Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy and unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a comparative analysis of learning curves.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the learning curve of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and interlaminar unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). METHODS: Between 2018 and 2023, 120 consecutive patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH) treated by endoscopic lumbar discectomy were retrospectively included. The PETD group comprised 87 cases, and the UBED group comprised 33 cases. Cumulative sum analysis was used to evaluate the learning curve, with the occurrence of complications or unresolved symptoms defined as surgical failure, and variables of different phases of the learning curve being compared. RESULTS: The learning curve analysis identified the cutoff point at 40 cases in the PETD group and 15 cases in the UBED group. In the mastery phase, both PETD and UBED demonstrated a significant reduction in operation times (approximately 38 min for PTED and 49 min for UBED). In both PETD and UBED groups, the surgical failure rates during the learning and mastery phases showed no statistically significant differences. The visual analogue scale at the last follow-up was significantly lower than before surgery in both the PETD and UBED groups. CONCLUSION: PETD and UBED surgery are effective in the treatment of LDH with a low incidence of complications. However, achieving mastery in PETD necessitates a learning curve of 40 cases, while UBED requires a minimum of 15 cases to reach proficiency.

Comparative efficacy of unilateral biportal and percutaneous endoscopic techniques in unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) for lumbar spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) has yielded positive results in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Unilateral biportal ULBD (UB-ULBD) and percutaneous endoscopic ULBD (PE-ULBD) are gaining popularity because of the progress that has been made in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the radiographic and clinical results of UB-ULBD and PE-ULBD. METHODS: This study retrospectively enrolled patients who underwent ULBD surgery for LSS. The patients were categorized into two groups on the basis of the surgical method: the UB-ULBD group and the PE-ULBD group. Data on the general demographic data, surgical details, clinical efficacy, radiography and complications were compared between the two groups were compared. The minimum follow-up duration was 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 113 LSS patients who had undergone ULBD at our institution were included, of whom 61 patients underwent UB-ULBD surgery and 52 underwent PE-ULBD surgery. The UB-ULBD group had a significantly shorter operation time (P < 0.05). The facet was significantly better preserved in the UB-ULBD group than in the PE-ULBD group, and the angle of ipsilateral facet joint resection in the UE-ULBD group was significantly smaller (P < 0.05). The ODI score, VAS score and modified Macnab criteria improved postoperatively in both groups. The UB-ULBD group had a 95.08% rate of excellent or good patient outcomes, whereas the PE-ULBD group had a 92.30% rate. CONCLUSION: Both UB-ULBD and PE-ULBD can provide favourable clinical outcomes when used to treat LSS. UB-ULBD is beneficial because of its shorter operation time, smaller angle of ipsilateral facet joint resection and better facet preservation, making it a viable and safe option for treating LSS while ensuring spinal stability.

Unilateral biportal endoscopy via two different approaches for upper lumbar disc herniation: a technical note.

