Lumbar spinal stenosis is a widespread condition that significantly affects the quality of life in elderly individuals. Conservative therapy has a positive effect on patients whose primary symptom is pain. However, in severe cases with the presence of hypesthesia and paresis, surgical treatment comes into consideration. The aim of surgery is to decompress the neurovascular elements compressed by the narrowed spinal canal while preserving spinal stability. Conventional laminectomy, with or without fusion, has been considered effective for the treatment of this pathology, but its drawbacks are significant, including tissue trauma, secondary instability, and a substantial percentage of reoperations due to complications. In recent years, various minimally invasive spine surgery techniques have emerged, showing comparable results to laminectomy decompression in terms of relieving symptomatic spinal stenosis. Additionally, these techniques offer significant benefits such as minimal tissue trauma, reduced complication rates, and shorter operative time and recovery periods. Given the continuous development and improvement, minimally invasive surgery is expected to widely replace traditional open surgery for the treatment of lumbar stenosis in the future. In this article, we present our experience in the surgical treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar stenosis, detailing the technique of the minimally invasive procedure we utilize and highlighting some of the clinical cases in which it has been applied.

BACKGROUND: In recent developments, full endoscopic and unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spine surgery have emerged to aid the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure. Yet, both approaches present a challenge due to limited space for cage insertion, potentially leading to complications such as cage subsidence or nonfusion in long-term assessments. Utilizing double cages may mitigate these concerns. This paper presents a unique case in which a patient successfully underwent computed tomography (CT) navigation-guided UBE-TLIF with 2 converging cages, highlighting the potential benefits and feasibility of this innovative approach.
METHODS: A 59-year-old female diagnosed with degenerative spondylolisthesis at the L4-5 level underwent a UBE-TLIF. The operation is detailed step by step and supported by illustrative figures and surgical videos. Postsurgery results revealed a significant improvement in the patient\'s condition, with the visual analog scale score decreasing from 7 to 3 on the first day, leading to a satisfaction rate of 90% at the last follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing endoscopic visualization complemented by contrast medium has substantially elevated the quality of disc preparation. From their observations, the authors affirm that the integration of intraoperative CT navigation systems significantly augments safety and pinpoint accuracy in UBE-TLIF procedures. The strategy of employing 2 converging cages through a unilateral technique stands as a practical solution, potentially optimizing the fusion outcomes of UBE-TLIF surgery. https://thejns.org/doi/10.3171/CASE23512.

UNASSIGNED: S1-L5 transdiscal screw fixation is a direct stabilization technique used for surgical treatment of high-grade (III-IV) L5-S1 spondylolisthesis. It has not been used for nonspondylolisthetic cases or in combination with an interbody cage (IC). This study aimed to develop a novel, direct S1-L5 sacrolumbar interbody fusion (SLIF) technique, a combination of IC and sacrolumbar transdiscal screw.
UNASSIGNED: SLIF was tested in cadaveric, clinical, and finite element analysis settings. Three cadaveric lumbar spines were used to test the SLIF procedure before clinical application. Eight patients underwent the SLIF procedure. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by visual analog score for leg and back pain, short form 36, Oswestry disability index, and neurological examination. CT scans of the lumbar spine were used to assess the hardware placement and subsequent fusion. Finite element analysis was performed on a healthy human CT-based L5-S1 model. Intact segment, unilateral facetectomy and discectomy, SLIF, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedures were compared in terms of the range of motion (ROM), von Mises stress on hardware, and shear-induced directional deformity. Additionally, the same set of tests were conducted in an osteoporotic model.
UNASSIGNED: Excellent hardware placement was feasible in three cadavers and eight patients. Preoperative neurological deficits improved in all patients. Statistically significant improvements were obtained on all self-reported questionnaire scores. All patients developed solid, Bridwell grade I fusions. Biomechanical testing revealed similar outcomes for TLIF and SLIF regarding the ROM. However, the screw\'s von Mises stress and shear-induced directional deformity were low for SLIF of healthy and osteoporotic bone.
UNASSIGNED: SLIF is a feasible, safe, and effective L5-S1 fusion option suitable for all clinical scenarios. It provides several biomechanical advantages, yielding excellent clinical outcomes.

