Enhanced Recovery after an Innovative Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective Observational Study

Table 4

Interventions and outcomes of included studies.

Study no.	Surgical technique	Resection of articular process	Operation time (minutes)	Blood loss (ml)	Spinal decompression	Internal fixation method	Fusion rate	Complications
1	Endo-LIF	No	174 (117–251)	57.6 (30–100)	No	Bilateral PS	59.6%	8 patients RSE, 2 patients RN, and 2 patients PSC
2	PE-TLIF	No	60 ± 30	None	No	Bilateral PS	77%	8 patients RPP and 13 patients AMC
3	FE-MIS-TLIF	Yes	133.9 ± 16.1(OS); 241.3 ± 36.5 (TS)	221.8 ± 98.5 (100–550)	Yes	Bilateral PS	92.9%	2 patients PNC
4	pTLIF	Yes	120 ± 30 (A or B); 240 ± 120 (C)	None	No	Bilateral PS	None	3 patients TD and 2 patients SIP
5	E-MIS-TLIF	Yes	113.5 ± 6.3(105–120)	65 ± 38 (30–190)	Yes	Bilateral PS	None	No complications
6	PTLIF	No	77 (62–100)	None	No	Bilateral PS	88.9%	1 patient PNC, 1 patient nonunion, and 1 patient revision
7	UBE	Yes	165	85.5 ± 19.41	Yes	Bilateral PS	None	2 patients dura tear and 3 patients postoperative hematoma
8	Endo-TLIF	Yes	174 (130–235)	95 (50–200)	Yes	Bilateral PS	100%	2 patients transient nerve root paresthesia
9	FELIF	Yes	None	None	Yes	Bilateral PS	None	None
10	BE-TLIF	Yes	169 ± 10	74 ± 9	Yes	Bilateral PS	None	1 patient L5 paralysis and 1 patient dura tear
11	PELIF	Yes	167.5 ± 30.9 (135–220)	70.0 ± 24.5 (50–100)	Yes	Bilateral PS	None	No complication
12	PE-TLIF	Yes	285	117.1 (30–300)	Yes	Bilateral PS	100%	1 patient disc ruptured and 1 patient temporary knee tendon hyperreflexia
13	Endoscopic MIS-TLIF	No	1 level: 84.5 ± 21.7; 2 levels: 128.1 ± 48.6	1 level: 65.4 ± 76.6; 2 levels: 74.7 ± 33.6	Yes	Bilateral PS	100%	4 patients convert to general anesthesia, 2 patients cage migration, 1 patient osteomyelitis, and 1 patient endplate fracture
14	ULIF	Yes	158	None	Yes	Bilateral PS	25.9%(PF); 74.1%(DF)	3 patients dural tear, 1 patient hematoma, and 1 patient infection
15	Endo-LIF	Yes	184.3 ± 70.6; 191.1 ± 32.4	38.5 ± 19.5; 214.6 ± 61.6	Yes	Spinous process laminar screw	95%	EG: 3 patients low back pain, CG: 1 patient cerebrospinal fluid leakage, and 1 patient incision infection
16	MIS-TLIF	Yes	180.49 ± 35.19; 164.02 ± 51.91	182.00 ± 106.19; 191.30 ± 93.37	Yes	Bilateral PS	None	EG: No complication and; CG: 1 patient hematoma
17	PELIF	Yes	213.8 ± 31.7 (185–324)	25.0 ± 12.6 (15–50)	Yes	Bilateral PS	100%	2 patients symptom was not relieved or even aggravated,; 1 patient disc mass remnant, 1 patient misplacement of L5 pedicle screw, and 1 patient asymptomatic cage subsidence
18	pTLIF	Yes	None	None	No	Bilateral PS	None	12 patients transitory and ipsilateral dysesthesia,; 2 patients transitory and ipsilateral muscle weakness, and; 3 patients sacroiliac joint pain
19	PELIF	Yes	109.4 (73–160)	None	No	Bilateral PS	100%	1 patient paresthesia in both legs and; 1 patient left knee pain
20	Endo-TLIF	Yes	None	None	Yes	Bilateral PS	100%	No complication

CG: control group; VAS: visual analogue scale; RMDQ: Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire; EG: experiment group; ETD: endoscopic transforaminal decompression; LIF: lumbar interbody fusion; PPSI: percutaneous pedicle screw implantation; RSE: residual discomfort on extension; RN: residual numbness; PSC: pedicle screw-related complications; PE-TLIF: percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; RPP: radicular pain with paresthesias; TS: two segments; AMC: asymptomatic migration of the cages: ODI: Oswestry Disability Index; OS: one segment; FE-MIS-TLIF: full-endoscopic minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; PNC: postoperative neurological complications; PTLIF: percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; TD: transitory dysesthesia; SIP: sacroiliac pain; SF-36: 36-item short form health survey; UBE: unilateral biportal endoscopic technique; DT: dural tear; PEH: postoperative epidural hematoma; BE: biportal endoscopic; PF: probable fusion; DF: definite fusion.