Early Clinical Evaluation of Percutaneous Full‐endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Pedicle Screw Insertion for Treating Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy of percutaneous full‐endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo‐TLIF) with percutaneous pedicle screws (PPSs) performed by using a visualization system with that of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS‐TLIF) for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). METHODS: From June 2017 to May 2018, the data of a total of 78 patients who met the selection criteria were retrospectively reviewed and were divided into the Endo‐TLIF group (40 cases) and the MIS‐TLIF group (38 cases) according to the surgical method used. The visual analog scale (VAS) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scale were administered preoperatively and at the 1‐week, 3‐month, and 1–2‐year follow‐ups. The fusion rate and major complications, including revision, were also recorded. RESULTS: All the patients were followed up for 24 to 34 months, with an average follow‐up of 30.7 months. The intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay for the Endo‐TLIF group (60.56 ± 0.36 mL, 8.12 ± 0.92 days, respectively) were statistically significantly lower than those for the MIS‐TLIF group (65.47 ± 0.91 mL, 9.66 ± 1.34 days, respectively) (P < 0.05). The VAS and JOA scores of the patients in the two groups at postoperative 1 week, 3 months, 1 year, 2 years (Endo‐TLIF VAS: 4.16 ± 0.92, 3.72 ± 1.54, 1.32 ± 0.45, 1.29 ± 0.34; JOA:16.71 ± 0.99, 19.86 ± 0.24, 24.91 ± 0.97, 25.88 ± 0.52; MIS‐TLIF VAS: 4.17 ± 1.41, 2.98 ± 0.91, 1.54 ± 0.32, 1.33 ± 0.18; JOA: 16.67 ± 0.67, 19.58 ± 0.65, 25.33 ± 0.73, 25.69 ± 0.33) were statistically significantly improved from the preoperative scores (Endo‐TLIF: 8.45 ± 1.44, 14.36 ± 0.56; MIS‐TLIF: 8.11 ± 0.93, 14.45 ± 0.34, respectively) (P < 0.01). The VAS and JOA scores of the Endo‐TLIF group were statistically significantly better than those of the MIS‐TLIF group at 3 months and 1 year after surgery (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the scores between the two groups at any of the other time points (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the intervertebral altitude between the two groups at the 3‐month (11.36 ± 0.23, 11.21 ± 0.42, respectively) or final follow‐up (10.88 ± 0.64, 10.81 ± 0.39, respectively) (P > 0.05). Dural tears, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, infection, and neurologic injury did not occur. Both groups showed good intervertebral fusion at the last follow‐up. The intervertebral fusion rate was 97.5% (39/40) in the Endo‐TLIF group and 94.7% (36/38) in the MIS‐TLIF group, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (χ (2) = 0.118, P = 0.731). At the final follow‐up, the modified MacNab's criteria were 92.5% and 89.5% between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Endo‐TLIF with percutaneous pedicle screws (PPS) performed by using a visualization system for lumbar degenerative disease may be regarded as an efficient alternative surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. It is a safe and minimally invasive way to perform this surgery and has shown satisfactory clinical outcomes.