Clinical Efficacy and Learning Curve of Far-Lateral Approach (FLA) in Uni-Portal Non-Coaxial Spinal Endoscopic Surgery (UNSES) in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Prospective Study.

Mengchen Yin; Wenlong Yu; Yan Lou; Jianfeng Sha; Yang Xue; Dong Zhang; Kaipeng Huang; Kai Lv; Zhichao Ge; Jianmin Li; Jiajun Wu; Hao Sun; Shuqiang Wang

doi:10.1111/os.70395

PubMed · 42562358

Clinical Efficacy and Learning Curve of Far-Lateral Approach (FLA) in Uni-Portal Non-Coaxial Spinal Endoscopic Surgery (UNSES) in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Prospective Study.

Mengchen Yin·Wenlong Yu·Yan Lou·Jianfeng Sha·Yang Xue·Dong Zhang·Kaipeng Huang·Kai Lv·Zhichao Ge·Jianmin Li·Jiajun Wu·Hao Sun·Shuqiang Wang

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Uniportal non-coaxial spinal endoscopic surgery (UNSES) via far-lateral approach (FLA) is an innovative minimally invasive procedure for lumbar degenerative diseases, particularly far-lateral disc herniation and foraminal stenosis. However, complex lateral lumbar anatomy and strict endoscope-instrument coordination create a distinct learning curve that may compromise early surgical efficiency and safety. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety, quantify the learning curve, and to provide clinical guidance for the standardized promotion and application of this technology. METHODS: A total of 40 consecutive patients with lumbar degenerative diseases who underwent UNSES via FLA by a single surgeon between January 2025 and December 2025 were included. All data were analyzed using SPSS 26.0 statistical software (IBM, USA). Primary outcomes included operation time, blood loss, fluoroscopy frequency, and intraoperative complication rate. Secondary outcomes were VAS, ODI, and modified Macnab criteria at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. The learning curve and the inflection point of the learning curve was determined using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. The differences in clinical indicators between early and proficient stage were compared. RESULT: Operation time, blood loss, and fluoroscopy times decreased significantly with case accumulation (p < 0.05). CUSUM identified an inflection point at the 16th case, after which operation time stabilized at (55.3 ± 8.6) min, much shorter than the early phase (89.5 ± 10.3) min (p < 0.001). Before the 16th case, the curve was in an upward trend; after the 16th case, the curve tended to be flat, indicating the proficiency stage. Postoperative VAS and ODI improved significantly than those before surgery at each follow-up time (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative VAS score and ODI between the two groups at each follow-up time point (p > 0.05). The total complication rate was 12.5% (5/40), were cured by conservative treatment. The total excellent-good rate was 90.0% (36/40). L5/S1 and Bertolotti's syndrome were independent factors affecting the learning curve. CONCLUSION: UNSES via FLA is a safe and effective minimally invasive technique for treating complex lumbar degenerative diseases. It has a certain learning curve, and the inflection point is about the 16th case. After mastering the key techniques such as anatomical positioning, endoscopic manipulation and hemostasis, the surgeon can gradually reach the proficiency stage, with significantly improved surgical efficiency and clinical efficacy, and controllable complications. This study provides a theoretical basis for the clinical training and technology promotion of UNSES via FLA.

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Mengchen Yin, Wenlong Yu, Yan Lou, Jianfeng Sha, Yang Xue, Dong Zhang, Kaipeng Huang, Kai Lv, Zhichao Ge, Jianmin Li, Jiajun Wu, Hao Sun, Shuqiang Wang. 2026-08-06. Clinical Efficacy and Learning Curve of Far-Lateral Approach (FLA) in Uni-Portal Non-Coaxial Spinal Endoscopic Surgery (UNSES) in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Prospective Study.. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.70395

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Journal Article resource Aged subject Female subject Humans subject Journal Article subject Lumbar Vertebrae subject Male subject Middle Aged subject Operative Time subject Prospective Studies subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

The prevalence of isthmic and degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: an analysis of 1376 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Typically, spondylolisthesis is an asymptomatic spinal condition that is often captured accidently in radiographic studies. The limited studies reviewing incidence primarily used lateral radiographs, which lack the granularity of advanced imaging. In response, computed tomography (CT) has been recommended to enhance the accuracy of spondylolisthesis diagnosis (degenerative versus isthmic). In the present study, we sought to determine the prevalence of isthmic and degenerative spondylolisthesis using CT imaging. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 1,680 patients who underwent abdominal/pelvic CT scans at a single level-1 trauma center from January 1, 2017, to January 31, 2017. RESULTS: A total of 1,680 CT scans were screened, of which 1,376 patient scans met the inclusion criteria of having undergone complete imaging (axial and sagittal images). The average age of the study population was 57.1 (standard deviation, 18.7) years; 51.1% were female, and 83.2% were Caucasian. The prevalence of isthmic spondylolisthesis was 5.4% (n = 71): 3.6% of cases were at the L5-S1 level, 2.1% were at the L4-L5 level, and 0.6% were at the L3-L4 level. The female-to-male ratio was 0.73:1. The prevalence of degenerative spondylolisthesis was higher at 21.5% (n = 285), and the level most commonly affected was L4-L5 (11.8%), followed by L5-S1 (9.7%) and L3-L4 (4.6%). The female-to-male ratio was 1.3:1. There was a higher prevalence of degenerative spondylolisthesis in women at L4-L5 (51.2% vs. 35.6%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We found that degenerative spondylolisthesis was more prevalent, occurring primarily in older women, between the L4-L5 vertebrae. On the other hand, isthmic spondylolisthesis more commonly occurred within male patients between the L5-S1 vertebrae. Our study is one of the first to recognize a high rate of degenerative spondylolisthesis within the L5-S1 region, highlighting the utility of CT scan to visualize spinal translation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

