Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Using 3-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Cages Compared With Open TLIF: A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Fusion Rates
10.21182/jmisst.2025.02649
- Author:
Sang Hyub LEE
1
;
Junghan SEO
;
Dain JEONG
;
Sang Youp HAN
;
Dong Hyun LEE
;
Jae-Won JANG
;
Dong-Geun LEE
;
Choon Keun PARK
Author Information
1. Department of Neurosurgery, Spine Center, The Leon Wiltse Memorial Hospital, Suwon, Korea
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:
Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique
2026;11(Suppl 1):S28-S40
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Objective:Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) has emerged as an alternative to open TLIF. However, limited evidence is available regarding the application of 3-dimensional (3D)-printed titanium cages in UBE-TLIF. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and fusion rates of UBE-TLIF and open TLIF using 3D-printed titanium cages.
Methods:We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent single-level TLIF with 3D-printed titanium cages between 2021 and 2023. The inclusion criterion was degenerative lumbar stenosis, while the exclusion criteria were trauma, infection, and multilevel surgery. Clinical and radiologic outcomes were compared between the UBE-TLIF and open TLIF groups.
Results:Twenty-one patients underwent UBE-TLIF, and 21 underwent open TLIF. The visual analogue scale (VAS) for back (p=0.987) and leg pain (p=0.731) did not significantly differ between the groups at 1-year follow-up. However, VAS back pain at postoperative day 2 was significantly lower in the UBE-TLIF group than in the open TLIF group (p<0.001). Solid fusion was achieved in 21 patients (100%) in the open TLIF group and in 20 (95.2%) in the UBE-TLIF group (p=1.000). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, body mass index was the only factor that exhibited a significant relationship (odds ratio [OR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53–0.92; p=0.011) with interbody fusion. In contrast, the surgical method (UBE vs. open TLIF) was not a significant factor (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.10–2.21; p=0.337).
Conclusion:Using a 3D-printed titanium cage for UBE-TLIF may yield comparable fusion rates to those of open TLIF.
