| Home | E-Submission | Sitemap | Editorial Office |  
J Minim Invasive Spine Surg Tech > Volume 11(Suppl 1); 2026 > Article
Datar, Biradar, and Despandhe: Feasibility and Outcomes of Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Abstract

Objective

Endoscopic techniques are rapidly evolving, with surgery becoming much safer and less invasive. One of these procedures is lumbar interbody fusion (LIF). Although the principle of the operation is consistent among surgeons, the technique varies greatly. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of Full Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (e-TLIF) and report the results.

Methods

In this retrospective study, data were collected from a hospital database. All patients who underwent e-TLIF from January 2022 to June 2024 were included. Results were analyzed on the basis of the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain outcomes and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for functional disability at 3 and 6 months.

Results

In total, 53 patients were identified during the study period. All patients underwent full-endoscopic LIF through a posterior approach. The average hospital stay was 24 hours. The mean follow-up period was 20.9 (range, 6–36) months. Significant improvement in VAS and ODI was observed at 6 months. All patients had satisfactory outcomes.

Conclusion

Full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion is a safe and effective procedure.

INTRODUCTION

Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is a widely used procedure for treating spinal pathologies that require spinal stabilization, including trauma, degenerative pathologies, spondylolisthesis, Spinal instabilities, infections and spinal stenosis. Conventional lumbar fusion involve significant tissue dissection resulting in postoperative pain, chances of adjacent segment disease, lengthened recovery time and delayed rehabilitation.
Endoscopic techniques are rapidly evolving, with surgeries becoming much safer and less invasive. One of such surgery is LIF. Though the principle of the surgery remains the same, the technique varies greatly. We would like to present our experience of Full Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (e-TLIF).
This study discusses technique, feasibility and short-term outcomes of full-endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent full-endoscopic LIF from January 2022 to June 2024 (30 months) were included in the study. Data was collected from a single hospital database. A total of 53 patients underwent full-endoscopic LIF. Retrospective analysis of these patients was done with respect to symptoms, preoperative neurological status, pain, disability along with description of surgical technique.
Patient selection criteria were as follows: (1) symptomatic patients with failure of conservative management for 6 weeks, (2) evidence of instability on standing dynamic x-rays, (3) evidence of listhesis with pars fracture, (4) patients with minimum follow of 6 months.
The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) failure to follow up for a minimum period of 6 months, (2) grade 1 degenerative listhesis without evidence of dynamic instability.
Patient demographic data was obtained from hospital database. Patients were evaluated before and after surgery for their neurological status, pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS) and functional assessment by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiographic data were collected from hospital database (x-ray, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) to assess the pathology, instability in dynamic x-rays in the preoperative evaluation and x-rays for implant position in the postoperative follow-up. Stability was assessed with screws/cage position. The final radiological outcome was accepted stable and fused if no periscrew loosening/broken implant was present in the short-term follow-up cases.
It was a retrospective study and identity was not disclosed hence, IRB approval was not obtained. Operative consent was obtained prior to surgery.

1. Statistics

The difference between preoperative and 6-month follow-up VAS and ODI were assessed and data was statistically compared by paired Student t-test, and a value of <0.05 was considered significant.

2. Surgical Protocol

All patients received 4 doses of antibiotics (1 previous night of surgery, 1 intraoperatively, and 2 after surgery) at 12 hours apart. All patients underwent surgery with a posterior approach. Needle docking was done on side of the symptoms and pain. Mid pedicular line entry point was used for patients having unilateral pain without evidence of contralateral lateral recess or foraminal stenosis (Figure 1A). These patients underwent ipsilateral lateral flavectomy only (flavum sparing).
Medial pedicular line was used for patients with central canal stenosis and patients with bilateral symptoms with evidence of bilateral lateral recess and/or foraminal stenosis with ligamentum flavum thickening leading to bilateral lateral recess or foraminal stenosis (Figure 1B). Patients presenting with bilateral symptoms with no evidence of leg pain, surgical entry side was decided on the side of pathology as evident on the MRI. Over the top contralateral decompression was done for these patients if pathology dictates.
After initial marking of entry site, dilator amd endoscopic sleeve was docked. Soft tissue clearance was performed to see raw bone using plasma energy and 90° wand. Cranial lamina and spinolaminar junction were identified (Figure 2A). The inferior articular process (IAP) was defined, and the inferior tip of IAP was identified and dissected using a combination of rongeurs and plasma energy (Figure 2B). Incremental osteotomy of the IAP performed with a sharp osteotome from caudal to cranial harvesting bone for interbody grafting at a later stage. Resection of the IAP was done till the inferior endplate of the cranial vertebra as confirmed on the lateral projection of the image intensifier, leaving behind part of the pars interarticularis intact to protect the exiting root during cage insertion (Figure 2C and D).
Cranial laminotomy was performed till visualization of medial splitting of the ligamentum flavum (Figure 3A). The medial edge of the superior articular process and the tip identified and sequentially resected using a combination of osteotome and Kerrison rongeurs. Caudal laminotomy performed to decompress the traversing root. Contralateral decompression performed in patients with bilateral symptoms. Ipsilateral resection of ligamentum flavum is performed to expose lateral border of thecal sac and extended contralaterally if required (Figure 3C). A safe corridor was created in the axilla between the exiting and traversing root with medial border at the medial pedicular line.
Annulotomy was performed and vertebral endplates were prepared using mechanical shavers and curettes (Figure 4A and B). Near to complete discectomy and end plate preparation was performed by tilting the working sleeve of the endoscope to gain access to corners of the endplate. The anterior disc space was packed with bone chips (harvested during the surgery) as graft. Appropriate size cage was introduced anteriorly using a semicircular retractor to protect the traversing root. The exiting root was protected by the part of the pars interarticularis which was left behind. Once the cage was placed, part of the left behind pars interarticularis was resected to decompress the exiting root. The decompression of exiting root was necessary only in patients with foraminal pathology. The incision was closed over a drain. All patients underwent posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation after interbody fusion.

