Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

This video presents a case of L4–5 unstable spondylolisthesis treated with full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF), emphasizing the GUARD (Glider Used as a Rotary Device) technique for nerve root protection. This innovative approach involves controlled rotation of the cage glider before cage insertion to minimize the risk of nerve root injury, a significant complication in Endo-TLIF procedures. The GUARD technique, validated in previous cadaveric studies, provides enhanced safety during cage insertion by protecting the nerve root. A 48-year-old woman with a 3-year history of progressive low back pain and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy (right-sided predominance) was diagnosed with L4–5 unstable spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. After failure of conservative management, she underwent uniportal full-endoscopic facet-resecting transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the GUARD technique. Postoperatively, the patient experienced significant symptomatic improvement and resolution of radiculopathy, without any intraoperative nerve root injury or postoperative neurological deficits. This case demonstrates the effectiveness of the GUARD technique in reducing neurological complications and improving patient outcomes.

Objective: Uniportal full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (FE-TLIF) carries a unique risk of nerve traction and abrasion injury during cage insertion. This study aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the GUARD technique and delayed ligamentum flavectomy in reducing postoperative radicular pain and neurapraxia in patients undergoing uniportal FE-TLIF. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 45 patients with an average age of 53.9±12.4 years who underwent either FE facet-sparing TLIF (FE fs-TLIF) or FE facet-resecting TLIF (FE fr-TLIF). Patients were divided into 2 groups: the sentinel group (21 patients) using traditional sentinel pin techniques, and the GUARD group (24 patients) using the GUARD technique with delayed ligamentum flavectomy. Patient-reported outcomes included the visual analogue scale (VAS) for leg and back pain, and Oswestry Disability Index. Complication rates, including incidental durotomy, postoperative neurapraxia, and hematoma, were also documented. Results: Postoperative radicular pain in the legs was significantly reduced at 6 weeks in the GUARD group compared to the sentinel group (VAS: 2.201 vs. 3.267, p=0.021). The incidence of postoperative neurapraxia was markedly lower in the GUARD group (0% vs. 19%, p=0.047). Both groups showed similar improvements in disc height, segmental lordosis, and lumbar lordosis at the 1-year follow-up, with no significant differences in endplate injury or fusion rates. Conclusion The GUARD technique and delayed ligamentum flavectomy significantly enhance patient safety by reducing postoperative radicular pain and neurapraxia without incurring additional costs. These techniques are easy to learn and integrate into existing surgical workflows, offering a valuable improvement for surgeons performing FE-TLIF procedures.

This video presents a case of L4–5 unstable spondylolisthesis treated with full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF), emphasizing the GUARD (Glider Used as a Rotary Device) technique for nerve root protection. This innovative approach involves controlled rotation of the cage glider before cage insertion to minimize the risk of nerve root injury, a significant complication in Endo-TLIF procedures. The GUARD technique, validated in previous cadaveric studies, provides enhanced safety during cage insertion by protecting the nerve root. A 48-year-old woman with a 3-year history of progressive low back pain and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy (right-sided predominance) was diagnosed with L4–5 unstable spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. After failure of conservative management, she underwent uniportal full-endoscopic facet-resecting transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the GUARD technique. Postoperatively, the patient experienced significant symptomatic improvement and resolution of radiculopathy, without any intraoperative nerve root injury or postoperative neurological deficits. This case demonstrates the effectiveness of the GUARD technique in reducing neurological complications and improving patient outcomes.

Objective: Uniportal full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (FE-TLIF) carries a unique risk of nerve traction and abrasion injury during cage insertion. This study aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the GUARD technique and delayed ligamentum flavectomy in reducing postoperative radicular pain and neurapraxia in patients undergoing uniportal FE-TLIF. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 45 patients with an average age of 53.9±12.4 years who underwent either FE facet-sparing TLIF (FE fs-TLIF) or FE facet-resecting TLIF (FE fr-TLIF). Patients were divided into 2 groups: the sentinel group (21 patients) using traditional sentinel pin techniques, and the GUARD group (24 patients) using the GUARD technique with delayed ligamentum flavectomy. Patient-reported outcomes included the visual analogue scale (VAS) for leg and back pain, and Oswestry Disability Index. Complication rates, including incidental durotomy, postoperative neurapraxia, and hematoma, were also documented. Results: Postoperative radicular pain in the legs was significantly reduced at 6 weeks in the GUARD group compared to the sentinel group (VAS: 2.201 vs. 3.267, p=0.021). The incidence of postoperative neurapraxia was markedly lower in the GUARD group (0% vs. 19%, p=0.047). Both groups showed similar improvements in disc height, segmental lordosis, and lumbar lordosis at the 1-year follow-up, with no significant differences in endplate injury or fusion rates. Conclusion The GUARD technique and delayed ligamentum flavectomy significantly enhance patient safety by reducing postoperative radicular pain and neurapraxia without incurring additional costs. These techniques are easy to learn and integrate into existing surgical workflows, offering a valuable improvement for surgeons performing FE-TLIF procedures.

This video presents a case of L4–5 unstable spondylolisthesis treated with full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF), emphasizing the GUARD (Glider Used as a Rotary Device) technique for nerve root protection. This innovative approach involves controlled rotation of the cage glider before cage insertion to minimize the risk of nerve root injury, a significant complication in Endo-TLIF procedures. The GUARD technique, validated in previous cadaveric studies, provides enhanced safety during cage insertion by protecting the nerve root. A 48-year-old woman with a 3-year history of progressive low back pain and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy (right-sided predominance) was diagnosed with L4–5 unstable spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. After failure of conservative management, she underwent uniportal full-endoscopic facet-resecting transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the GUARD technique. Postoperatively, the patient experienced significant symptomatic improvement and resolution of radiculopathy, without any intraoperative nerve root injury or postoperative neurological deficits. This case demonstrates the effectiveness of the GUARD technique in reducing neurological complications and improving patient outcomes.

Objective: Uniportal full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (FE-TLIF) carries a unique risk of nerve traction and abrasion injury during cage insertion. This study aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the GUARD technique and delayed ligamentum flavectomy in reducing postoperative radicular pain and neurapraxia in patients undergoing uniportal FE-TLIF. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 45 patients with an average age of 53.9±12.4 years who underwent either FE facet-sparing TLIF (FE fs-TLIF) or FE facet-resecting TLIF (FE fr-TLIF). Patients were divided into 2 groups: the sentinel group (21 patients) using traditional sentinel pin techniques, and the GUARD group (24 patients) using the GUARD technique with delayed ligamentum flavectomy. Patient-reported outcomes included the visual analogue scale (VAS) for leg and back pain, and Oswestry Disability Index. Complication rates, including incidental durotomy, postoperative neurapraxia, and hematoma, were also documented. Results: Postoperative radicular pain in the legs was significantly reduced at 6 weeks in the GUARD group compared to the sentinel group (VAS: 2.201 vs. 3.267, p=0.021). The incidence of postoperative neurapraxia was markedly lower in the GUARD group (0% vs. 19%, p=0.047). Both groups showed similar improvements in disc height, segmental lordosis, and lumbar lordosis at the 1-year follow-up, with no significant differences in endplate injury or fusion rates. Conclusion The GUARD technique and delayed ligamentum flavectomy significantly enhance patient safety by reducing postoperative radicular pain and neurapraxia without incurring additional costs. These techniques are easy to learn and integrate into existing surgical workflows, offering a valuable improvement for surgeons performing FE-TLIF procedures.