrence (2, 1.7%) |
Sommer et al. [163] | Lumbar giant disk herniations treated with a unilateral approach for bilateral decompression | Retrospective | 23 | 49 | 14:9 | L | Tubular | Dural tear (1, 4.3%), reoperation (2, 9.0%) |
Keerthan et al. [164] | Microdiscectomy and minimally invasive discectomy using a tubular retractor system for lumbar disc herniation: a comparative study | Prospective | 41 | 41.78 | 22:19 | L | Tubular | Dural tear (8, 19.5%), surgical site infection (1, 2.4%), hamstring tightness (5, 12.2%) |
Bhatia et al. [165] | Microdiscectomy or tubular discectomy: is any of them a better option for management of lumbar disc prolapse | Retrospective | 109 | 39 | 64:45 | L | Tubular | Dural tear (9, 8.3%), residual disc (5, 4.6%), extensor hallucis longus weakness (1, 0.9%) |
Fukushima et al. [166] | Microendoscope-assisted versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a multicenter retrospective cohort study | Prospective | 57 | 65.2 | 31:26 | L | Tubular | Cage loosening (1, 1.8%), infection (1, 1.8%), screw loosening (1, 1.8%) |
Murata et al. [167] | Microendoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis caused by facet-joint cysts: a novel technique with a cyst-dyeing protocol and cohort comparison study | Retrospective | 48 | 69.1 | 30:18 | L | Tubular | Dural tear (4, 11.1%) |
Patil et al. [168] | Microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniations | Prospective | 300 | NR | 187:113 | L | Tubular | Discitis (2, 0.7%), dysesthesia (2, 0.7%), recurrent prolapse (6, 2.0%), recurrent disc (4, 1.3%), dural tear (3, 1.0%) |
Shibayama et al. [169] | Microendoscopy-assisted extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treating single-level spondylodesis | Retrospective | 55 | 62.7 | 17:38 | L | Tubular | Cage migration with symptoms (3, 5.5%) |
Xu et al. [170] | Microscopic keyhole technique for surgical removal of thoracic spinal meningiomas | Retrospective | 17 | 60.5 | 2:15 | T | Tubular | CSF leak (2, 11.8%) |
Kumar et al. [171] | Minimally invasive discectomy and decompression for lumbar spine using tubular retractor system: technique, learning curve and outcomes | Retrospective | 40 | 44.9 | 15:25 | L | Tubular | Reoperation (2, 5%), dural tear (4, 10%) |
Alimi et al. [172] | Minimally invasive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis: clinical outcome and reoperation rates | Retrospective | 110 | 68.5 | 58:52 | L | Tubular | Dural tears (16, 14.5%), reoperation (11, 10.0%) |
Papavero et al. [173] | Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy for treatment of radiculopathy: an effective, time-tested, and cost-efficient motion-preservation technique | Retrospective | 103 | 50 | 63:40 | C | Tubular | CSF leak (1, 1%), wound hematoma (1, 1%), radiculitis (1, 1%) |
Del Curto et al. [174] | Minimally invasive posterior cervical microforaminotomy in the lower cervical spine and C-T junction assisted by O-arm-based navigation | Retrospective | 14 | 49.8 | 13:1 | C | Tubular | Dural tear (1, 7.1%) |
Regev et al. [175] | Minimally invasive spinal decompression surgery in diabetic patients: perioperative risks, complications and clinical outcomes compared with non-diabetic patients’ cohort | Retrospective | 199 | 55.8 | 102:97 | L | Tubular | Incidental durotomies (16, 8.0%), surgical site infection (2, 1.0%), revision (15. 7.5%) |
Ahmed et al. [176] | Minimally invasive surgical management of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation: can the endoscope replace the microscope? | Retrospective | 20 | 48.4 | 18:2 | L | Tubular | Incidental durotomies (1, 5%), neurological deficit (1, 5%) |
Tender et al. [177] | Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of two techniques | Retrospective | 43 | 48.2 | 30:23 | L | Tubular | Incidental durotomies (1, 4.7%), reoperation (1, 2.3%) |