Background: Managing vertebral metastases (VM) is still challenging in oncology, necessitating the use of effective surgical strategies to preserve patient quality of life (QoL). Traditional open posterior fusion (OPF) and percutaneous osteosynthesis (PO) are well-documented approaches, but their comparative efficacy remains debated. Methods: This retrospective study compared short-term outcomes (6-12 months) between OPF and PO in 78 cancer patients with spinal metastases. This comprehensive evaluation included functional, clinical, and radiographic parameters. Statistical analysis utilized PRISM software (version 10), with significance set at p < 0.05. Results: PO demonstrated advantages over OPF, including shorter surgical durations, reduced blood loss, and hospital stay, along with lower perioperative complication rates. Patient quality of life and functional outcomes favored PO, particularly at the 6-month mark. The mortality rates at one year were significantly lower in the PO group. Conclusions: Minimally invasive techniques offer promising benefits in VM management, optimizing patient outcomes and QoL. Despite limitations, this study advocates for the adoption of minimally invasive approaches to enhance the care of multi-metastatic patients with symptomatic VM.

Minimally invasive surgical approaches to the spine that leverage indirect decompression are gaining increasing popularity. While there is excellent literature on the value of indirect decompression, there are limitations to this procedure. Specifically, in patients with severe stenosis and neurogenic claudication, there is a concern among many surgeons regarding the adequacy of indirect decompression alone. In these cases, the lateral approach is often abandoned in favor of an open posterior or posterior minimally invasive approach. Unfortunately, some of the distinct benefits of the direct lateral approach are then lost. Here, we present the case of a 58-year-old male who underwent an L4-L5 lateral interbody fusion with an endoscopic ipsi-contra decompression to achieve both direct and indirect treatment of severe neuroforaminal and central stenosis. From this strategy, this patient had complete pre-operative symptom resolution and was able to return to work immediately after surgery without significant restriction. Combining the benefits of direct and indirect using an ultra-minimally invasive decompressive approach offers a potential solution.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive posterior fixation surgery for pyogenic spondylitis is known to reduce invasiveness and complication rates; however, the outcomes of concomitant insertion of pedicle screws (PS) into the infected vertebrae via the posterior approach are undetermined. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of PS insertion into infected vertebrae in minimally invasive posterior fixation for thoracolumbar pyogenic spondylitis.
METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included 70 patients undergoing minimally invasive posterior fixation for thoracolumbar pyogenic spondylitis across nine institutions. Patients were categorized into insertion and skip groups based on PS insertion into infected vertebrae, and surgical data and postoperative outcomes, particularly unplanned reoperations due to complications, were compared.
RESULTS: The mean age of the 70 patients was 72.8 years. The insertion group (n = 36) had shorter operative times (146 versus 195 min, p = 0.032) and a reduced range of fixation (5.4 versus 6.9 vertebrae, p = 0.0009) compared to the skip group (n = 34). Unplanned reoperations occurred in 24% (n = 17) due to surgical site infections (SSI) or implant failure; the incidence was comparable between the groups. Poor infection control necessitating additional anterior surgery was reported in four patients in the skip group.
CONCLUSIONS: PS insertion into infected vertebrae during minimally invasive posterior fixation reduces the operative time and range of fixation without increasing the occurrence of unplanned reoperations due to SSI or implant failure. Judicious PS insertion in patients with minimal bone destruction in thoracolumbar pyogenic spondylitis can minimize surgical invasiveness.

Despite the recent advances in cancer treatment, the incidence of patients with spinal metastases continues to grow along with the total number of cancer patients. Spinal metastases can significantly impair activities of daily living (ADL) and quality of life (QOL), compared with other types of bone metastases, as they are characterized with severe pain and paralysis caused by skeletal-related events. Reduced ADL can also lead to treatment limitations as certain anticancer agents and radiation therapy are not compatible treatments; thus, leading to a shorter life expectancy. Consequently, maintaining ADLs in patients with spinal metastases is paramount, and spine surgeons have an integral role to play in this regard. However, neurosurgeon, orthopedic and spinal surgeons in Japan do not have a proactive treatment approach to spinal metastases, which may prevent them from providing appropriate treatment when needed (clinical inertia). To overcome such endemic inertia, it is essential for 1) spine surgeons to understand and be more actively involved with patients with musculoskeletal disorders (cancer locomo) and cancer patients; 2) the adoption of a multidisciplinary approach (coordination and meetings not only with the attending oncologist but also with spine surgeons, radiologists, rehabilitation specialists, and other professionals) to preemptive treatment such as medication, radiotherapy, and surgical treatment; and 3) the integration of the latest findings associated with minimally invasive spinal treatments that have expanded the indications for treatment of spinal metastases and improved treatment outcomes. This heralds a new era in the management of spinal metastases.

