» Articles » PMID: 30581859

Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Experience with 2-Year Follow-Up

Overview
Journal Biomed Res Int
Publisher Wiley
Date 2018 Dec 25
PMID 30581859
Citations 32
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: Endoscopic surgeries have been attempted in the field of lumbar decompression and fusion surgery in the past decade. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PELIF) is a new-emerging technique taking advantages of an anatomical (Kambin's triangle) to achieve simultaneous decompression and fusion under endoscopic visualization. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of PELIF technique with general anesthesia and neuromonitoring.

Methods: The authors present the details of PELIF technique with general anesthesia and neuromonitoring. The first 7 consecutive patients treated with minimum of 2 year's follow-up were included. Clinical outcomes were assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and the Short Form-36 health survey questionnaire (SF-36) in the immediate preoperative period and during the follow-up period.

Results: All patients underwent single-level PELIF surgery successfully and without conversion to open surgery. The average age was 56.0±13.0 years. All patients had Grade I degenerative/isthmic spondylolisthesis and 4 patients coexisted with disc herniation. The mean operative time was 167.5±30.9 minutes, and intraoperative blood loss was 70.0±24.5 ml. Postoperative drainage volume was 24.5±18.3 ml. The differences in the VAS scores for low back pain and leg pain between preoperative and follow-up were significant (P<0.05). The SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) improved from 38.83±4.17 to 55.67±2.58 (P<0.001). The SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) improved from 43.83±3.13 to 57.50±5.36 (P=0.001). The ODI score improvement rate was 33.7±3.7 %. All cases demonstrated radiopaque graft in the intervertebral disc space consistent with solid arthrodesis.

Conclusions: PELIF technique seems to be a promising surgical technique for selected appropriate patients, with the minimal invasive advantages in decreased blood, shortage of ambulation time, and hospital stay, compared with MIS-TLIF. Because of limited Kambin's triangle space and the exiting nerve root nearby, PELIF is still a challenging technique. Future advancement and development in instrument and cage design are vital for application and popularization of this technique. Prospective, randomized, controlled studies with large sample size on PELIF technique are still needed to prove its safety, efficacy, and minimal invasive advantages.

Citing Articles

Hidden blood loss and risk factors after percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Ge M, Zhu F, Du W, Ye Z, Xiong Z, Zhang L Front Surg. 2025; 12:1490038.

PMID: 39885922 PMC: 11774912. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2025.1490038.


Efficacy of PE-PLIF with a novel ULBD approach for lumbar degeneration diseases: a large-channel endoscopic retrospective study.

Zhou Y, Zhou C, Li Q, Cai L, Kou B, Fang W J Orthop Surg Res. 2024; 19(1):269.

PMID: 38685055 PMC: 11057128. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-04755-3.


Short-term and mid-term evaluation of three types of minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgery for treatment of L4/L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Song Z, Zhang Z, Zheng J, Zhang K, Wang F, Ran M Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):4320.

PMID: 38383595 PMC: 10881486. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-54970-5.


Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications between endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Haibier A, Yusufu A, Hang L, Abudurexiti T J Orthop Surg Res. 2024; 19(1):92.

PMID: 38281015 PMC: 10821211. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-04549-7.


Clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion and modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease.

Liu Z, Wang S, Li T, Chen S, Li Y, Xie W J Orthop Surg Res. 2024; 19(1):70.

PMID: 38225673 PMC: 10790436. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-04544-y.


References
1.
Folman Y, Lee S, Silvera J, Gepstein R . Posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative disc disease using a minimally invasive B-twin expandable spinal spacer: a multicenter study. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003; 16(5):455-60. DOI: 10.1097/00024720-200310000-00004. View

2.
Epstein N . How often is minimally invasive minimally effective: what are the complication rates for minimally invasive surgery?. Surg Neurol. 2008; 70(4):386-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.surneu.2007.08.013. View

3.
Rihn J, Patel R, Makda J, Hong J, Anderson D, Vaccaro A . Complications associated with single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 2009; 9(8):623-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.04.004. View

4.
Oppenheimer J, DeCastro I, McDonnell D . Minimally invasive spine technology and minimally invasive spine surgery: a historical review. Neurosurg Focus. 2009; 27(3):E9. DOI: 10.3171/2009.7.FOCUS09121. View

5.
Xiao L, Xiong D, Zhang Q, Jian J, Zheng H, Luo Y . Percutaneous posterior-lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative disc disease using a B-Twin expandable spinal spacer. Eur Spine J. 2009; 19(2):325-30. PMC: 2899821. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1167-6. View