Kang et al. [178] | Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the biportal endoscopic techniques versus microscopic tubular technique | Retrospective | 79 | 66.67 | 34:45 | L | Tubular, biportal | Tubular: Incomplete decompression (1, 2.1%), hematoma (2, 4.3%), dural tear (3, 6.4%), Biportal: Incomplete decompression (2, 6.3%), hematoma (1, 3,1%), dural tear (1, 3,1%), infection (1, 3.1%) |
Evaniew et al. [179] | Minimally invasive tubular lumbar discectomy versus conventional open lumbar discectomy: an observational study from the canadian spine outcomes and research network | Prospective | 339 | 45.2 | 178:161 | L | Tubular | Incidental durotomy (12, 4%), wound complications (10, 3%), infection (4, 1%), wound drainage (1, 0.3%), hematoma (1, 0.3%), reoperation within 12 months (23, 7%) |
Hubbe et al. [180] | Minimally invasive tubular microdiscectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation | Retrospective | 30 | 49.4 | 15:15 | L | Tubular | Incidental durotomy (5, 16.7%), instability (2, 6.7%), facet joint syndrome (2, 6.7%) |
Birch et al. [181] | Minimally invasive tubular resection of lumbar synovial cysts: report of 40 consecutive cases | Retrospective | 40 | 65 | 13:27 | L | Tubular | Dural tear (2, 5%) |
Yolcu et al. [182] | Minimally invasive versus open surgery for degenerative spine disorders for elderly patients: experiences from a single institution | Retrospective | 59 | 72 | 35:24 | L | Tubular | Incidental durotomy (1, 1.7%) |
Zhang et al. [183] | One-hole split endoscopy technique versus unilateral biportal endoscopy technique for L5-S1 lumbar disk herniation: analysis of clinical and radiologic outcomes | Retrospective | 70 | 49.1 | 42:28 | L | Tubular | Dural tear (1, 1.4%), transient hypoesthesia (1, 1.4%) |
Ruetten et al. [184] | Operation of soft or calcified thoracic disc herniations in the full-endoscopic uniportal extraforaminal technique | Prospective | 26 | 58 | 10:16 | T | Uniportal | Epidural hematoma (1, 3.8%), persistent intercoastal neuralgia (2, 7.7%), anterior dural leak (1, 3.8%), postop myelopathy (1, 3.8%) |
Eum et al. [185] | Percutaneous biportal endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a technical note and preliminary clinical results | Retrospective | 58 | 63.4 | 18:40 | L | Biportal | Headache (3, 5.0%), durotomy (2, 3.4%), transient leg numbness (2, 3.4%), hematoma (1, 1.7%) |
Lee et al. [25] | Percutaneous endoscopic laminotomy with flavectomy by uniportal, unilateral approach for the lumbar canal or lateral recess stenosis | Retrospective | 213 | 61:152 | L | Uniportal | Transient dysesthesia (12, 5.60%), lower extremity motor weakness (1.97%), durotomy (3.94%) | |
Kim et al. [186] | Percutaneous full endoscopic bilateral lumbar decompression of spinal stenosis through uniportal-contralateral approach: techniques and preliminary results | Retrospective | 48 | 62.4 | 15:33 | L | Uniportal | Durotomy (3, 6.2%), of 3 cases, (1, 2.1%) dural tear was converted to open surgery |
Kang et al. [187] | Percutaneous full-endoscopic versus biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy for unilateral cervical foraminal disc disease | Retrospective | 33 | 52.68 | 11:22 | C | Biportal | Incomplete decompression (1.3%), durotomy (1.3%), epidural hematoma (1.3%), persistent dysesthesia (1.3%) |
Jiang [188] | Pin-assisted retraction technique in unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy: a retrospective cohort study | Retrospective | 57 | 27 | 35:22 | L | Biportal | Dural tear (2, 3.5%), hematoma (3, 5.3%) |
Kim et al. [189] | Pooled analysis of unsuccessful percutaneous biportal endoscopic surgery outcomes from a multi-institutional retrospective cohort of 797 cases | Retrospective | 797 | 59 | 491:306 | L | Biportal | Hematoma (5, 0.62%), lesion recurrence (16, 2%), incomplete operation (8, 1%), dural tear (3, 0.37%), instability (2, 0.25%), infection (0.13%) motor deficits (2, 8%), recurrent symptoms due to prolapsed disc (1, 4%) |
