1.Risk Factors for Vasovagal Reactions during Nonoperative Orthopedic Interventions in Outpatient Clinics: A Clinical Evaluation of 1,208 Patients
Mustafa ÖZYILDIRAN ; Mustafa Onur KARACA ; Abdullah MERTER
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2026;18(1):176-183
Background:
Vasovagal reactions (VVRs) are abnormal autonomic responses mediated by the vagus nerve. They can occur during or after interventional procedures and negatively impact patient care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of VVRs observed during nonoperative orthopedic interventions in outpatient clinics and to analyze the associated risk factors.
Methods:
The data of 1,208 patients who underwent nonoperative orthopedic interventions at a single-center outpatient clinic between December 2023 and December 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were categorized into 2 groups based on the occurrence of VVR. The clinical data of both groups were analyzed to identify factors associated with VVRs.
Results:
A total of 1,208 patients with a mean age of 54.7 years were included in the study. Among the 1,208 patients included, 51 cases of VVRs were reported (4.2%). The VVR group had a younger mean age (44.2 vs. 55.1 years, p < 0.001) and a higher proportion of females (74.5% vs. 59.2%, p = 0.029) compared to the non-VVR group. Mean visual analog scale (VAS) scores during intervention were higher in the VVR group (6.41 vs. 2.98, p < 0.001), and blood-injury-injection (BII) phobia was more common (39.2% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.001). Fasting time was longer in the VVR group (3.9 vs. 2.8 hours, p = 0.003). No significant differences were observed in hypertension, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, or asthma between groups (p > 0.05).
Conclusions
Younger age, female sex, higher VAS scores, BII phobia, and longer fasting times were the risk factors for VVRs associated with nonoperative orthopedic interventions.
2.Comparison of 3 Different Endoscopic Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Comprehensive Radiological and Clinical Study
Abdullah MERTER ; Mustafa ÖZYILDIRAN ; Motohide SHIBAYAMA ; Zenya ITO ; Shu NAKAMURA ; Fujio ITO
Neurospine 2025;22(1):276-285
Objective:
This study aimed to compare the clinical and comprehensive radiological outcomes of 3 types of endoscopic decompression surgery: unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar decompression (UBELD), microendoscopic laminotomy (MEL), and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression (PELD).
Methods:
Patients with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis without instability were included in this multicenter retrospective study. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for each extremity, VAS back pain, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores at preoperative and postoperative 1st, 6th, and 12th months were used as clinical outcome measures. In order to compare the radiological results of the patients, bilateral superior articular distance (SAD), bilateral lateral recess height (LR height), bilateral lateral recess angle (LR angle), and cross-sectional spinal canal area values were measured.
Results:
Eighty patients in the UBELD group, 73 patients in the MEL group, and 62 patients in the PELD group were included in the study. There was a statistically significant improvement in VAS scores and JOA scores in all groups compared to the preoperative period. At the 12th month postoperatively, the highest lateral decompression values on the approach side were determined as MEL (SAD: 4.1 mm, LR angle: 38.8°, LR height: 4.0 mm), followed by UBELD (SAD: 3.6 mm, LR angle: 36.2°, LR height: 3.3 mm) and PELD (SAD: 3.0 mm, LR angle: 21.7°, LR height: 2.3 mm), respectively. For the contralateral side, the highest lateral recess decompression values were listed as UBELD > MEL > PELD.
Conclusion
Effective decompression can be performed using all endoscopic techniques in lumbar spinal stenosis. However lateral recess decompression values were found to be better in UBELD and MEL techniques, compared to PELD.
3.Comparison of 3 Different Endoscopic Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Comprehensive Radiological and Clinical Study
Abdullah MERTER ; Mustafa ÖZYILDIRAN ; Motohide SHIBAYAMA ; Zenya ITO ; Shu NAKAMURA ; Fujio ITO
Neurospine 2025;22(1):276-285
Objective:
This study aimed to compare the clinical and comprehensive radiological outcomes of 3 types of endoscopic decompression surgery: unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar decompression (UBELD), microendoscopic laminotomy (MEL), and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression (PELD).
Methods:
Patients with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis without instability were included in this multicenter retrospective study. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for each extremity, VAS back pain, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores at preoperative and postoperative 1st, 6th, and 12th months were used as clinical outcome measures. In order to compare the radiological results of the patients, bilateral superior articular distance (SAD), bilateral lateral recess height (LR height), bilateral lateral recess angle (LR angle), and cross-sectional spinal canal area values were measured.
Results:
Eighty patients in the UBELD group, 73 patients in the MEL group, and 62 patients in the PELD group were included in the study. There was a statistically significant improvement in VAS scores and JOA scores in all groups compared to the preoperative period. At the 12th month postoperatively, the highest lateral decompression values on the approach side were determined as MEL (SAD: 4.1 mm, LR angle: 38.8°, LR height: 4.0 mm), followed by UBELD (SAD: 3.6 mm, LR angle: 36.2°, LR height: 3.3 mm) and PELD (SAD: 3.0 mm, LR angle: 21.7°, LR height: 2.3 mm), respectively. For the contralateral side, the highest lateral recess decompression values were listed as UBELD > MEL > PELD.
Conclusion
Effective decompression can be performed using all endoscopic techniques in lumbar spinal stenosis. However lateral recess decompression values were found to be better in UBELD and MEL techniques, compared to PELD.