3. Postoperative Protocol

The drain was removed on the next day and patients were mobilized & discharged on postoperative day 1 of surgery with oral antibiotics for 5 days. Patients diagnosed with osteoporosis, as confirmed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, began treatment with teriparatide injections along with calcium and vitamin D supplementation.

RESULTS

1. Outcomes

Among the 53 patients, 19 were male and 34 females with an average age of 58.2 (range, 24–79) years. The most common affected level was L4–5 (36 of 53), followed by L5–S1 (13 of 53), L3–4 (3 of 53) and multiple in 1 case. All patients had back pain, and 49 patients had leg pain. Motor weakness was seen in 37 patients, with single myotomal weakness in 34 and foot drop in 3 patients. Only 1 patient had bladder involvement. The average duration of symptoms was 34.8 (range, 15 days–180 months) months. The mean follow-up period was 20.9 (range, 6–36) months.
The preoperative mean VAS score was 7.46 (range, 6–9) and mean ODI was 57.9 (range, 25–93). On postoperative follow-up at 6 months the mean VAS score was 1.65 (range, 0–9) and mean ODI score was 18.19 (range, 0–55) (Figure 5). The improvement in VAS and ODI was statistically significant (p<0.001). Neurological improvement (motor weakness) was seen in all patients with some residual weakness in 3 patients (all were patients with footdrop) (Table 1).
Mean duration of surgery lasted 182 (range, 124–240) minutes. This time gradually decreased owing to learning curve. The intraoperative blood loss was minimal.
Many of the patients were operated on within 24 months of the study. Long-term follow-up was not available in all the patients to assess the fusion rates. Stability for short-term follow-up was assessed with cage/screw position. The final radiological outcome was accepted stable and fused if no periscrew loosening or broken implants was present. Out of 53 patients, 2 had retropulsion of cage not beyond the posterior vertebral line. They were followed up, but no further retropulsion was noted on follow-up at 6 months or beyond.

2. Complications

One patient had persistent back on follow at 3 months and had to undergo medial branch block followed by rhizotomy at the adjacent segment. On follow-up at 6 months, he had minimal to no residual back pain. Two patients had incomplete retropulsion of the cage on initial follow-up x-rays and no further increase in retropulsion of cage was noted at 2-year follow-up as confirmed on the follow-up x-rays. One patient presented with persistent low back pain following an episode of urinary tract infection 3 weeks after the surgery. On evaluation, he had deep seated infection for which he underwent full-endoscopic debridement, removal of loose cage with retention of the posterior instrumentation. Six weeks injectable antibiotics followed by 6 weeks of oral antibiotics. The infection resolved as confirmed on clinical symptoms, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein (CRP).
None of the patients had neurological complications in the postoperative period.