Wu et al. [190] | Posterior endoscopic cervical foramiotomy and discectomy: clinical and radiological computer tomography evaluation on the bony effect of decompression with 2 years follow-up | Retrospective | 25 | 51.8 | 16:9 | C | Uniportal | Durotomy (6%) |
Wu et al. [191] | Prospective cohort study with a 2-year follow-up of clinical results, fusion rate, and muscle bulk for uniportal full endoscopic posterolateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion | Prospective | 35 | 64 | 10:25 | L | Uniportal | Durotomy (47, 3.8%), spondylodiscitis (4, 0.3%), iatrogenic nerve root lesion (3, 0.2%), wound infection (1, 0.1%), wrong side (incision only) (1, 0.1%), conversion to open (2, 0.2%), excessive |
Staartjets et al. [24] | Recurrent lumbar disc herniation after tubular mi- crodiscectomy: analysis of learning curve progression | Retrospective | 1,241 | 44.8 | 661:580 | L | Tubular | blood loss > 500 mL (1, 0.1%), phlebitis (1, 0.1%) |
Kong et al. [192] | Retrospective analysis of paraspinal muscle-splitting microscopic-assisted discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for the treatment of far-lateral lumbar disc herniation | Retrospective | 26 | 38.4 | 21:5 | L | Tubular | Tubular: Temporary dysesthesia (1, 3.85%) |
Sim et al. [193] | Single-level endoscopic TLIF has decreased surgery duration, blood loss, and length of hospital stay while achieving similar 1-year clinical and radiological outcomes compared with conventional minimally invasive TLIF | Retrospective | 34 | 66.3 | 17:17 | L | Tubular | Tubular: Dural tear (1, 2.9%), 1 case of meralgia paresthetica (1, 2.9%) |
Khashan et al. [194] | Stable low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis does not compromise clinical outcome of minimally invasive tubular decompression in patients with spinal stenosis | Retrospective | 96 | 69.05 | 53:43 | L | Tubular | Durotomy (7, 7.3%), neurological (1, 1.0%), surgical site infection (2, 2.1%), pneumonia (1, 1.0%), residual stenosis (3, 3.1%), other complications (1, 1.0%) |
Singhatanadgige et al. [195] | Surgical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using surgical microscope vs surgical loupes: a comparative study | Retrospective | 100 | 64.79 | NA | L | Tubular | New postoperative lower extremity sensory changes (transient paresthesia) (3, 3%) |
Kim et al. [196] | Technical considerations of uniportal endoscopic posterolateral lumbar interbody fusion: a review of its early clinical results in application in adult degenerative scoliosis | Retrospective | 25 | 68.4 | 3:22 | L | Uniportal | Incidental durotomy (1, 4%), mild grade subsidence (1, 4%) |
Xu et al. [197] | The clinical effect of unilateral decompressive laminectomy plus fusion with unilateral biportal endoscopic technique for single level lumbar spinal stenosis | Retrospective | 65 | 62.6 | 34:31 | L | Biportal | Nerve root injury (1, 1.5%), infection (1, 1.5%) |
Chen et al. [198] | The learning curve of unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spinal surgery by CUSUM analysis | Retrospective | 97 | 51.5 | 52:45 | L | Biportal | Dural injury (2, 2.1%), residual nerve compression of intervertebral disc herniation (2, 2.1%) |
Kim et al. [199] | The novel technique of uniportal endoscopic interlaminar contralateral approach for coexisting l5-S1 lateral recess, foraminal, and extraforaminal stenosis and its clinical outcomes | Retrospective | 48 | 67.6 | 21:27 | L | Uniportal | Revision (2, 4.2%), segmental instability (2, 4.2%), incidental durotomy (2, 4.2%), hematoma (1, 2.1%), postoperative dysesthesia (6, 12.5%) |
Wu et al. [200] | Transforaminal unilateral biportal endoscopic spi- nal surgery for extraforaminal lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective observational study | Retrospective | 17 | 65.8 | 11:6 | L | Biportal | Dural tear (1, 5.9%) |
