Our research examines the learning curves of various minimally invasive lumbar surgeries to determine the benefits and challenges they pose to both surgeons and patients. The advent of microsurgical techniques since the 1960s, including advances in fluoroscopic navigation and intraoperative computed tomography, has significantly shifted spinal surgery from open to minimally invasive methods. This study critically evaluates surgical duration, intraoperative conversions to open surgery, and complications as primary parameters to gauge these learning curves. Through a comprehensive literature search up to March 2024, involving databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, this paper identifies a steep learning curve associated with these surgeries. Despite their proven advantages in reducing recovery time and surgical trauma, these procedures require surgeons to master advanced technology and equipment, which can directly impact patient outcomes. The study underscores the need for well-defined learning curves to facilitate efficient training and enhance surgical proficiency, especially for novice surgeons. Moreover, it addresses the implications of technology on surgical accuracy and the subsequent effects on complication rates, providing insights into the complex dynamics of adopting new surgical innovations in spinal health care.

Objective: To describe the full-endoscopic lumbar foraminoplasty with midline skin incision (FEFM) and lateral recess decompression procedure and to report its clinical outcomes at the 1-year follow-up. Methods: Consecutive patients with lumbar foraminal and/or lateral recess stenosis who underwent FEFM procedures were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical outcomes were evaluated with a visual analogue scale (VAS) of back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) up to 1 year postoperatively. The complications and recurrence rate were also recorded. Results: A total of 30 cases (51 levels) were included (L3–4, 6 cases [11.8%]; L4–5, 23 [45.1%]; L5–S1, 22 cases [43.1%]). VAS scores collected at preoperative, postoperative day 1, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year were 9.16, 1.7, 1.36, 1.3, and 1.43, respectively. The ODI scores collected at preoperative, postoperative 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year were 46.63, 11.5, 10.66, and 10.46, respectively (p<0.05). The mean operation time was 88.7 minutes (range, 45–152 minutes). The length of hospital stay was 1.21 days (range, 1–3 days). No immediate complications were identified, and no patients experienced a recurrence of symptoms requiring revision surgery. Conclusion FEFM is an effective procedure for treating foraminal and/or lateral recess stenosis. It demonstrates the capability to decompress both bilateral foraminal and lateral recess stenosis through a single-entry point.

Objective: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) between direct and indirect decompression in the treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar diseases. Methods: Patients who underwent single-level LLIF were randomized into 2 groups: direct decompression (group D) and indirect decompression (group I). Clinical outcomes including the Oswestry Disability index and visual analogue scale of back and leg pain were collected. Radiographic outcomes including cross-sectional area (CSA) of thecal sac, disc height, foraminal height, foraminal area, fusion rate, segmental, and lumbar lordosis were measured. Results: Twenty-eight patients who met the inclusion criteria were eligible for the analysis, with a distribution of 14 subjects in each group. The average age was 66.1 years. Postoperatively, significant improvements were observed in all clinical parameters. However, these improvements did not show significant difference between both groups at all follow-up periods. All radiographic outcomes were not different between both groups, except for the increase in CSA which was significantly greater in group D (77.73 ± 20.26 mm2 vs. 54.32 ± 35.70 mm2, p = 0.042). Group I demonstrated significantly lower blood loss (68.13 ± 32.06 mL vs. 210.00 ± 110.05 mL, p < 0.005), as well as shorter operative time (136.35 ± 28.07 minutes vs. 182.18 ± 42.67 minutes, p = 0.002). Overall complication rate was not different. Conclusion Indirect decompression through LLIF results in comparable clinical improvement to LLIF with additional direct decompression over 1-year follow-up period. These findings suggest that, for an appropriate candidate, direct decompression in LLIF might not be necessary since the ligamentotaxis effect achieved through indirect decompression appears sufficient to relieve symptoms while diminishing blood loss and operative time.

