How to Prevent Nerve Root Injury in Uniportal Full Endoscopic Lumbar Fusion Surgery? Insights from a Cadaveric Anatomical Study with Simulation Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: The study included two fresh-frozen cadavers. OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the positional relationship between surgical instruments and nerve roots during full endoscopic facet-sparing (FE fs-TLIF) and facet-resecting (FE fr-TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion and propose safe instrumentation insertion procedures and recommend cage glider designs aimed at protecting nerve roots. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Endoscopic surgical techniques are increasingly used for minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgery with FE fr-TLIF and FE fs-TLIF being common approaches. However, the risk of nerve root injury remains a significant concern during these procedures. METHODS: Eight experienced endoscopic spine surgeons performed uniportal FE fr-TLIF and FE fs-TLIF on cadaveric lumbar spines, totaling 16 surgeries. Post-operation, soft tissues were removed to assess the positional relationship between the cage entry point and nerve roots. Distances between the cage entry point, traversing nerve root, and exiting nerve root were measured. Safe instrumentation design and insertion procedures were determined. RESULTS: In FE fr-TLIF, the mean distance between the cage entry point and traversing nerve root was significantly shorter compared to FE fs-TLIF (3.30±1.35 mm vs. 8.58±2.47 mm, respectively; P<0.0001). Conversely, the mean distance between the cage entry point and the exiting nerve root was significantly shorter in FE fs-TLIF compared to FE fr-TLIF (3.73±1.97 mm vs. 6.90±1.36 mm, respectively; P<0.0001). For FE fr-TLIF, prioritizing the protection of the traversing root using a two-bevel tip cage glider was crucial. In contrast, for FE fs-TLIF, a single-bevel tip cage glider placed in the caudal location was recommended. CONCLUSION: This study elucidates the anatomical relationship between cage entry points and nerve roots in uniportal endoscopic lumbar fusion surgery. Protection strategies should prioritize the traversing root in FE fr-TLIF and the exiting root in FE fs-TLIF, with corresponding variations in surgical techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.

Full Endoscopic Spine Surgery for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) may seriously affect quality of life. In the literature, there is scarce evidence of the pros and cons of full endoscopic spine surgery in the treatment of CSM. The main purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review to elucidate the efficacy of full endoscopic spine surgery in the management of patients with CSM. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search of Web of Science, PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted from the database inception to February 1, 2023. RESULTS: The study included 183 patients and their age was 56.78 ± 7.87 years. The average surgical time calculated was 96.34 ± 33.58 minutes. Intraoperative blood loss ranged from a minimal amount to 51 mL. The average duration of hospital stay was 3.56 ± 1.6 days. The average span for follow-up was on an interval of 18.7 ± 6.76 months. Significant improvements were noted in all aspects of functional outcomes and image results after full endoscopic cervical spine surgery, with no major complications. CONCLUSIONS: The current study found that both anterior transcorporeal and posterior surgical approaches could be used for the treatment of CSM with a full endoscopic technique. Indications of full endoscopic cervical spine surgery for CSM included cervical disc herniation, central canal stenosis, calcified ligamentum flavum, and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Improved postoperative outcomes with acceptable surgical complications were noted in this systematic review.

Comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus artificial disc replacement for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has long been regarded as a gold standard in the treatment of cervical myelopathy. Subsequently, cervical artificial disc replacement (c-ADR) was developed and provides the advantage of motion preservation at the level of the intervertebral disc surgical site, which may also reduce stress at adjacent levels. The goal of this study was to compare clinical and functional outcomes in patients undergoing ACDF with those in patients undergoing c-ADR for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were performed using the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from database inception to November 21, 2021. The authors compared Neck Disability Index (NDI), SF-36, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores; complication rates; and reoperation rates for these two surgical procedures in CSM patients. The Mantel-Haenszel method and variance-weighted means were used to analyze outcomes after identifying articles that met study inclusion criteria. RESULTS: More surgical time was consumed in the c-ADR surgery (p = 0.04). Shorter hospital stays were noted in patients who had undergone c-ADR (p = 0.04). Patients who had undergone c-ADR tended to have better NDI scores (p = 0.02) and SF-36 scores (p = 0.001). Comparable outcomes in terms of JOA scores (p = 0.24) and neurological success rate (p = 0.12) were noted after the surgery. There was no significant between-group difference in the overall complication rates (c-ADR: 18% vs ACDF: 25%, p = 0.17). However, patients in the ACDF group had a higher reoperation rate than patients in the c-ADR group (4.6% vs 1.5%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: At the midterm follow-up after treatment of CSM, better functional outcomes as reflected by NDI and SF-36 scores were noted in the c-ADR group than those in the ACDF group. c-ADR had the advantage of retaining range of motion at the level of the intervertebral disc surgical site without causing more complications. A large sample size with long-term follow-up studies may be required to confirm these findings in the future.