Comparison of the total and hidden blood loss in patients undergoing single-level open and unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective case control study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare total blood loss (TBL) and hidden blood loss (HBL) in patients undergoing single-level open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) and unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF). METHODS: A total of 53 patients who underwent ULIF and 53 patients who underwent O-TLIF from March 2020 to July 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The Nadler's formula was employed to estimate the patient's blood volume (PBV), Gross's formula to estimate TBL, and Sehat's formula to estimate HBL. The obtained data were then analyzed with independent t test, chi-squared test, and analysis of covariance. RESULTS: TBL and measured blood loss (MBL) in ULIF group (326.86 ± 223.45 ml, 99.00 ± 72.81 ml) was significantly lower than O-TLIF group (427.97 ± 280.52 ml, 270.66 ± 102.34 ml). Nevertheless, the HBL in ULIF group was higher than that in O-TLIF group (227.86 ± 221.75 ml vs 157.31 ± 268.08 ml), however this was not statistically significant (p = 0.143). The HBL was 69.71 ± 23.72% of TBL in ULIF group and 36.76 ± 18.79% of TBL in O-TLIF group. Patients in ULIF group had lower TBL and MBL, shorter duration of drainage, lower postoperative anemia, and shorter postoperative hospital stay compared to those in O-TLIF group. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative HBL should not be neglected in patients undergoing ULIF or O-TILF, as it accounts for a large percentage of TBL in both groups. ULIF is associated with lower TBL and MBL, postoperative anemia, shorter postoperative hospital stays compared with O-TLIF.

A new method for establishing operative channels in unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery: Technical notes and preliminary results.

BACKGROUND: The unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) technique has been widely used in spine surgery. At present, a traditional rigid working channel is available for the UBE system. A metal semicircular canal is located in the working channel. However, due to the metal material of the working channel, arthroscopy and instruments are constrained from moving in UBE surgery. Additionally, an assistant is needed during the procedure to hold the traditional working channel. OBJECTIVE: For simplicity of operation and convenient movement of the arthroscopy and instrument, we describe a new method for establishing operative channels in UBE surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 50 patients who underwent unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) from February 2020 to August 2020 via our new method. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) score were measured preoperatively and 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months postoperatively. Statistical comparisons were made using analysis of covariance and paired t tests. RESULTS: The VAS scores for back pain at the five time points were 5.20 ± 2.57, 1.96 ± 0.95, 1.50 ± 0.84, 1.64 ± 1.08 and 1.18 ± 0.39. The leg pain VAS scores were 7.02 ± 2.25, 2.02 ± 1.27, 1.48 ± 0.89, 1.32 ± 0.79 and 0.88 ± 0.52. The ODI values were 51.08 ± 19.97, 19.62 ± 15.51, 8.26 ± 7.40, and 7.54 ± 6.42 to 3.24 ± 1.10. The postoperative ODIs and VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain were significantly lower than those before surgery, and differences were statistically significant (all p< 0.05). The pressure of the closed outflow was significantly higher than that of the open outflow (37.35 ± 13.11 mm Hg vs. 24.55 ± 12.64 mm Hg p= 0.003). After we tightened the infusion strap to open the outflow, the pressure decreased significantly (26.4 ± 14.08 mm Hg vs. 37.35 ± 13.11 mm Hg p= 0.015). There were 2 cases of complications, including 1 case of postoperative recurrence and 1 case of dural tears. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the technical feasibility, safety, and efficacy of modified channel establishment in UBE surgery.

Ankylosing spondylitis complicated with andersson lesion in the lower cervical spine: A case report.

BACKGROUND: Andersson lesion (AL) is an uncommon complication in ankylosing spondylitis (AS), which is characterized by nonneoplastic bone destruction and often appears as bone destruction and sclerosis in the vertebral body and/or the area involving the intervertebral disc. According to the literature, Andersson lesion commonly occur in the thoracic and lumbar spine and rarely in the cervical spine. CASE SUMMARY: This case involved a 78-year-old man with a long history of AS who developed AL in the cervical spine (C5/6 and C6/7). One-stage anterior-posterior approach surgery was successfully performed. At the 6-month follow-up, the pain was significantly reduced, and the limb function was gradually improved. CONCLUSION: AL uncharacteristically appears in the cervical spine and tends to be misdiagnosed as vertebral metastases or spinal tuberculosis. Posterior combined with anterior surgery achieves solid biological stabilization in the treatment of AL bone destruction.

Clinical comparison of three-dimensional exoscope vs. operative microscope in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A retrospective case-control study.

Purpose: Here, we sought to determine the safety and feasibility of three-dimensional exoscope (3D EX). We compared data on surgery, complications, postoperative drainage, hematology, and clinical outcomes in the group that underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using an operative microscope (OM) relative to those treated using 3D EX. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed records on 74 patients who underwent one- or two-level TLIF from August 2019 to October 2020. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare pre- and post-operative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores and oswestry disability index (ODI). We used analysis of covariance to compare pre- and post-operative erythrocyte count (RBC), hemoglobin (Hb), and hematocrit (Hct). Independent sample t-tests was used to compare postoperative drainage volume, total blood loss (TBL), visible blood loss (VBL) and hidden blood loss (HBL). Results: There were no significant differences in VAS and ODI scores between the two groups at all time points (all p > 0.05). RBC and HBL did not differ significantly between the two groups (all p > 0.05). There were significant differences in postoperative drainage volume,TBL, Hb, and Hct values when using 3D EX relative to OM in two-level TLIF (all p < 0.05), but not for one-level TLIF (all p > 0.05). The two groups differed significantly with regards to VBL when used for one- or two-level TLIF (all p < 0.05). Conclusion: Our data show that 3D EX is a suitable alternative to OM in TLIF. Relative to OM, 3D EX has important strengths in reducing perioperative bleeding in two-level TLIF.