Objective: To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes between 2 motion preservation surgeries, cervical disc replacement (CDR) and posterior endoscopic cervical decompression (PECD), for unilateral cervical radiculopathy. Methods: Between February 2018 and December 2020, 60 patients with unilateral cervical radiculopathy who underwent either CDR or PECD were retrospectively recruited as matched pairs. Clinical outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for neck and arm pain, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and satisfaction rates. The radiographic outcome was index level motion. Intraoperative data, complications, and hospital stay were collected. Preoperative and postoperative outcomes were compared. Results: Patients undergoing CDR or PECD were included, with 30 cases in each group. Matched pairs were compared in terms of demographic data and preoperative measurements. CDR was associated with shorter operative times, whereas PECD resulted in less intraoperative blood loss. The total complication rate was 5%. NDI and VAS for neck and arm were significantly improved in both groups, with no significant differences between the 2 groups. Satisfaction rates of good and excellent exceeded 87% in both groups. CDR was superior to PECD in the restoration of disc height. Early postoperative follow-up showed no significant difference in terms of index level motion. PECD demonstrated significantly shorter hospital stays and quicker return-to-work times (p<0.05). Conclusion PECD achieved equivalent clinical and radiologic outcomes compared with CDR when the certain criteria for surgery were met. Both techniques demonstrated the potential to maintain index level motion. Additionally, PECD resulted in less blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and faster return-to-work times. Conversely, CDR offered shorter operative times and better restoration of disc height.

Our research examines the learning curves of various minimally invasive lumbar surgeries to determine the benefits and challenges they pose to both surgeons and patients. The advent of microsurgical techniques since the 1960s, including advances in fluoroscopic navigation and intraoperative computed tomography, has significantly shifted spinal surgery from open to minimally invasive methods. This study critically evaluates surgical duration, intraoperative conversions to open surgery, and complications as primary parameters to gauge these learning curves. Through a comprehensive literature search up to March 2024, involving databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, this paper identifies a steep learning curve associated with these surgeries. Despite their proven advantages in reducing recovery time and surgical trauma, these procedures require surgeons to master advanced technology and equipment, which can directly impact patient outcomes. The study underscores the need for well-defined learning curves to facilitate efficient training and enhance surgical proficiency, especially for novice surgeons. Moreover, it addresses the implications of technology on surgical accuracy and the subsequent effects on complication rates, providing insights into the complex dynamics of adopting new surgical innovations in spinal health care.

Objective: To describe the full-endoscopic lumbar foraminoplasty with midline skin incision (FEFM) and lateral recess decompression procedure and to report its clinical outcomes at the 1-year follow-up. Methods: Consecutive patients with lumbar foraminal and/or lateral recess stenosis who underwent FEFM procedures were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical outcomes were evaluated with a visual analogue scale (VAS) of back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) up to 1 year postoperatively. The complications and recurrence rate were also recorded. Results: A total of 30 cases (51 levels) were included (L3–4, 6 cases [11.8%]; L4–5, 23 [45.1%]; L5–S1, 22 cases [43.1%]). VAS scores collected at preoperative, postoperative day 1, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year were 9.16, 1.7, 1.36, 1.3, and 1.43, respectively. The ODI scores collected at preoperative, postoperative 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year were 46.63, 11.5, 10.66, and 10.46, respectively (p<0.05). The mean operation time was 88.7 minutes (range, 45–152 minutes). The length of hospital stay was 1.21 days (range, 1–3 days). No immediate complications were identified, and no patients experienced a recurrence of symptoms requiring revision surgery. Conclusion FEFM is an effective procedure for treating foraminal and/or lateral recess stenosis. It demonstrates the capability to decompress both bilateral foraminal and lateral recess stenosis through a single-entry point.

Objective: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) between direct and indirect decompression in the treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar diseases. Methods: Patients who underwent single-level LLIF were randomized into 2 groups: direct decompression (group D) and indirect decompression (group I). Clinical outcomes including the Oswestry Disability index and visual analogue scale of back and leg pain were collected. Radiographic outcomes including cross-sectional area (CSA) of thecal sac, disc height, foraminal height, foraminal area, fusion rate, segmental, and lumbar lordosis were measured. Results: Twenty-eight patients who met the inclusion criteria were eligible for the analysis, with a distribution of 14 subjects in each group. The average age was 66.1 years. Postoperatively, significant improvements were observed in all clinical parameters. However, these improvements did not show significant difference between both groups at all follow-up periods. All radiographic outcomes were not different between both groups, except for the increase in CSA which was significantly greater in group D (77.73 ± 20.26 mm2 vs. 54.32 ± 35.70 mm2, p = 0.042). Group I demonstrated significantly lower blood loss (68.13 ± 32.06 mL vs. 210.00 ± 110.05 mL, p < 0.005), as well as shorter operative time (136.35 ± 28.07 minutes vs. 182.18 ± 42.67 minutes, p = 0.002). Overall complication rate was not different. Conclusion Indirect decompression through LLIF results in comparable clinical improvement to LLIF with additional direct decompression over 1-year follow-up period. These findings suggest that, for an appropriate candidate, direct decompression in LLIF might not be necessary since the ligamentotaxis effect achieved through indirect decompression appears sufficient to relieve symptoms while diminishing blood loss and operative time.