4.Comparison of 3 Different Endoscopic Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Comprehensive Radiological and Clinical Study
Abdullah MERTER ; Mustafa ÖZYILDIRAN ; Motohide SHIBAYAMA ; Zenya ITO ; Shu NAKAMURA ; Fujio ITO
Neurospine 2025;22(1):276-285
Objective:
This study aimed to compare the clinical and comprehensive radiological outcomes of 3 types of endoscopic decompression surgery: unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar decompression (UBELD), microendoscopic laminotomy (MEL), and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression (PELD).
Methods:
Patients with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis without instability were included in this multicenter retrospective study. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for each extremity, VAS back pain, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores at preoperative and postoperative 1st, 6th, and 12th months were used as clinical outcome measures. In order to compare the radiological results of the patients, bilateral superior articular distance (SAD), bilateral lateral recess height (LR height), bilateral lateral recess angle (LR angle), and cross-sectional spinal canal area values were measured.
Results:
Eighty patients in the UBELD group, 73 patients in the MEL group, and 62 patients in the PELD group were included in the study. There was a statistically significant improvement in VAS scores and JOA scores in all groups compared to the preoperative period. At the 12th month postoperatively, the highest lateral decompression values on the approach side were determined as MEL (SAD: 4.1 mm, LR angle: 38.8°, LR height: 4.0 mm), followed by UBELD (SAD: 3.6 mm, LR angle: 36.2°, LR height: 3.3 mm) and PELD (SAD: 3.0 mm, LR angle: 21.7°, LR height: 2.3 mm), respectively. For the contralateral side, the highest lateral recess decompression values were listed as UBELD > MEL > PELD.
Conclusion
Effective decompression can be performed using all endoscopic techniques in lumbar spinal stenosis. However lateral recess decompression values were found to be better in UBELD and MEL techniques, compared to PELD.
5.Comparison of 3 Different Endoscopic Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Comprehensive Radiological and Clinical Study
Abdullah MERTER ; Mustafa ÖZYILDIRAN ; Motohide SHIBAYAMA ; Zenya ITO ; Shu NAKAMURA ; Fujio ITO
Neurospine 2025;22(1):276-285
Objective:
This study aimed to compare the clinical and comprehensive radiological outcomes of 3 types of endoscopic decompression surgery: unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar decompression (UBELD), microendoscopic laminotomy (MEL), and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression (PELD).
Methods:
Patients with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis without instability were included in this multicenter retrospective study. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for each extremity, VAS back pain, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores at preoperative and postoperative 1st, 6th, and 12th months were used as clinical outcome measures. In order to compare the radiological results of the patients, bilateral superior articular distance (SAD), bilateral lateral recess height (LR height), bilateral lateral recess angle (LR angle), and cross-sectional spinal canal area values were measured.
Results:
Eighty patients in the UBELD group, 73 patients in the MEL group, and 62 patients in the PELD group were included in the study. There was a statistically significant improvement in VAS scores and JOA scores in all groups compared to the preoperative period. At the 12th month postoperatively, the highest lateral decompression values on the approach side were determined as MEL (SAD: 4.1 mm, LR angle: 38.8°, LR height: 4.0 mm), followed by UBELD (SAD: 3.6 mm, LR angle: 36.2°, LR height: 3.3 mm) and PELD (SAD: 3.0 mm, LR angle: 21.7°, LR height: 2.3 mm), respectively. For the contralateral side, the highest lateral recess decompression values were listed as UBELD > MEL > PELD.
Conclusion
Effective decompression can be performed using all endoscopic techniques in lumbar spinal stenosis. However lateral recess decompression values were found to be better in UBELD and MEL techniques, compared to PELD.
6.Comparison of 3 Different Endoscopic Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Comprehensive Radiological and Clinical Study
Abdullah MERTER ; Mustafa ÖZYILDIRAN ; Motohide SHIBAYAMA ; Zenya ITO ; Shu NAKAMURA ; Fujio ITO
Neurospine 2025;22(1):276-285
Objective:
This study aimed to compare the clinical and comprehensive radiological outcomes of 3 types of endoscopic decompression surgery: unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar decompression (UBELD), microendoscopic laminotomy (MEL), and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression (PELD).
Methods:
Patients with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis without instability were included in this multicenter retrospective study. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for each extremity, VAS back pain, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores at preoperative and postoperative 1st, 6th, and 12th months were used as clinical outcome measures. In order to compare the radiological results of the patients, bilateral superior articular distance (SAD), bilateral lateral recess height (LR height), bilateral lateral recess angle (LR angle), and cross-sectional spinal canal area values were measured.
Results:
Eighty patients in the UBELD group, 73 patients in the MEL group, and 62 patients in the PELD group were included in the study. There was a statistically significant improvement in VAS scores and JOA scores in all groups compared to the preoperative period. At the 12th month postoperatively, the highest lateral decompression values on the approach side were determined as MEL (SAD: 4.1 mm, LR angle: 38.8°, LR height: 4.0 mm), followed by UBELD (SAD: 3.6 mm, LR angle: 36.2°, LR height: 3.3 mm) and PELD (SAD: 3.0 mm, LR angle: 21.7°, LR height: 2.3 mm), respectively. For the contralateral side, the highest lateral recess decompression values were listed as UBELD > MEL > PELD.
Conclusion
Effective decompression can be performed using all endoscopic techniques in lumbar spinal stenosis. However lateral recess decompression values were found to be better in UBELD and MEL techniques, compared to PELD.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail