Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is growing in popularity worldwide. An expanding body of literature demonstrates rapid functional recovery with reduced morbidity compared to open techniques. Both full endoscopic spine surgery, or uniportal endoscopy, and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) can be employed in conjunction with various navigation and enabling technologies for assistance with localization of anatomic orientation and assessment of the intraoperative target spinal pathology. This review article describes various navigation technologies in ESS, including 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopic imaging, 2D fluoroscopic navigation, 3-dimensional C-arm navigation, augmented reality, and spinal robotics. Employment of enabling navigation and emerging technology with the registration of patient-specific anatomy enables clear delineation of anatomic landmarks and facilitation of a successful procedure. Additionally, avoidance of common pitfalls during use of navigation systems in ESS is discussed in this review.

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is growing in popularity worldwide. An expanding body of literature demonstrates rapid functional recovery with reduced morbidity compared to open techniques. Both full endoscopic spine surgery, or uniportal endoscopy, and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) can be employed in conjunction with various navigation and enabling technologies for assistance with localization of anatomic orientation and assessment of the intraoperative target spinal pathology. This review article describes various navigation technologies in ESS, including 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopic imaging, 2D fluoroscopic navigation, 3-dimensional C-arm navigation, augmented reality, and spinal robotics. Employment of enabling navigation and emerging technology with the registration of patient-specific anatomy enables clear delineation of anatomic landmarks and facilitation of a successful procedure. Additionally, avoidance of common pitfalls during use of navigation systems in ESS is discussed in this review.

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is growing in popularity worldwide. An expanding body of literature demonstrates rapid functional recovery with reduced morbidity compared to open techniques. Both full endoscopic spine surgery, or uniportal endoscopy, and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) can be employed in conjunction with various navigation and enabling technologies for assistance with localization of anatomic orientation and assessment of the intraoperative target spinal pathology. This review article describes various navigation technologies in ESS, including 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopic imaging, 2D fluoroscopic navigation, 3-dimensional C-arm navigation, augmented reality, and spinal robotics. Employment of enabling navigation and emerging technology with the registration of patient-specific anatomy enables clear delineation of anatomic landmarks and facilitation of a successful procedure. Additionally, avoidance of common pitfalls during use of navigation systems in ESS is discussed in this review.

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is growing in popularity worldwide. An expanding body of literature demonstrates rapid functional recovery with reduced morbidity compared to open techniques. Both full endoscopic spine surgery, or uniportal endoscopy, and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) can be employed in conjunction with various navigation and enabling technologies for assistance with localization of anatomic orientation and assessment of the intraoperative target spinal pathology. This review article describes various navigation technologies in ESS, including 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopic imaging, 2D fluoroscopic navigation, 3-dimensional C-arm navigation, augmented reality, and spinal robotics. Employment of enabling navigation and emerging technology with the registration of patient-specific anatomy enables clear delineation of anatomic landmarks and facilitation of a successful procedure. Additionally, avoidance of common pitfalls during use of navigation systems in ESS is discussed in this review.

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is growing in popularity worldwide. An expanding body of literature demonstrates rapid functional recovery with reduced morbidity compared to open techniques. Both full endoscopic spine surgery, or uniportal endoscopy, and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) can be employed in conjunction with various navigation and enabling technologies for assistance with localization of anatomic orientation and assessment of the intraoperative target spinal pathology. This review article describes various navigation technologies in ESS, including 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopic imaging, 2D fluoroscopic navigation, 3-dimensional C-arm navigation, augmented reality, and spinal robotics. Employment of enabling navigation and emerging technology with the registration of patient-specific anatomy enables clear delineation of anatomic landmarks and facilitation of a successful procedure. Additionally, avoidance of common pitfalls during use of navigation systems in ESS is discussed in this review.

Objective: While minimally invasive surgical procedures have been shown to reduce postoperative pain and recovery time compared to an open surgical approach, few studies have also compared pain management, particularly involving the use of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE). Methods: Patients who underwent single-level laminectomy through a UBE, open, or tubular technique were chart-reviewed for up to 90 days for perioperative outcomes, including opioid and nonopioid utilization. The chi-square test and analysis of variance were used to analyze differences in characteristics and outcomes between groups. The post hoc Tukey test and multinomial regression were conducted when significance was found in initial tests. Results: In total, 184 patients were included in the study (110 open, 44 tubular, 30 UBE). The UBE patients were the oldest. Post hoc analysis showed that UBE and tubular patients had significantly lower blood loss than the open group (p<0.05). Moreover, UBE surgery was associated with significantly longer operative times than both tubular and open surgery (p<0.05). No significant differences were observed in complications, 90-day readmissions, or return to the operating room. Postdischarge, patients in the open and tubular groups had higher rates of acetaminophen and cyclobenzaprine prescriptions, respectively, than the UBE group (p<0.05). Postoperative opioid use at 2 weeks significantly differed among groups. When controlling for age and preoperative opioid use, multivariate regression revealed that patients who underwent decompression by UBE had lower odds of postdischarge opioid use at 2 weeks than the open group (53.20% vs. 21.70%; odds ratio [OR], 0.267; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09–0.79; p=0.017) and the tubular group (50.0% vs. 21.70%; OR, 0.268; 95% CI, 0.08–0.91; p=0.038). No statistically significant between-group differences were observed for ongoing opioid use at the 6-week and 3-month time points. Conclusions Patients who underwent UBE had significantly lower odds of postdischarge narcotic use at 2-week follow-up than those undergoing the open and tubular approaches.