Maduri et al. [201] | Transtubular anterior cervical foraminotomy for the treatment of compressive cervical radiculopathy: surgical results and complications in a consecutive series of cases | Retrospective | 45 | 55.9 | 30:15 | C | Tubular | 4.4% of patients (n = 2) presented with transient Horner’s syndrome |
Abdelrahman et al. [202] | Trans-tubular translaminar microscopic-assisted nucleotomy for lumbar disc herniations in the hidden zone | Prospective | 66 | 59 | 37:29 | L | Tubular | Dural tear (1, 1.5%) |
de Nijs et al. [203] | Tubular microdiscectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a valuable alternative to endoscopic techniques | Retrospective | 15 | 39 | 8:7 | L | Tubular | 2 Patients (13.3%) presented with an iatrogenic durotomy and 2 patients (13.3%) had a second rLDH |
Zhou et al. [204] | Unilateral Bi/multi-portal endoscopy for the treatment of complicated lumbar degenerative diseases with utilization of uniaxial spinal endoscope, instead of arthroscope: technique note and clinical results | Retrospective | 44 | 55.97 | 20:22 | L | Biportal | Postoperative dysesthesia (2, 4.8%), vertebral compression fracture (1, 2.4%) |
Kim and Choi [205] | Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression by 30degree endoscopy in lumbar spinal stenosis: technical note and preliminary report | Retrospective | 105 | 71.2 | 46:59 | L | Biportal | Dural tear (2, 1.9%), epidural hematoma (1, 1.0%) |
Pao et al. [206] | Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression for degenerative lumbar canal stenosis | Retrospective | 81 | 70.2 | 38:43 | L | Biportal | Dural tears (4, 4.9%), transient motor weakness (1, 1.2%), inadequate decompression (1, 1.2%), and epidural hematoma (1, 1.2%) |
Deng et al. [23] | Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression for symptomatic thoracic ossification of the ligamentum flavum: a case control study | Retrospective | 14 | 59.4 | 8:6 | T | Biportal | Hyperalgesia (2, 14.3%), head, neck pain (2, 14.3%), CSF leak (1, 7.1%) |
Jiang et al. [207] | Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study | Retrospective | 24 | 46.25 | 10:14 | L | Biportal | Dural tear (1, 4.2%) |
Zhu et al. [208] | Unilateral biportal endoscopic laminectomy for treating cervical stenosis: a technical note and preliminary results | Retrospective | 19 | 65.2 | 13:6 | C | Biportal | Epidural hematoma (1, 5.3%) |
Huang et al. [209] | Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion assisted by intraoperative O-arm total navigation for lumbar degenerative disease: a retrospective study | Retrospective | 44 | 58.5 | 13:31 | L | Biportal | Dural tear (1, 2.3%), transient paraesthesis (1, 2.3%) |
Shen et al. [210] | Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation for single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion | Retrospective | 65 | 58 | 33:32 | L | Tubular | False position of screws (1, 1.5%), incomplete relief of symptoms (1, 1.5%), dura tear (3, 4.6%), root irritation (1, 1.5%) |
Wu et al. [211] | Uniportal thoracic endoscopic decompression using one block resection technique for thoracic ossified ligamentum flavum technical report | Retrospective | 28 | 64 | 15:13 | T | Uniportal | Incomplete decompression (1, 3.5%) |
Venier et al. [212] | Use of intraoperative computed tomography improves outcome of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-center retrospective cohort study | Retrospective | 100 | 61 | 56:44 | L | Tubular | Dural tear (5, 5%), Kirschner wire fracture (1, 1%), iCT-related problems (3, 3%), surgical infection (1, 1%), epidural hematoma (3, 3%), mortality (1, 1%) |
L, lumbar; T, thoracic; C, cervical; 3D, 3-dimensional; UTI, urinary tract infection; SIADH, syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone; ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; IHD, ischemic heart disease; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; MRC, Medical Research Council; NA, not available; iCT, intraoperative computed tomography.