Objective: To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes between 2 motion preservation surgeries, cervical disc replacement (CDR) and posterior endoscopic cervical decompression (PECD), for unilateral cervical radiculopathy. Methods: Between February 2018 and December 2020, 60 patients with unilateral cervical radiculopathy who underwent either CDR or PECD were retrospectively recruited as matched pairs. Clinical outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for neck and arm pain, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and satisfaction rates. The radiographic outcome was index level motion. Intraoperative data, complications, and hospital stay were collected. Preoperative and postoperative outcomes were compared. Results: Patients undergoing CDR or PECD were included, with 30 cases in each group. Matched pairs were compared in terms of demographic data and preoperative measurements. CDR was associated with shorter operative times, whereas PECD resulted in less intraoperative blood loss. The total complication rate was 5%. NDI and VAS for neck and arm were significantly improved in both groups, with no significant differences between the 2 groups. Satisfaction rates of good and excellent exceeded 87% in both groups. CDR was superior to PECD in the restoration of disc height. Early postoperative follow-up showed no significant difference in terms of index level motion. PECD demonstrated significantly shorter hospital stays and quicker return-to-work times (p<0.05). Conclusion PECD achieved equivalent clinical and radiologic outcomes compared with CDR when the certain criteria for surgery were met. Both techniques demonstrated the potential to maintain index level motion. Additionally, PECD resulted in less blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and faster return-to-work times. Conversely, CDR offered shorter operative times and better restoration of disc height.

Our research examines the learning curves of various minimally invasive lumbar surgeries to determine the benefits and challenges they pose to both surgeons and patients. The advent of microsurgical techniques since the 1960s, including advances in fluoroscopic navigation and intraoperative computed tomography, has significantly shifted spinal surgery from open to minimally invasive methods. This study critically evaluates surgical duration, intraoperative conversions to open surgery, and complications as primary parameters to gauge these learning curves. Through a comprehensive literature search up to March 2024, involving databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, this paper identifies a steep learning curve associated with these surgeries. Despite their proven advantages in reducing recovery time and surgical trauma, these procedures require surgeons to master advanced technology and equipment, which can directly impact patient outcomes. The study underscores the need for well-defined learning curves to facilitate efficient training and enhance surgical proficiency, especially for novice surgeons. Moreover, it addresses the implications of technology on surgical accuracy and the subsequent effects on complication rates, providing insights into the complex dynamics of adopting new surgical innovations in spinal health care.

Objective: To describe the full-endoscopic lumbar foraminoplasty with midline skin incision (FEFM) and lateral recess decompression procedure and to report its clinical outcomes at the 1-year follow-up. Methods: Consecutive patients with lumbar foraminal and/or lateral recess stenosis who underwent FEFM procedures were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical outcomes were evaluated with a visual analogue scale (VAS) of back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) up to 1 year postoperatively. The complications and recurrence rate were also recorded. Results: A total of 30 cases (51 levels) were included (L3–4, 6 cases [11.8%]; L4–5, 23 [45.1%]; L5–S1, 22 cases [43.1%]). VAS scores collected at preoperative, postoperative day 1, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year were 9.16, 1.7, 1.36, 1.3, and 1.43, respectively. The ODI scores collected at preoperative, postoperative 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year were 46.63, 11.5, 10.66, and 10.46, respectively (p<0.05). The mean operation time was 88.7 minutes (range, 45–152 minutes). The length of hospital stay was 1.21 days (range, 1–3 days). No immediate complications were identified, and no patients experienced a recurrence of symptoms requiring revision surgery. Conclusion FEFM is an effective procedure for treating foraminal and/or lateral recess stenosis. It demonstrates the capability to decompress both bilateral foraminal and lateral recess stenosis through a single-entry point.