Minimally invasive spine surgery (MIS) has shown promising results, and endoscopic spine surgery has emerged as a less invasive approach. Although studies have examined the effectiveness of endoscopic surgery for spinal stenosis, no meta-analyses have focused on multilevel cases. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of uniportal and biportal endoscopy in patients with multilevel spinal stenosis. The patient, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study criteria were established to guide study selection. Four databases were searched. The outcome measures included patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiological and analytical data, complications, surgery time, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. Review Manager ver. 5.4 software (RevMan; Cochrane, UK) was used for the analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi-square and I2 tests. Ten studies (n=686) were included. PROMs showed significant improvements in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for back pain (mean difference [MD], 4.07; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 3.72–4.42), leg pain (MD, 5.49; 95% CI, 5.17–5.80), and Oswestry Disability Index (MD, 35.97; 95% CI, 32.46–39.47). MacNab scale results were as follows: excellent (55.37%), good (34.93%), fair (7.58%), and poor (4.06%). C-reactive protein levels did not change significantly; however, hemoglobin levels decreased postoperatively (MD, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.91–1.65). Complications included dural tears (5.46%), hematoma (4.30%), incomplete decompression (3.12%), root injury (2.90%), reoperations/revisions (2.22%), conversion to open or microscopic surgery (1.97%), and transfusions (8.50%). Analysis by levels showed worse VAS leg pain in studies analyzing >30% multilevel stenosis (MD, 4.99; 95% CI, 4.47–5.51 vs. MD, 5.82; 95% CI, 5.63–6.01). Uniportal and biportal endoscopy had similar outcomes, except for a higher incidence of dural tears on biportal endoscopy (uniportal, 3.33%; biportal, 7.05%). This meta-analysis supports endoscopy as an effective and safe option for multilevel lumbar stenoses. It improves long-term pain and functionality, with no significant radiological changes or postoperative inflammation. Complications are few; however, dural tears are more common in biportal endoscopy. Higher multilevel stenosis rates were associated with increased leg pain and a lower likelihood of achieving incomplete decompression.

Minimally invasive spine surgery (MIS) has shown promising results, and endoscopic spine surgery has emerged as a less invasive approach. Although studies have examined the effectiveness of endoscopic surgery for spinal stenosis, no meta-analyses have focused on multilevel cases. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of uniportal and biportal endoscopy in patients with multilevel spinal stenosis. The patient, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study criteria were established to guide study selection. Four databases were searched. The outcome measures included patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiological and analytical data, complications, surgery time, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. Review Manager ver. 5.4 software (RevMan; Cochrane, UK) was used for the analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi-square and I2 tests. Ten studies (n=686) were included. PROMs showed significant improvements in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for back pain (mean difference [MD], 4.07; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 3.72–4.42), leg pain (MD, 5.49; 95% CI, 5.17–5.80), and Oswestry Disability Index (MD, 35.97; 95% CI, 32.46–39.47). MacNab scale results were as follows: excellent (55.37%), good (34.93%), fair (7.58%), and poor (4.06%). C-reactive protein levels did not change significantly; however, hemoglobin levels decreased postoperatively (MD, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.91–1.65). Complications included dural tears (5.46%), hematoma (4.30%), incomplete decompression (3.12%), root injury (2.90%), reoperations/revisions (2.22%), conversion to open or microscopic surgery (1.97%), and transfusions (8.50%). Analysis by levels showed worse VAS leg pain in studies analyzing >30% multilevel stenosis (MD, 4.99; 95% CI, 4.47–5.51 vs. MD, 5.82; 95% CI, 5.63–6.01). Uniportal and biportal endoscopy had similar outcomes, except for a higher incidence of dural tears on biportal endoscopy (uniportal, 3.33%; biportal, 7.05%). This meta-analysis supports endoscopy as an effective and safe option for multilevel lumbar stenoses. It improves long-term pain and functionality, with no significant radiological changes or postoperative inflammation. Complications are few; however, dural tears are more common in biportal endoscopy. Higher multilevel stenosis rates were associated with increased leg pain and a lower likelihood of achieving incomplete decompression.

Minimally invasive spine surgery (MIS) has shown promising results, and endoscopic spine surgery has emerged as a less invasive approach. Although studies have examined the effectiveness of endoscopic surgery for spinal stenosis, no meta-analyses have focused on multilevel cases. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of uniportal and biportal endoscopy in patients with multilevel spinal stenosis. The patient, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study criteria were established to guide study selection. Four databases were searched. The outcome measures included patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiological and analytical data, complications, surgery time, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. Review Manager ver. 5.4 software (RevMan; Cochrane, UK) was used for the analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi-square and I2 tests. Ten studies (n=686) were included. PROMs showed significant improvements in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for back pain (mean difference [MD], 4.07; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 3.72–4.42), leg pain (MD, 5.49; 95% CI, 5.17–5.80), and Oswestry Disability Index (MD, 35.97; 95% CI, 32.46–39.47). MacNab scale results were as follows: excellent (55.37%), good (34.93%), fair (7.58%), and poor (4.06%). C-reactive protein levels did not change significantly; however, hemoglobin levels decreased postoperatively (MD, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.91–1.65). Complications included dural tears (5.46%), hematoma (4.30%), incomplete decompression (3.12%), root injury (2.90%), reoperations/revisions (2.22%), conversion to open or microscopic surgery (1.97%), and transfusions (8.50%). Analysis by levels showed worse VAS leg pain in studies analyzing >30% multilevel stenosis (MD, 4.99; 95% CI, 4.47–5.51 vs. MD, 5.82; 95% CI, 5.63–6.01). Uniportal and biportal endoscopy had similar outcomes, except for a higher incidence of dural tears on biportal endoscopy (uniportal, 3.33%; biportal, 7.05%). This meta-analysis supports endoscopy as an effective and safe option for multilevel lumbar stenoses. It improves long-term pain and functionality, with no significant radiological changes or postoperative inflammation. Complications are few; however, dural tears are more common in biportal endoscopy. Higher multilevel stenosis rates were associated with increased leg pain and a lower likelihood of achieving incomplete decompression.

The fully endoscopic technique has become the most effective and safest option for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Specifically, the interlaminar approach, which was first described at the beginning of the 21st century, is used for the treatment of L4–5 and L5–S1 intracanal disc herniation. Learning protocolized maneuvers facilitates reproducibility and increases the safety of the procedure. The description of the main maneuvers in this article aims to reduce complications and the learning curve with their widespread implementation.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic discectomy using the transpedicular approach for hernias with down-migration. Methods: The study involved a retrospective descriptive analysis of 7 patients who underwent surgery by 2 senior surgeons at 4 different hospitals between 2016 and 2024. The minimum follow-up period was 6 months. All patients were treated with lumbar discectomy through a transpedicular approach with an oblique trajectory. Preoperative and postoperative clinical data were collected for statistical analysis. Results: The surgical procedures were successful and complication-free for all patients. The preoperative and postoperative radicular visual analogue scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores were compared, and the differences were statistically significant (p<0.05). Conclusion At the last follow-up, 100% of patients had good to excellent results according to the modified MacNab criteria. The transpedicular approach, when using a percutaneous endoscopic technique, requires precise surgical planning and accurate knowledge of the vertebral anatomy. The technique can be made more accessible to inexperienced surgeons by describing it with different instrumentation.