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.

Obesity presents significant challenges in spinal surgery, including higher rates of perioperative complications, prolonged operative times, and delayed recovery. Traditional open spine surgery often exacerbates these risks, particularly in patients with obesity, because of extensive tissue dissection and larger incisions. Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) has emerged as a promising minimally invasive alternative, offering advantages such as reduced tissue trauma, minimal blood loss, lower infection rates, and faster recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of ESS techniques, including fully endoscopic and biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy and decompression, in patients with obesity and lumbar spine pathologies. A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases yielded 2,975 studies published between 2000 and 2024, of which 10 met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed significant improvements in pain relief (Visual Analog Scale) and functional outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index), with comparable results between patients with and without obesity. Patients who are obese experienced longer operative times and have a slightly higher risk of symptom recurrence; however, ESS demonstrated lower rates of wound infections, shorter hospital stays, and faster recovery than traditional surgery. These findings position ESS as a viable and effective option for managing lumbar spine conditions in patients with obesity, addressing obesity-related surgical challenges while maintaining favorable clinical outcomes. However, limitations such as study heterogeneity and the lack of randomized controlled trials highlight the need for further high-quality research to refine ESS techniques and optimize patient care in this high-risk population.

Obesity presents significant challenges in spinal surgery, including higher rates of perioperative complications, prolonged operative times, and delayed recovery. Traditional open spine surgery often exacerbates these risks, particularly in patients with obesity, because of extensive tissue dissection and larger incisions. Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) has emerged as a promising minimally invasive alternative, offering advantages such as reduced tissue trauma, minimal blood loss, lower infection rates, and faster recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of ESS techniques, including fully endoscopic and biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy and decompression, in patients with obesity and lumbar spine pathologies. A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases yielded 2,975 studies published between 2000 and 2024, of which 10 met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed significant improvements in pain relief (Visual Analog Scale) and functional outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index), with comparable results between patients with and without obesity. Patients who are obese experienced longer operative times and have a slightly higher risk of symptom recurrence; however, ESS demonstrated lower rates of wound infections, shorter hospital stays, and faster recovery than traditional surgery. These findings position ESS as a viable and effective option for managing lumbar spine conditions in patients with obesity, addressing obesity-related surgical challenges while maintaining favorable clinical outcomes. However, limitations such as study heterogeneity and the lack of randomized controlled trials highlight the need for further high-quality research to refine ESS techniques and optimize patient care in this high-risk population.

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.

Obesity presents significant challenges in spinal surgery, including higher rates of perioperative complications, prolonged operative times, and delayed recovery. Traditional open spine surgery often exacerbates these risks, particularly in patients with obesity, because of extensive tissue dissection and larger incisions. Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) has emerged as a promising minimally invasive alternative, offering advantages such as reduced tissue trauma, minimal blood loss, lower infection rates, and faster recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of ESS techniques, including fully endoscopic and biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy and decompression, in patients with obesity and lumbar spine pathologies. A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases yielded 2,975 studies published between 2000 and 2024, of which 10 met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed significant improvements in pain relief (Visual Analog Scale) and functional outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index), with comparable results between patients with and without obesity. Patients who are obese experienced longer operative times and have a slightly higher risk of symptom recurrence; however, ESS demonstrated lower rates of wound infections, shorter hospital stays, and faster recovery than traditional surgery. These findings position ESS as a viable and effective option for managing lumbar spine conditions in patients with obesity, addressing obesity-related surgical challenges while maintaining favorable clinical outcomes. However, limitations such as study heterogeneity and the lack of randomized controlled trials highlight the need for further high-quality research to refine ESS techniques and optimize patient care in this high-risk population.

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.

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.

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.

We describe successful vertebrectomy from a posterior approach using a computed tomography (CT)-based navigation system (O-arm) in a 53-year-old man with adenocarcinoma of the posterior apex of the right lung with invasion of the adjacent rib, thoracic wall, and T2 and T3 vertebral bodies. En bloc partial vertebrectomy for lung cancer adjacent to the thoracic spine was planned using O-arm. First, laminectomy was performed from right T2 to T3, and pedicles and transverse processes of T2 to T3 were resected. O-arm was used to confirm the location of the cutting edge in the T2 to 3 right vertebral internal body, and osteotomy to the anterior cortex was performed with a chisel. Next, the patient was placed in a left decubitus position. The surgical specimen was extracted en bloc. This case shows that O-arm can be used reliably and easily in vertebrectomy from a posterior approach and can facilitate en bloc resection.
Adenocarcinoma ; Humans ; Laminectomy ; Lung Neoplasms* ; Lung* ; Middle Aged ; Osteotomy ; Ribs ; Spine* ; Thoracic Wall