To evaluate the learning curve of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar discectomy (PETLD) from the novice stage to the proficient stage, we performed retrospective study for patients with lumbar disc herniation who underwent PETLD performed by a single surgeon and evaluated the surgeon's learning curve and the effect of surgical proficiency on outcomes. A total of 48 patients who underwent PETLD at the lower lumbar level (L3–S1) with a minimum 1-year follow-up were enrolled. The learning curve of the surgeon was assessed using cumulative study of operation time and linear regression analyses to reveal the correlation between operation time and case series number. Because the cutoff of familiarity was 25 cases according to the cumulative study of operation time, the patients were allocated into two groups: early group (n = 25) and late group (n = 23). The clinical, surgical, and radiological outcomes were retrospectively evaluated and compared between the two groups. According to linear regression analyses, the operation time was obtained using the following formula: operation time (minutes) = 69.925–(0.503 × [case number]) (P < .001). As expected, the operation time was significantly different between the two groups (mean 66.00 ± 11.37 min in the early group vs 50.43 ± 7.52 min in the late group, P < .001). No differences were found between the two groups in demographic data and baseline characteristics. Almost all clinical outcomes (including pain improvement and patient satisfaction), surgical outcomes (including failure, recurrence, and additional procedure rates), and radiological outcomes (including change of disc height and sagittal angles) did not differ between the two groups. However, the late group demonstrated a more favorable postoperative volume index of the remnant disc (362.91 mm³ [95% confidence interval, 272.81–453.02] in the early group vs 161.14 mm³ [95% confidence interval, 124.31–197.97] in the late group, P < .001), and a lower complication rate related to exiting nerve root (16.0% in the early group vs 0% in the late group, P = .045). The learning curve of PETLD is not as difficult as that of other minimally invasive spine surgery technique. Although the overall outcomes were not different between the groups, the risks of incomplete decompression and exiting root injury-related complication were higher in the novice stage.

Many studies on the clinical outcome of full endoscopic spine surgery versus open spine surgery have been published. However, only a few studies have compared the learning curves of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy (PEILD) and open lumbar microdiscectomy (OLM) at the L5–S1 level. This study included patients with disc herniation at the L5–S1 level, who underwent PEILD or OLM performed by a single novice surgeon and compared the learning curves. Fifty-six patients who underwent PEILD or OLM at the L5–S1 level and completed a minimum 1-year follow-up were enrolled in the study. The patients were allocated to the PEILD group (n = 27, September 2014 to August 2016) or an OLM group (n = 29, September 2012 to August 2014). The learning curves were retrospectively compared based on operation time and surgical outcomes, including complication, failure, and recurrence rates were retrospectively compared. Significant intergroup differences were not noted with respect to the baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index, preoperative symptoms, or preoperative radiological findings. The mean operation time was significantly shorter in the PEILD group than in the OLM group (63.89±17.99 min versus 78.03±19.01 min, p = 0.006). Based on the operation time according to the number of cases, the learning curve was more difficult in the PEILD group according to the cumulative analysis (case number cut-off for proficiency was 18 in the PEILD group versus 10 in the OLM group) and linear regression analysis (proportionality constant for decrease in the operation time was -0.922 in the PEILD group versus -1.738 in the OLM group) than that in the OLM group. However, the surgical outcomes, including failure, surgical efficacy based on nerve root decompression, complication, and recurrence rates did not differ between the two groups. Although the learning curve of PEILD was more difficult than that of OLM, the mean operation time was shorter in the PEILD group than that in the OLM group. Moreover, based on the surgical outcomes, PEILD showed efficacy and safety similar to those of OLM.

Objective : Although full-endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF) has been tried as the latest alternative technique to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interobody fusion (MIS-TLIF) since mid-2010, the evidence is still lacking. We compared the clinical outcome and safety of Endo-LIF to MIS-TLIF for lumbar degenerative disease.Methods : We systematically searched electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library to find literature comparing Endo-LIF to MIS-TLIF. The results retrieved were last updated on December 11, 2020. The perioperative outcome included the operation time, blood loss, complication, and hospital stay. The clinical outcomes included Visual analog scale (VAS) of low back pain and leg pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the radiological outcome included pseudoarthosis rate with 12-month minimum follow-up.Results : Four retrospective observational studies and one prospective observational study comprising 423 patients (183 Endo-LIF and 241 MIS-TLIF) were included, and the pooled data analysis revealed low heterogeneity between studies in our review. Baseline characteristics including age and sex were not different between the two groups. Operation time was significantly longer in Endo- LIF (mean difference [MD], 23.220 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.669–35.771; p=0.001). However, Endo-LIF resulted in less perioperative blood loss (MD, -144.710 mL; 95% CI, 247.941–41.478; p=0.023). Although VAS back pain at final (MD, -0.120; p=0.586), leg pain within 2 weeks (MD, 0.005; p=0.293), VAS leg pain at final (MD, 0.099; p=0.099), ODI at final (MD, 0.141; p=0.093) were not different, VAS back pain within 2 weeks was more favorable in the Endo-LIF (MD, -1.538; 95% CI, -2.044 to -1.032; p<0.001). On the other hand, no statistically significant group difference in complication rate (relative risk [RR], 0.709; p=0.774), hospital stay (MD, -2.399; p=0.151), and pseudoarthrosis rate (RR, 1.284; p=0.736) were found.Conclusion : Relative to MIS-TLIF, immediate outcomes were favorable in Endo-LIF in terms of blood loss and immediate VAS back pain, although complication rate, mid-term clinical outcomes, and fusion rate were not different. However, the challenges for Endo-LIF include longer operation time which means a difficult learning curve and limited surgical indication which means patient selection bias. Larger-scale, well-designed study with long-term follow-up and randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm and update the results of this systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The object of this study was to compare, after a long-term follow-up, the incidence and features of adjacent segment disease (ASDis) following lumbar fusion surgery performed via an open technique using conventional interbody fusion plus transpedicular screw fixation or a minimally invasive surgery (MIS) using a tubular retractor together with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with a follow-up period > 10 years who had undergone instrumented lumbar fusion at the L4–5 level between January 2004 and December 2010. The patients were divided into an open surgery group and MIS group based on the surgical method performed. Baseline characteristics and radiological findings, including factors related to ASDis, were compared between the two groups. Additionally, the incidence of ASDis and related details, including diagnosis, time to diagnosis, and treatment, were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 119 patients who had undergone lumbar fusion at the L4–5 level in the study period, 32 were excluded according to the exclusion criteria. The remaining 87 patients were included as the final study cohort and were divided into an open group (n = 44) and MIS group (n = 43). The mean follow-up period was 10.50 (range 10.0–14.0) years in the open group and 10.16 (range 10.0–13.0) years in the MIS group. The overall facet joint violation rate was significantly higher in the open group than in the MIS group (54.5% vs 30.2%, p = 0.022). However, in terms of adjacent segment degeneration, there were no significant differences in corrected disc height, segmental angle, range of motion, or degree of listhesis of the adjacent segments between the two groups during follow-up. The overall incidence of ASDis was 33.3%, with incidences of 31.8% in the open group and 34.9% in the MIS group, showing no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.822). Additionally, detailed diagnosis and treatment factors were not different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: After a minimum 10-year follow-up, the incidence of ASDis did not differ significantly between patients who had undergone open fusion and those who had undergone MIS fusion at the L4–5 level.