MIS-TLIF Versus Open TLIF in Combined Lumbar Stenosis and Low-Grade Spondylolisthesis : Of Discharge Timing and Treatment Pricing.

STUDY DESIGN: An open-label, randomized, noninferiority clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of the MIS-TLIF over the O-TLIF in patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis combined with low-grade spondylolisthesis by comparing the clinical efficacy and safety. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In patients with combined lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis, it remains uncertain whether minimally invasive fusion surgery is noninferior to the open approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an open-label, noninferiority trial involving patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis combined with low-grade spondylolisthesis. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either MIS-TLIF or open TLIF surgery. The primary endpoint was the reduction in the Oswestry disability index (ODI) score from baseline to three months postsurgery, with a noninferiority margin of 12 points. Secondary outcomes included three-month changes from baseline in back and leg pain, neuropathic pain, satisfaction with treatment, intraoperative data, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In the modified intention-to-treat population, the mean difference was 0.4, with the corresponding 90% CI of -5.7 to 6.5, having a lower bound below the noninferiority margin of 12. Similar results were obtained by analysis of the per-protocol population. 82.8% of patients achieved the MCID for the ODI. Results for secondary outcomes (clinical scales, complications) showed no significant differences between the treatment groups (all P >0.05). Although the open TLIF group had a hospital stay that was 1.5 days longer ( P =0.005) and required additional analgesia more frequently ( P =0.026), direct costs were 10.5% higher in the MIS-TLIF group ( P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first high-quality study comparing open TLIF and MIS-TLIF with a validated primary endpoint. Among patients with combined lumbar degenerative stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis, MIS-TLIF resulted in clinical outcomes at three months that were noninferior to those with open TLIF.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion With Lateral Vertebral Screw Fixation Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Severe Lumbar Stenosis: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The benefits of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) vs transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in severe lumbar stenosis (Schizas C/D) remain uncertain. This randomized trial compared clinical, radiographic, and safety outcomes of OLIF and TLIF. METHODS: From November 2018 to December 2021, a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial enrolled 260 adults with single-level severe stenosis and instability. In total, 224 patients were randomized to OLIF or TLIF. Prespecified outcomes followed consolidated standards of reporting trials. Primary outcomes were visual analog scale back/leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), with minimal clinically important difference thresholds of ODI ≥12-13 points or ≥30% improvement, and visual analog scale ≥1.5-2.0 points. Radiographic measures included disc height, lumbar and segmental lordosis, and canal cross-sectional area (CSA). Complications were recorded. Ethics approval was obtained from the institutional review board, the trial was registered with ISRCTN.com , and all patients provided written informed consent. RESULTS: In total, 224 patients were randomized, 5 were lost to follow-up (TLIF n = 2, OLIF n = 3). Baseline features were comparable. OLIF was associated with shorter operative time, less blood loss, earlier ambulation, and shorter hospital stay (all P < .05). Both groups achieved significant, clinically meaningful improvements. OLIF showed greater back pain reduction at 3-6 months and 2 years ( P < .05) and superior ODI improvement at 3 and 6 months ( P < .001), although long-term ODI scores were similar. Radiographically, OLIF provided greater restoration of disc height and segmental lordosis (all P < .001) and demonstrated progressive CSA increase (dynamic decompression), whereas TLIF achieved immediate, sustained CSA enlargement. Fusion rates were comparable at 1-2 years. Complication rates were low and similar (7.3% TLIF vs 5.5% OLIF), with most OLIF-specific events transient. CONCLUSION: Both OLIF and TLIF yield improvements in severe lumbar stenosis. OLIF offers perioperative advantages, earlier functional recovery, radiographic restoration, and dynamic canal remodeling, supporting its role as an equivalent alternative for lumbar spinal stenosis with some secondary advantages.

Humans↗

Abstract

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Discover connections

Related citations

The prevalence of isthmic and degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: an analysis of 1376 patients.

MIS-TLIF Versus Open TLIF in Combined Lumbar Stenosis and Low-Grade Spondylolisthesis : Of Discharge Timing and Treatment Pricing.

Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion With Lateral Vertebral Screw Fixation Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Severe Lumbar Stenosis: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.