DISCUSSION

LIF is a routinely performed procedure. Over a period of the time, as endoscopic spine surgery techniques are evolving, surgeries are becoming safer and less invasive. Early ambulation and postoperative morbidity, hospital stay has been significantly reduced with endoscopic fusion. This study showed that full-endoscopic fusion is a feasible technique. The learning curve for the full-endoscopic PLIF is long and challenging.
In the present series, patients had satisfactory results on long-term follow-up. All our patients were discharged on postoperative day 1 (within 24 hours). All patients were assessed by the rehabilitation team preoperatively and postoperatively. Patients were put on personalized rehabilitation program comprising physiotherapy, Somatic movement therapy, mat Pilates and reformer Pilates either individually or in combination depending on their physical needs. All patients resumed self-care within 24 hours of surgery and activities at home within 72 hours of surgery.
One of the advantages of endoscopic LIF is reduction in blood loss. Irrespective of the endoscopic approach, the blood loss was significantly less compared to other minimally invasive surgery (MIS) [1-4].
Owing to its ultra small incision and muscle dissection, endoscopic LIF reduces muscle injury and collateral tissue damage. As per the published literature, serological markers of surgical trauma and muscle damage, CRP and creatine kinase level were assessed between endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF groups and significant differences were found in these markers. For CRP level, which peaked 3 days postoperatively, the endo-TLIF group showed lower levels than the MIS-TLIF group [4,5]. The max-cross-sectional area (CSA) of paraspinal muscles on MRI in the endo-TLIF group was lower than the PLIF group at 1 week postoperatively but was significantly higher at 3 and 6 months [4,5]. There is a possibility of increase in the max-CSA in open surgeries during the initial postoperative period which gradually decreases over period of time [6].
Endoscopic LIF are associated with significant early improvement in back pain compared to MIS-LIF. Our study showed statistically significant improvement in the VAS on follow-up at 6 months. In a recent meta-analysis, the postoperative back pain and leg pain was statistically significantly less compared to MIS-TLIF and open TLIF in early postoperative period, owing to early return to activities, but in intermediate and late follow-up period, there was better outcome compared to open TLIF although not statistically significant [7].
Back disability when analyzed using ODI showed better outcome in endo-LIF, compared to MIS-TLIF [4,8]. We noted statistically significant improvement of ODI at 6 months of follow-up in the present series. In some studies the long-term outcome ODI in endo-LIF was significantly better than MIS-TLIF but not statistically significant [3,9]. Subgroup analyses revealed that the number of portals used in endo-LIF may influence late disability: a statistically significant difference which was found between uniportal and biportal endo-LIF [7].
We did not have neurological complications in our study. Transient exiting nerve root irritation has been reported in endoscopic transforaminal and trans-Kambin route [10,11]. This was higher with percutaneous technique (29%) [12].
In the meta-analysis by Relvas et al. [7] the fusion rates, 94%, 93.1%, and 93.9% in endo-LIF, MIS-LIF, and open-LIF, respectively. Cage subsidence rates in same study showed 5.5%, 2.5%, and 5% in endo-LIF, MIS-LIF, and open-LIF, respectively [7]. Two of our cases had cage back out on first follow-up. As both of them had no neurological symptoms, both patients were followed up without revision surgery.
Endoscopic LIF was first reported by Leu and Hauser [13] in 1996 through posterolateral and biportal technique. Various techniques and approaches for endoscopic LIF have been described. These are: (1) posterior endoscopic TLIF, (2) oblique lateral LIF, and (3) trans-Kambin approach.
The advantages of full-endoscopic LIF include reduced tissue trauma, less postoperative pain and faster recovery time compared to open surgical or nonendoscopic minimally invasive procedures. Spinal decompression and discectomy are gradually shifting to full-endoscopic spinal surgery.
Our study showed that clinical outcomes are similar other endoscopic techniques.
This study has some limitations as this study was conducted in an institute where only full-endoscopic surgeries are performed. There is no cohort to compare the outcomes of other techniques of LIF. Since most of the cases in this study are operated recently, long-term follow-up is not available to assess the clinical outcome and to assess fusion rates.
In conclusion, endo-LIF is feasible and favourable option to MIS-LIF and open-LIF in estimated blood loss, length of stay, and postoperative back pain (mainly in the early follow-up period) and disability. Further research is needed to fully assess the feasibility and outcomes of endo-LIF, including long-term follow-up studies and comparative analyses with other minimally invasive LIF techniques. With continued advancements in endoscopic technology and surgeon expertise, endo-LIF has the potential to become a preferred approach for LIF in the future.

