Herniation of the intervertebral disc is a medical disease manifesting as a bulging out of the nucleus pulposus or annulus fibrosis beyond the normal position. Most lumbar disc herniation cases have a favorable natural course. On the other hand, surgical intervention is reserved for patients with severe neurological symptoms or signs, progressive neurological symptoms, cauda equina syndrome, and those who are non-responsive to conservative treatment. Numerous surgical methods have been introduced, ranging from conventional open, microscope assisted, tubular retractor assisted, and endoscopic surgery. Among them, microscopic discectomy is currently the standard method. Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) has several merits over other surgical techniques, including separate and free handling of endoscopy and surgical instruments, wide view of the surgical field with small skin incisions, absence of the procedure of removing fog from the endoscope, and lower infection rate by continuous saline irrigation. In addition, existing arthroscopic instruments for the extremities and conventional spinal instruments can be used for this technique and surgery for recurred disc herniation is applicable because delicate surgical procedures are performed under a brightness of 2,700 to 6,700 lux and a magnification of 28 to 35 times. Therefore, due to such advantages, BESS is a novel technique for the surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation.
Diskectomy ; Endoscopes ; Endoscopy ; Extremities ; Fibrosis ; Hand ; Humans ; Intervertebral Disc Displacement ; Intervertebral Disc ; Lumbar Vertebrae ; Methods ; Orthopedics ; Polyradiculopathy ; Skin ; Surgical Instruments ; Weather

BACKGROUND: Since open Wiltse approach allows limited visualization for foraminal stenosis leading to an incomplete decompression, we report the short-term clinical and radiological results of unilateral biportal endoscopic foraminal decompression using 0° or 30° endoscopy with better visualization. METHODS: We examined 31 patients that underwent surgery for neurological symptoms due to lumbar foraminal stenosis which was refractory to 6 weeks of conservative treatment. All 31 patients underwent unilateral biportal endoscopic far-lateral decompression (UBEFLD). One portal was used for viewing purpose, and the other was for surgical instruments. Unilateral foraminotomy was performed under guidance of 0° or 30° endoscopy. Clinical outcomes were analyzed using the modified Macnab criteria, Oswestry disability index, and visual analogue scale. Plain radiographs obtained preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively were compared to analyze the intervertebral angle (IVA), dynamic IVA, percentage of slip, dynamic percentage of slip (gap between the percentage of slip on flexion and extension views), slip angle, disc height index (DHI), and foraminal height index (FHI). RESULTS: The IVA significantly increased from 6.24°± 4.27° to 6.96°± 3.58° at 1 year postoperatively (p = 0.306). The dynamic IVA slightly decreased from 6.27°± 3.12° to 6.04°± 2.41°, but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.375). The percentage of slip was 3.41% ± 5.24% preoperatively and 6.01% ± 1.43% at 1-year follow-up (p = 0.227), showing no significant difference. The preoperative dynamic percentage of slip was 2.90% ± 3.37%; at 1 year postoperatively, it was 3.13% ± 4.11% (p = 0.720), showing no significant difference. The DHI changed from 34.78% ± 9.54% preoperatively to 35.05% ± 8.83% postoperatively, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.837). In addition, the FHI slightly decreased from 55.15% ± 9.45% preoperatively to 54.56% ± 9.86% postoperatively, but the results were not statistically significant (p = 0.705). CONCLUSIONS: UBEFLD using endoscopy showed a satisfactory clinical outcome after 1-year follow-up and did not induce postoperative segmental spinal instability. It could be a feasible alternative to conventional open decompression or fusion surgery for lumbar foraminal stenosis.
Constriction, Pathologic* ; Decompression* ; Endoscopy ; Follow-Up Studies ; Foraminotomy ; Humans ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures ; Spinal Stenosis ; Spine* ; Surgical Instruments

The current conventional portals for hip arthroscopic surgery are the anterior, anterolateral, and posterolateral portals. For lesions in the medial anteroinferior or posteroinferior portion of the hip, these portals provide insufficient access to the lesion and consequently lead to incomplete treatment. Thus, in such a situation, a medial portal approach might be helpful. However, operators have avoided this procedure because of the risk of injury to the obturator, femoral neurovascular structures, and the medial femoral circumflex artery. Thus, to overcome the disadvantages of the conventional method for medial lesions of the hip, we performed a cadaveric study to evaluate the technique, usefulness, and risk of the medial portal technique.
Aged ; Arthroscopy/*instrumentation/*methods ; Female ; Hip Joint/*surgery ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Patient Positioning