BACKGROUND: The traditional surgical procedures for upper lumbar disc herniation (ULDH) usually lead to frequent complications. We aim to investigate the clinical efficacy of the unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique in treating upper lumbar disc herniation (ULDH). METHODS: From January 2020 to December 2021, the clinical data of 28 patients with ULDH treated with the UBE technique were collected and analyzed for surgery time under UBE, postsurgical drainage, postsurgical hospital stay, and complications. The clinical efficacy was evaluated according to the modified MacNab score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and visual analogue scale (VAS) of low back pain and lower limb pain before the surgery; one week, one month, and three months after the surgery; and at the last follow-up. RESULTS: All patients underwent the UBE surgery successfully. The surgery time under UBE for non-fusion cases was 47.50 ± 11.84 min (monosegment) and 75.00 ± 20.66 min (two segments), while that for fusion cases was 77.50 ± 21.02 min. The postsurgical drainage for non-fusion cases was 25.00 ± 13.94 mL (monosegment) and 38.00 ± 11.83 mL (two segments), while that for fusion cases was 71.25 ± 31.72 mL. The postsurgical hospital stay was 8.28 ± 4.22 days. The follow-up time was 15.82 ± 4.54 months. The VAS score for each time period after the surgery was significantly lower (P < 0.05), while the ODI was significantly higher than that before the surgery (P < 0.05). According to the modified MacNab scoring standard, the ratio of excellent to good was 96.43% at the last follow-up. Two patients experienced transient numbness and pain in their lower limbs and no activity disorder after the surgery, and they recovered after conservative treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical effect of UBE technique in treating ULDH was reliable. According to the needs of the disease, the interlaminar approach or paraspinal approach of the UBE technique was selected. This technique took into account the effect of treatment, achieved the purpose of minimal invasiveness, and did not require special instruments. Therefore, it has the potential for clinical application.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression versus anterior cervical decompression and fusion for unilateral cervical radiculopathy or coexisting cervical myelopathy: a prospective, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervical spondylosis (CS), including myelopathy and radiculopathy, is the most common degenerative cervical spine disease. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) compared to those of conventional anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) for treating unilateral cervical radiculopathy or coexisting cervical myelopathy induced by unilateral cervical herniated discs. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial was conducted. The sample consisted of 131 patients who underwent UBE or ACDF was conducted between September 2021 and September 2022. Patients with cervical nerve roots or coexisting spinal cord compression symptoms and imaging-defined unilateral cervical radiculopathy or coexisting cervical myelopathy induced by unilateral cervical herniated discs were randomized into two groups: a UBE group (n = 63) and an ACDF group (n = 68). The operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay after surgery, and perioperative complications were recorded. Preoperative and postoperative modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scale scores, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, neck disability index (NDI) scores, and recovery rate (RR) of the mJOA were utilized to evaluate clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The hospital stay after surgery was significantly shorter in patients treated with UBE than in those treated with ACDF (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the neck or arm VAS score, NDI score, mJOA score, or mean RR of the mJOA between the two groups (p < 0.05). Only mild complications were observed in both groups, with no significant difference (p = 0.30). CONCLUSION: UBE can significantly relieve pain and disability without severe complications, and most patients are satisfied with this technique. Consequently, this procedure can be used safely and effectively as an alternative to ACDF for treating unilateral cervical radiculopathy or coexisting cervical myelopathy induced by unilateral cervical herniated discs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on 02/08/2023 ( http://www.chictr.org.cn , #ChiCTR2300074273).

Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) versus endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis along with intervertebral disc herniation: a retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the clinical effects and imaging data of patients who underwent endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) with those who received unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 69 patients presenting with typical intermittent claudication and signs and symptoms indicative of unilateral lower extremity nerve root compression, meeting inclusion criteria between April 2022 and June 2022. Among the cohort, 35 patients underwent ULIF group, while 34 patients underwent Endo-TLIF group. We compared perioperative parameters, including intraoperative blood loss, duration of hospital stay, and operation time between the two groups. Pre-operative and post-operative changes in the height and cross-sectional area of the target intervertebral space were also compared between the groups. Finally, we evaluated bone graft size and interbody fusion rates at 6 and 12 months post-surgery using the Brantigan scoring system. RESULTS: The ULIF group had significantly shorter operative times compared to the Endo-TLIF group (P < 0.05). Conversely, the Endo-TLIF group exhibited significantly shorter hospital stays compared to the ULIF group (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in intraoperative bleeding between the two groups (P > 0.05). Furthermore, both groups exhibited postoperative increases in vertebral canal volume compared to baseline (P < 0.05), with no significant difference in the change in the cross-sectional area of the target intervertebral space between the two surgical methods (P > 0.05). Interbody fusion rates were comparable between the two groups at both 6 and 12 months after surgery (P > 0.05). Lastly, the ULIF group had a significantly larger area of bone graft than the Endo-TLIF group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In summary, the ULIF technique, as a novel spinal endoscopy approach, is a safer and more effective minimally invasive surgical method for addressing lumbar spinal stenosis and intervertebral disc herniation in patients. Both surgical methods have their own advantages and drawbacks. With the development of technology and related instruments, the limitations of both techniques can be mitigated for to a certain extent, and they can be applied by more doctors in diverse medical fields in the future.

Biportal endoscopic-assisted cortical bone trajectory screw placement and lumbar interbody fusion.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopically assisted screw fixation with lumbar interbody fusion is rarely performed. We succeeded in implanting the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws under the guidance of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE). METHOD: We attempted endoscopically assisted screw fixation in a patient with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Through a third portal, ipsilateral CBT screws were implanted without complications. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully performed unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) with CBT and reversed CBT screws. Compared with percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) placement, this procedure is a minimally invasive, endoscopic alternative that allows precise screw placement.

Minimizing Tissue Injury and Incisions in Multilevel Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery: Technical Note and Preliminary Results.

