Comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes between biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion
Abstract Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery has become increasingly popular, and indications have expanded. Among these, biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) has yielded good results. Herein, we compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of 155 patients treated w...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nature Portfolio
2024-11-01
|
| Series: | Scientific Reports |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81402-1 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850216457065988096 |
|---|---|
| author | Ki-Han You Jin-Tak Hyun Sang-Min Park Min-Seok Kang Samuel K. Cho Hyun-Jin Park |
| author_facet | Ki-Han You Jin-Tak Hyun Sang-Min Park Min-Seok Kang Samuel K. Cho Hyun-Jin Park |
| author_sort | Ki-Han You |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery has become increasingly popular, and indications have expanded. Among these, biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) has yielded good results. Herein, we compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of 155 patients treated with BE-TLIF and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for single-level lumbar degenerative diseases. Clinical outcomes included the visual analog scale for the back (VAS-back) and leg (VAS-leg), Oswestry Disability Index, and EuroQol 5-Dimensions. Radiological parameters and fusion rates were evaluated, and postoperative complications were recorded. In this cohort 68 and 87 patients were treated with BE-TLIF and PLIF, respectively. Both groups showed significant improvements in all clinical parameters compared with baseline, but BE-TLIF exhibited a more significant improvement in VAS-back at 1 and 6 months postoperatively. There were no significant differences in the radiological parameters or fusion rates. BE-TLIF had a significantly longer operation time, whereas PLIF exhibited a significantly higher estimated blood loss and surgical drainage, but no significant differences in postoperative complications. Compared to PLIF, BE-TLIF showed similarly good clinical and radiologic outcomes, with better results in terms of early postoperative outcomes. Thus, BE-TLIF is a viable alternative to PLIF with less back pain at 1 and 6 months postoperatively. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-01c83e21e10e4f66ba95f1fa6e9d9573 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2045-2322 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-11-01 |
| publisher | Nature Portfolio |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Scientific Reports |
| spelling | doaj-art-01c83e21e10e4f66ba95f1fa6e9d95732025-08-20T02:08:19ZengNature PortfolioScientific Reports2045-23222024-11-0114111110.1038/s41598-024-81402-1Comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes between biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusionKi-Han You0Jin-Tak Hyun1Sang-Min Park2Min-Seok Kang3Samuel K. Cho4Hyun-Jin Park5Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Spine Center, Hallym University College of Medicine, Kangnam Sacred Heart HospitalDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Spine Center, Hallym University College of Medicine, Kangnam Sacred Heart HospitalDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang HospitalDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, Anam HospitalDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Spine Center, Hallym University College of Medicine, Kangnam Sacred Heart HospitalAbstract Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery has become increasingly popular, and indications have expanded. Among these, biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) has yielded good results. Herein, we compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of 155 patients treated with BE-TLIF and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for single-level lumbar degenerative diseases. Clinical outcomes included the visual analog scale for the back (VAS-back) and leg (VAS-leg), Oswestry Disability Index, and EuroQol 5-Dimensions. Radiological parameters and fusion rates were evaluated, and postoperative complications were recorded. In this cohort 68 and 87 patients were treated with BE-TLIF and PLIF, respectively. Both groups showed significant improvements in all clinical parameters compared with baseline, but BE-TLIF exhibited a more significant improvement in VAS-back at 1 and 6 months postoperatively. There were no significant differences in the radiological parameters or fusion rates. BE-TLIF had a significantly longer operation time, whereas PLIF exhibited a significantly higher estimated blood loss and surgical drainage, but no significant differences in postoperative complications. Compared to PLIF, BE-TLIF showed similarly good clinical and radiologic outcomes, with better results in terms of early postoperative outcomes. Thus, BE-TLIF is a viable alternative to PLIF with less back pain at 1 and 6 months postoperatively.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81402-1 |
| spellingShingle | Ki-Han You Jin-Tak Hyun Sang-Min Park Min-Seok Kang Samuel K. Cho Hyun-Jin Park Comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes between biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion Scientific Reports |
| title | Comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes between biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion |
| title_full | Comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes between biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes between biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes between biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion |
| title_short | Comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes between biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion |
| title_sort | comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes between biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81402-1 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kihanyou comparisonofclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweenbiportalendoscopictransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionandposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion AT jintakhyun comparisonofclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweenbiportalendoscopictransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionandposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion AT sangminpark comparisonofclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweenbiportalendoscopictransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionandposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion AT minseokkang comparisonofclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweenbiportalendoscopictransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionandposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion AT samuelkcho comparisonofclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweenbiportalendoscopictransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionandposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion AT hyunjinpark comparisonofclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweenbiportalendoscopictransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionandposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion |