Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the biportal endoscopic techniques versus microscopic tubular technique

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) with microscopic tubular technique is an established surgical procedure with several potential advantages, including decreased surgical-related morbidity, reduced length of hospital stay, and accelerated early rehabilitation. A recently introduced biportal endoscopic technique for spine surgery presents familiar surgical anatomy and can be conducted using a conventional approach with a minimal footprint; it is also applicable to TLIF.To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of biportal endoscopic technique transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) and microscopic tubular technique transforaminal lumbar interbody (MT-TLIF) in patients with single- or two-segment lumbar spinal stenosis with or without spondylolisthesis.A retrospective cohort study.One hundred two participants with neurogenic intermittent claudication or lumbar radiculopathy with single- or two-level lumbar spinal stenosis with or without spondylolisthesis.Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) score for the back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Short Form-36 health survey Questionnaire (SF-36). Demographic data, operative data (total operation time, estimated blood loss, amount of surgical drain, postoperative transfusion, and length of hospital stay), and laboratory results (plasma hemoglobin, serum creatine phosphokinase, and C-reactive protein) were also evaluated. The fusion rate was assessed using the Bridwell interbody fusion grading system. Postoperative complications were also noted.Patients were divided into two groups: group A (BE-TLIF) and group B (MT-TLIF). The clinical outcomes, including VAS-Back and VAS-Leg, ODI, and SF-36 scores, were evaluated at 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery. Differences in demographics, operative data, and the laboratory and radiological results were assessed between the two groups. The fusion rate was assessed using standard standing lumbar radiographs and computed tomography scans conducted 1 year after surgery.Seventy-nine patients were analyzed in this study, 47 from group A and 32 from group B. Demographic and operative data were comparable for both the groups. The VAS-Back and SF-36 scores were more significantly improved in group A than in group B at 1 month after surgery. However, there were no significant differences between groups for the mean VAS-Back, VAS-Leg, ODI, and SF-36 scores at 1year after the surgery. Although the total operation time was significantly longer in group A, the estimated blood loss and the amount of surgical drainage was significantly higher in group B (p < .001). There were no between-group differences for the fusion rate and postoperative complications.Both BE-TLIF and MT-TLIF provided equivalent and favorable clinical outcomes and fusion rates. Further large-scale, randomized, controlled trials with long-term follow-ups are warranted.