Background and Objectives: Biportal endoscopic spine surgery (BESS) is a promising technique that can be applied for the treatment of various spinal diseases. However, traditional BESS procedures require multiple, separate incisions. We present, herein, various techniques to reduce the number of incisions in multi-level surgery and their clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: Three different techniques were used to reduce the number of incisions for the preservation of normal tissue associated with BESS: the step-ladder technique, employing a common portal for the scope and instruments; the portal change technique employing a two-level procedure with two incisions; and the tilting technique, employing more than three levels. Pain (Visual Analog Scale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and patient satisfaction were evaluated before and 12 months after the procedure. Results: Among the 122 cases of multilevel spine surgery, 1.43 incisions per level were employed for multilevel BESS. Pain and disability showed significant improvement. Patient satisfaction showed favorable results. Conclusions: Combining multiple techniques during biportal surgery could decrease the number of incisions needed and preserve musculature with favorable clinical outcomes.

Ambulatory uniportal versus biportal endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis-cohort study using a prospective registry.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic spine surgery has been established as a practical, minimally invasive technique for decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. However, there remains a paucity of studies prospective cohort study comparing uniportal lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression and unilateral biportal endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression with open spinal decompression-both viable techniques with satisfactory clinical outcomes in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. OBJECTIVE/AIM: To compare the efficacy of UPE and BPE lumbar decompression surgery for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: A prospective registry of patients who had undergone spinal decompression for lumbar stenosis via UPE or BPE under a single fellowship trained spine surgeon was studied. Baseline characteristics, initial clinical presentation, and operative details including complications were recorded for all included patients. Clinical outcomes, such as visual analogue scale and Oswestry Disability Index, were recorded at preoperative, immediate postoperative, 2-week, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up periods. RESULTS: A total of 62 patients underwent endoscopic decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (29 UPE, 33 BPE). No significant baseline differences were found between uniportal and biportal decompression, when comparing operative duration (130 vs. 140 min; p = 0.30), intraoperative blood loss (5.4 vs. 6mLs; p = 0.05), and length of hospital stay (23.6 vs. 20.3 h; p = 0.35). Two patients (7%) who underwent uniportal endoscopic decompression required conversion to open surgery due to inadequate decompression. Intraoperative complication rates were significantly higher in the UPE group (13.4% vs. 0%, p < 0.05). VAS score (leg & back) and ODI improved significantly (p < 0.001) in both endoscopic decompression groups across all follow-up time points, with no appreciable statistical differences between both groups. CONCLUSION: UPE has the same efficacy as BPE in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. While UPE surgery enjoys added aesthetic benefits of only one wound, BPE had potentially lower risks of intraoperative complication, inadequate decompression, and conversion to open surgery during early period of learning curve.

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.

BACKGROUND: Currently, hidden blood loss (HBL) has been paid more and more attention by spine surgeons. Simultaneously, it has been the effort of spine surgeons to explore more advantages of minimally invasive surgery. More and more articles have compared unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (BE-LIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). But so far, there is no HBL comparison between BE-LIF and MIS-TLIF. This study aims to compare the surgical invasiveness, hidden blood loss, and clinical outcome of BE-LIF and MIS-TLIF and to provide insight regarding minimally invasive surgery for lumbar degenerative disease (LDD). METHODS: We enrolled 103 eligible patients with LDD who underwent BE-LIF (n = 46) and MIS-TLIF (n = 57) during August 2020-March 2021. We collected data, including demographics, perioperative haematocrit, operative and postoperative hospital times, serum creatine kinase (CK) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and hospitalization costs. Total and hidden blood loss was calculated. Clinical outcomes were assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) score for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), modified MacNab criteria, fusion rate, and complications. RESULTS: Basic demographics and surgical data were comparable. The CRP and CK levels were generally lower in the BE-LIF than in the MIS-TLIF group, especially CRP levels on postoperative day (POD) three and CK levels on POD one. True total blood loss, postoperative blood loss, and hidden blood loss were significantly reduced in the BE-LIF group compared with the MIS-TLIF group. Postoperative hospital times was statistically significantly shorter in the BE-LIF group. The VAS pain and ODI scores improved in both groups. At three days and one month, the VAS lower back pain scores were significantly better after BE-LIF. Clinical outcomes did not otherwise differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with MIS-TLIF, BE-LIF has similar medium and short-term clinical outcomes. However, it is better regarding surgical trauma, early lower back pain, total and hidden blood loss, and recovery time. BE-LIF is an adequate option for selected LDD.

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.

Far lateral lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation and double traversing cages using a biportal endoscopic technique.