NOTES

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding/Support

This study received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Figure 1.
Image of the entry point for docking. (A) Medial pedicular entry point. (B) Midpedicular entry point.
jmisst-2025-02327f1.jpg
Figure 2.
Identification of landmarks. (A) Identification of spinolaminar junction, cranial lamina, and the inferior articular process (IAP). (B) Tip of the IAP. (C) Sequential osteotomy of the IAP. (D) Area of the pars interarticularis.
jmisst-2025-02327f2.jpg
Figure 3.
(A) Identification of the median split. (B) Superior articular process. (C) Lateral border of the thecal sac.
jmisst-2025-02327f3.jpg
Figure 4.
Discectomy with fusion. (A) Annulotomy. (B) Preparation of disc and endplates with shavers. (C) Cage placed anteriorly. (D) Snugly fitted cage in disc space.
jmisst-2025-02327f4.jpg
Figure 5.
Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).
jmisst-2025-02327f5.jpg
Table 1.
posterior lumbar interbody fusion
Variable Value
Total patients 53 (100)
Sex
 Male 19 (36)
 Female 34 (64)
Age (yr) (24–79)
 <30 1 (2)
 31–45 5 (9)
 46–60 18 (34)
 >61 29 (55)
Back pain 53 (100)
Leg pain
 Bilateral 17 (32)
 Right 9 (17)
 Left 23 (43)
 None 4 (8)
Motor weakness
 Yes 37 (70)
 No 16 (30)
Mean VAS
 Preoperative 7.46
 Postoperative 1.65
Mean ODI
 Preoperative 57.9
 Postoperative 18.19
Complications 4 (7.5)
 Cage retropulsion 2 (3.7)
 Adjacent segment facet arthropathy 1 (1.8)
 Infection 1 (1.8)

Values are presented as number (%) unless otherwise indicated.

VAS, visual analogue scale; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index.

REFERENCES

1. Song Q, Zhu B, Zhao W, Liang C, Hai B, Liu X. Full-endoscopic lumbar decompression versus open decompression and fusion surgery for the lumbar spinal stenosis: a 3-year follow-up study. J Pain Res 2021;14:1331–8.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
2. Lv Y, Chen M, Wang SL, Qin RJ, Ma C, Ding QR, et al. Endo-TLIF versus MIS-TLIF in 1-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis: a prospective randomized pilot study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2022;212:107082.
crossref pmid
3. Ge M, Zhang Y, Ying H, Feng C, Li Y, Tian J, et al. Comparison of hidden blood loss and clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Int Orthop 2022;46:2063–70.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
4. Ao S, Zheng W, Wu J, Tang Y, Zhang C, Zhou Y, et al. Comparison of preliminary clinical outcomes between percutaneous endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases in a tertiary hospital: Is percutaneous endoscopic procedure superior to MIS-TLIF? A prospective cohort study. Int J Surg 2020;76:136–43.
crossref pmid
5. Hwang YH, Kim JS, Chough CK, Cho J, Kim HS, Jang JW, et al. Prospective comparative analysis of three types of decompressive surgery for lumbar central stenosis: conventional, full-endoscopic, and biportal endoscopic laminectomy. Sci Rep 2024;14:19853.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
6. Yin P, Ding Y, Zhou L, Xu C, Gao H, Pang D, et al. Innovative percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion of lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative instability: a non-randomized clinical trial. J Pain Res 2021;14:3685–93.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
7. Relvas-Silva M, Pinto BS, Sousa A, Loureiro M, Pinho AR, Pereira P. Is endoscopic technique an effective and safe alternative for lumbar interbody fusion? A systematic review and meta-analysis. EFORT Open Rev 2024;9:536–55.
crossref pmid pmc
8. Xue YD, Diao WB, Ma C, Li J. Lumbar degenerative disease treated by percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a case-matched comparative study. J Orthop Surg Res 2021;16:696.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
9. Lin L, Liu XQ, Shi L, Cheng S, Wang ZQ, Ge QJ, et al. Comparison of postoperative outcomes between percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis. Front Surg 2022;9:916087.
crossref pmid pmc
10. Ishihama Y, Morimoto M, Tezuka F, Yamashita K, Manabe H, Sugiura K, et al. Full-endoscopic trans-Kambin triangle lumbar interbody fusion: surgical technique and nomenclature. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2022;83:308–13.
crossref pmid
11. Sairyo K, Morimoto M, Yamashita K, Tezuka F, Sugiura K, Takeuchi M, et al. Full-endoscopic trans-Kambin’s triangle lumbar interbody fusion: technique and review of literature. J Minim Invasive Spine Surg Tech 2021;6(Suppl 1):S123–9.
crossref pdf
12. Morgenstern C, Morgenstern R. Full-percutaneous trans-kambin lumbar interbody fusion with a large-footprint interbody cage. Global Spine J 2025;15:3101–12.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
13. Leu HF, Hauser RK. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar spine fusion. Neurosurg Clin N Am 1996;7:107–17.
crossref pmid
About |  Browse Articles |  Editorial Policy |  For Contributors
Editorial Office
Department of Neurosurgery, Harrison Spinartus Hospital Chungdam
646 Samseong-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06084, Korea
TEL: +82-2-6003-9767    FAX: +82-2-3445-9755   E-mail: office@jmisst.org
Publisher
Korean Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Society
350 Seocho-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06631, Korea
TEL: +82-2-585-5455    FAX: +82-2-523-6812   E-mail: komisskomiss@komiss.org
Copyright © Korean Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Society.                 Developed in M2PI