Uniportal versus biportal endoscopic spine surgery: a comprehensive review.

IF 2.9 3区医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL Expert Review of Medical Devices Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1080/17434440.2023.2214678

Yong Ahn, Semin Lee

{"title":"Uniportal versus biportal endoscopic spine surgery: a comprehensive review.","authors":"Yong Ahn, Semin Lee","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2023.2214678","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Endoscopic spine surgery techniques are minimally invasive alternatives to conventional open surgery for degenerative spinal diseases. Clinical studies and meta-analyses have proven the usefulness of uniportal full-endoscopic spine procedures. However, a steep learning curve is a critical barrier for endoscopic procedures. Recently, biportal endoscopic spine surgeries have been developed to make it easier for spine surgeons to learn and perform. Consequently, the biportal approach has gained popularity among aspiring endoscopic spine surgeons. This review compared the characteristics of uniportal and biportal surgeries to help spine surgeons perform endoscopic procedures more effectively.Area covered: The review analyzed English-language clinical literature in Core databases and compared uniportal and biportal endoscopic spine surgery techniques. Clinical studies have compared the technical principles of both techniques, and the authors suggested appropriate strategies for learning and practicing endoscopic procedures.Expert opinion: Uniportal, full-endoscopic spine surgery is a minimally invasive procedure that preserves muscles and uses a keyhole approach under local anesthesia. In contrast, biportal surgery is more familiar to a surgeon and can be performed more widely, although the keyhole approach is limited. Aspiring endoscopic spine surgeons can learn either method according to the surgeon's preference and the clinical situation.","PeriodicalId":12330,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Medical Devices","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Medical Devices","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2023.2214678","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: Endoscopic spine surgery techniques are minimally invasive alternatives to conventional open surgery for degenerative spinal diseases. Clinical studies and meta-analyses have proven the usefulness of uniportal full-endoscopic spine procedures. However, a steep learning curve is a critical barrier for endoscopic procedures. Recently, biportal endoscopic spine surgeries have been developed to make it easier for spine surgeons to learn and perform. Consequently, the biportal approach has gained popularity among aspiring endoscopic spine surgeons. This review compared the characteristics of uniportal and biportal surgeries to help spine surgeons perform endoscopic procedures more effectively.

Area covered: The review analyzed English-language clinical literature in Core databases and compared uniportal and biportal endoscopic spine surgery techniques. Clinical studies have compared the technical principles of both techniques, and the authors suggested appropriate strategies for learning and practicing endoscopic procedures.

Expert opinion: Uniportal, full-endoscopic spine surgery is a minimally invasive procedure that preserves muscles and uses a keyhole approach under local anesthesia. In contrast, biportal surgery is more familiar to a surgeon and can be performed more widely, although the keyhole approach is limited. Aspiring endoscopic spine surgeons can learn either method according to the surgeon's preference and the clinical situation.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

单门静脉与双门静脉内窥镜脊柱手术:综合综述。

内窥镜脊柱手术技术是传统开放手术治疗退行性脊柱疾病的微创选择。临床研究和荟萃分析证明了单门静脉全内窥镜脊柱手术的有效性。然而，陡峭的学习曲线是内窥镜手术的关键障碍。最近，双门静脉内窥镜脊柱手术已经发展起来，使脊柱外科医生更容易学习和执行。因此，双门静脉入路在有抱负的内窥镜脊柱外科医生中越来越受欢迎。本综述比较了单门静脉和双门静脉手术的特点，以帮助脊柱外科医生更有效地进行内窥镜手术。涵盖领域:本综述分析了Core数据库中的英文临床文献，并比较了单门静脉和双门静脉内窥镜脊柱手术技术。临床研究比较了这两种技术的技术原理，作者提出了学习和实践内窥镜手术的适当策略。专家意见:单门静脉、全内窥镜脊柱手术是一种微创手术，在局部麻醉下使用锁眼入路保留肌肉。相比之下，双门静脉手术对外科医生来说更熟悉，可以更广泛地进行，尽管锁眼入路是有限的。有抱负的内窥镜脊柱外科医生可以根据外科医生的喜好和临床情况学习这两种方法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Expert Review of Medical Devices 医学-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

5.90

自引率

3.20%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The journal serves the device research community by providing a comprehensive body of high-quality information from leading experts, all subject to rigorous peer review. The Expert Review format is specially structured to optimize the value of the information to reader. Comprehensive coverage by each author in a key area of research or clinical practice is augmented by the following sections: Expert commentary - a personal view on the most effective or promising strategies Five-year view - a clear perspective of future prospects within a realistic timescale Key issues - an executive summary cutting to the author''s most critical points In addition to the Review program, each issue also features Medical Device Profiles - objective assessments of specific devices in development or clinical use to help inform clinical practice. There are also Perspectives - overviews highlighting areas of current debate and controversy, together with reports from the conference scene and invited Editorials.