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with a single cage and bilateral pedicle screw fixation results in decreased stability or increased risk of cage displacement Wang and Guo (Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng, 24(3):308-319, 6). We succeeded in inserting double traversing cages with unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) during far lateral TLIF using unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE). METHOD: We attempted far lateral UBE-TLIF through two small incisions for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with unilateral stenosis. With the help of novel instruments, far lateral UBE-TLIF with double traversing cages and UPSF was performed under tracheal intubation anaesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully performed far lateral UBE-TLIF with double traversing cages and UPSF. This procedure may be an alternative minimally invasive method for treating lumbar instability.

Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Laminectomy for Treating Cervical Stenosis: A Technical Note and Preliminary Results.

Objective: The objective of this study was to introduce a surgical technique for the percutaneous decompression of cervical stenosis (CS) using a unilateral biportal endoscopic approach and characterize its early clinical and radiographic results. Materials and Methods: Nineteen consecutive patients with CS who needed surgical intervention were recruited. All enrolled patients underwent unilateral biportal endoscopic laminectomy (UBEL). All patients were followed postoperatively for >1 year. The preoperative and final follow-up evaluations included the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score for neurological assessment, visual analogue scale (VAS) for axial pain and C2-C7 Cobb angle for cervical sagittal alignment. The postoperative complications were analyzed. Results: Thirteen males and six females were included in the analysis. The mean follow-up period was 16.3 ± 2.6 months. The mean operative time was 82.6 ± 18.4 min. Postoperative MRI and CT revealed ideal neural decompression of the treated segments in all patients. Preoperative VAS and JOA scores improved significantly after the surgery, and cervical lordosis was preserved on the postoperative images. Conclusions: UBEL was an effective surgical method for CS, which may also minimize iatrogenic damage to the posterior tension band (PTB) and help to maximize the preservation of the cervical lordosis.

Comparison of Outcomes between Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic and Percutaneous Posterior Endoscopic Cervical Keyhole Surgeries.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) and percutaneous posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy (PE) keyhole surgeries. Methods: Patients diagnosed with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR) treated by UBE or PE keyhole surgery from May 2017 to April 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The length of incision, fluoroscopic time, postoperative hospital stay, and total cost were compared. The clinical efficacy was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS), neck disability index (NDI), and modified MacNab criteria. Moreover, the C2-7 Cobb's angle, range of motion (ROM), intervertebral height, vertebral horizontal displacement, and angular displacement of the surgical segment were measured. Results: A total of 154 patients were enrolled, including 89 patients in the UBE group and 65 patients in the PE group, with a follow-up period of 24-32 months. Compared with PE surgery, UBE surgery required shorter fluoroscopic times (6.76 ± 1.09 vs. 8.31 ± 1.10 s) and operation times (77.48 ± 17.37 vs. 84.92 ± 21.97 min) but led to higher total hospitalization costs and longer incisions. No significant differences were observed in the postoperative hospital stay, bleeding volume, VAS score, NDI score, effective rate, or complication rate between the UBE and PE groups. Both the C2-7 Cobb's angle and ROM increased significantly after surgery, with no significant differences between groups. There were no significant differences between intervertebral height, vertebral horizontal displacement, and angular displacement of the surgical segment at different times. Conclusions: Both UBE and PE surgeries in the treatment of CSR were effective and similar after 24 months. The fluoroscopic and operation times of UBE were shorter than those of PE.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic laminectomy with lateral mass screw fixation for treating cervical spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) technique is less invasive and has a faster recovery time than open surgery. Compared with the uniportal technique, the biportal technique has a larger field of vision and a wider operation range. METHOD: We attempted the posterior UBE approach for cervical stenosis at the C4-C6 levels. UBE decompression of C4-C6 with unilateral lateral mass screw fixation at the C4-C5 levels was performed under general anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully performed cord decompression at the C4-C6 levels using the UBE technique. This approach could be used as an alternative method to treat cervical stenosis with instability.

Lumbar interbody fusion with bilateral cages using a biportal endoscopic technique with a third portal.

BACKGROUND: Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) with one cage results in fewer definitive fusions (Park et al. in Neurosurg Rev 42(3):753-761, 2019). We succeeded in inserting bilateral cages during ULIF. METHOD: We attempted posterior ULIF for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with bilateral recess stenosis. With the help of a third portal, ULIF with bilateral cage insertion was performed under general anaesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully performed ULIF with bilateral cages with the help of a third portal. This procedure may be an alternative for treating lumbar stenosis with instability.

[Progression and clinical application in unilateral biportal endoscopic].

