Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 5, 2025
Cone Beam Intraoperative Computed Tomography-based Image Guidance for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
Published on: August 6, 2019
Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Interbody Fusion: Comparing Primary Versus Revision Cases
Ju-Eun Kim1, Eugene J Park, Daniel K Park
1From the Baro Seomyeon Hospital Busan, Busan, South Korea (Kim), the Orthopedic Surgery, Kyungpook National University Hospital, Daegu, South Korea, William Beaumont University Hospital (E. Park), and the Orthopedic Surgery, Michigan Orthopedic Surgeons, Southfield, MI (D. Park).
Background:
The safety and efficacy of biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (BELIF) has been supported by many articles. Advantages include earlier rehabilitation and equal or superior fusion rates compared with other lumbar interbody fusion techniques.
Purpose:
To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of primary and revision biportal endoscopic interbody fusion.
Methods:
Seventy-two consecutive patients who underwent primary and revision BELIF and had at least 2-year follow-up were investigated. Clinical outcomes, including Oswestry Disability Index, the visual analog system (VAS), MacNab's criteria, surgical time, and length of hospital stay, were recorded. Radiological outcome was assessed by CT and graded according to Bridwell system.
Results:
No notable difference was found in preoperative baselines between the groups. Both groups demonstrated similar clinical improvement in VAS, Oswestry Disability Index, and MacNab criteria. Durotomies were more common in the revision setting (4/33 vs. 0/39 in primary), and surgical time was statistically longer (121.4 ± 21.5 minutes primary versus 179 ± 23.7 minutes revision; P < 0.001). However, no difference was observed in fusion rates at all times points graded by CT scan (94.87% vs. 93.93% primary versus revision at the final follow-up, P = 0.51).
Conclusion:
Revision BELIF demonstrate similar clinical and radiographic outcomes compared with primary BELIF, yet surgical time and durotomy risks are increased.
Study Design:
Retrospective study.