UNASSIGNED: To compare the outcomes of minimally invasive and open techniques in the surgical management of dorsolumbar and lumbar spinal tuberculosis (STB).
UNASSIGNED: Skeletally mature patients with active STB involving thoracolumbar and lumbar region confirmed by radiology (X-ray, MRI) and histopathological examination were included. Healed and mechanically stable STB, patients having severe hepatic and renal impairment, coexisting spinal conditions such as ankylosing spondylitis and rheumatoid arthritis, and patients unwilling to participate were excluded from the study. The patients were divided in to two groups, group A consisted of patients treated by MIS techniques and group B consisted of patients treated by open techniques. All the patients had a minimum follow-up of 24 months.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 42 patients were included in the study. MIS techniques were used in 18 patients and open techniques were used in 24 patients. On comparison between the two groups, blood loss (234 ml vs 742 ml), and immediate post-operative VAS score (5.26 vs 7.08) were significantly better in group A, whereas kyphotic correction (16° vs 33.25°) was significantly better in group B. Rest of the parameters such as duration of surgery, VAS score, ODI score and number of instrumented levels did not show significant difference between the two groups.
UNASSIGNED: MIS stabilization when compared to open techniques is associated with significant improvement in immediate post-operative VAS scores. The MIS approaches at 2-year follow-up have functional results similar to open techniques. MIS is inferior to open techniques in kyphosis correction and may be associated with complications.

Background/Objectives: Lateral spine surgery offers effective minimally invasive deformity correction, but traditional approaches often involve separate anterior, lateral, and posterior procedures. The prone lateral technique streamlines this process by allowing single-position access for lateral and posterior surgery, potentially benefiting from the lordosing effect of prone positioning. While previous studies have compared prone lateral to direct lateral for adult degenerative diseases, this retrospective review focuses on the outcomes of adult deformity patients undergoing prone lateral interbody fusion. Methods: Ten adult patients underwent single-position prone lateral surgery for spine deformity correction, with a mean follow-up of 18 months. Results: Results showed significant improvements: sagittal vertical axis decreased by 2.4 cm, lumbar lordosis increased by 9.1°, pelvic tilt improved by 3.3°, segmental lordosis across the fusion construct increased by 12.2°, and coronal Cobb angle improved by 6.3°. These benefits remained consistent over the follow-up period. Correlational analysis showed a positive association between improvements in PROs and SVA and SL. When compared to hybrid approaches, prone lateral yielded greater improvements in SVA. Conclusions: Prone lateral surgery demonstrated favorable outcomes with reasonable perioperative risks. However, further research comparing this technique with standard minimally invasive lateral approaches, hybrid, and open approaches is warranted for a comprehensive evaluation.

UNASSIGNED: One of the most frequent etiologies for spinal surgery is unstable lumbar spondylolisthesis (ULS). To decompress affected structures while maintaining or restoring stability through fusion, surgeons utilize a variety of procedures. When paired with interbody fusion, posterior fusion is most applied, resulting in greater fusion rates. The two most popular techniques for implementing spinal fusion are posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). As a result, these two procedures have been assessed formally.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent interbody fusion for lumbar stenosis through PLIF and minimally invasive (MI)-TLIF was performed. The patients were followed up for 24 months and fusion rates, Visual Analog Score (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) alongside the MacNab clinical outcome score, were assessed. The Bridwell interbody fusion grading system was used to evaluate fusion rates in computed tomography (CT).
UNASSIGNED: Operations were performed in 60 cases where patients suffered from ULS. PLIF was performed on 33 patients (55%) (14 males and 19 females) and 27 patients (45%) (11 males and 16 females) who underwent MI-TLIF. In 87% of our respective cohort, either the L4-5 or the L5-S1 level was operated on. Overall fusion rates were comparable between the two groups; however, the TLIF group improved more in terms of VAS, ODI, and MacNab scores. On average, MI-TLIF surgery was longer and resulted in reduced blood loss. MI-TLIF patients were more mobile than PLIF patients postoperatively.
UNASSIGNED: With well-established adequate results in the literature, TLIF offers benefits over other methods used for interbody lumbar fusion in ULS or other diseases of the spine. However, MI-TLIF may procure more advantageous for patients if MI methods are implemented. In this instance, TLIF outperformed PLIF due to shorter operating times, less blood loss, faster ODI recovery, better MacNab scores, and a greater decline in VAS pain ratings.