With the advantages of less operative injury and quicker postoperative recovery time, percutaneous endoscopic spine surgery system is currently one of the most widely used minimal invasive spine surgery techniques in China. However, this technique usually requires surgeon to operate in a single cannula, which brings much inconvenience such as limited vision, small range of motion and low efficiency. Meanwhile, the increasingly popular technique of unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) surgery possesses the advantages of better operation visual field, more flexible in operation, shorter learning curve period, handier surgical instruments for spine surgeon, and minimize radiation dosage caused by intraoperative fluoroscopy when comparing with single cannula endoscopic technique, since UBE requires an additional portal for surgical instruments while the anther portal is placed for arthroscope and pressure pump irrigation system. This technique has been applied to the treatment of degenerative diseases of cervical and lumbar spine, facet cyst, spinal epidural lipomatosis and abscess, and has achieved satisfactory clinical results.

The insert and revolve technique: a novel approach for inserting cages during unilateral biportal endoscopic assisted fusion surgery for effective spinal alignment restoration.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. PURPOSE: This study aimed to propose a method of performing unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE)-assisted interbody cage insertion for fusion using the "insert and revolve" technique and analyze the clinico-radiological outcomes. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: UBE-assisted lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) is a rapidly evolving technique combining the advantages of minimally invasive technique with ease of learning. The limited size of cages was a result of the narrow insertion channel. We propose a technique in which large extreme lateral interbody fusion cages can be inserted through the same opening. METHODS: This study included 104 patients who underwent ULIF using the "insert and revolve technique" between July 2019 and September 2022. The patients were followed up for at least 12 months postoperatively. The clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for leg pain and back pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified McNab's criteria. Changes in segmental lordosis (SL), intervertebral disc height (IVDH), segmental coronal alignment (SCA), cage subsidence, and fusion grade were evaluated at 6- and 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: The VAS scores for leg and back pain and ODI score showed significant improvement. Based on the Macnab's criteria, 97 patients showed excellent outcomes and seven demonstrated good outcomes at 12 months. The mean IVDH increased from 6.3±2 to 10±2.1 mm immediately after surgery and 10±1.1 mm at 6 months. SL improved from 9.3°±11.5° to 17.78°±8.1°, while SCA improved from 7.7°±2.1° to 3.4°±1.2° at 1 year. Moreover, 92 and 11 patients showed grade 1 and 2 fusion, respectively, according to the Bridwell grading at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: The "insert and revolve technique" facilitates the successful insertion of large cages, contributing to the restoration of disc height and coronal and sagittal spinal correction with favorable fusion rates.

Herniated Disc Causing Foraminal Stenosis and Compression of the Unilateral Exiting Nerve Root at C5-C6: A Case Report.

This case report describes the use of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) for treating a 40-year-old female patient with cervical radiculopathy caused by a herniated disc at C5-C6, which had led to foraminal stenosis and nerve root compression. The patient presented with a one-year history of neck pain radiating to the right upper limb, accompanied by tingling sensations. Imaging revealed loss of cervical lordosis, disc dehydration, and a right-sided foraminal disc protrusion. The patient underwent a right-sided cervical UBE with C5-C6 discectomy and foraminotomy. Postoperatively, the pain was significantly reduced, with improvement in MacNab's grade and visual analog scale scores for neck pain and radiating pain of the upper limb at one- and three-month follow-ups. The procedure demonstrated the effectiveness of UBE in achieving good clinical outcomes with minimal complications, such as reduced soft tissue damage, minimal blood loss, and preserved spinal stability.

Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy for the Resection of Thoracic Intradural Extramedullary Tumors: Technique Case Report and Literature Review.

This study describes a patient with an intradural extramedullary (IDEM) tumor removed entirely using the unilateral biportal endoscopic technique (UBE), achieving satisfactory clinical outcomes. A 60-year-old woman had a diagnosis of meningioma with sensations and motor dysfunction in the lower extremities and perineum and gait disturbances for three years, which has worsened over the last month. Preoperative imaging data showed a sizeable IDEM tumor at the T10 level, significantly compressing the thoracic spinal cord to the right side, with 80% intraspinal encroachment. The IDEM tumor was removed entirely by UBE surgery. To the best of our knowledge, this study may be the first to report the application of UBE techniques for IDEM tumor treatment. In this case, UBE provides a magnified and clear surgical field, greater maneuverability, and a less invasive surgical procedure. The procedure objectives were pathological confirmation, spinal cord decompression, and complete tumor removal; all were met. The patient was satisfied with her dramatically improved clinical symptoms. UBE may be an alternative surgical treatment option for benign IDEM tumors presenting with symptomatic, especially the non-giant lateral and posterior tumors.