Background context: 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 other lumbar interbody fusion techniques. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcome of primary and revision biportal endoscopic interbody fusion.
Material and method: 72 consecutive patients who underwent primary and revision BELIF and had at least 2 year follow up were investigated. Clinical outcomes including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Visual analog system (VAS), MacNab’s criteria, operation time, and length of hospital stay were recorded. Radiological outcome was assessed by Computerized Tomography (CT) and graded according to Bridwell system.
Result: There was no significant difference in preoperative baselines between both groups. Both groups demonstrated similar clinical improvement of VAS, ODI, and MacNab’s criteria. All patients reached MCID. Durotomies were more common in the revision setting as well as operation time (p<0.05). However, there was no difference in fusion rates at all times points graded by CT scan. No patient in each group required another surgery at final follow-up.
Conclusion: Revision BELIF demonstrate similar clinical and radiographic outcomes compared to primary BELIF, yet operative time and durotomy risks are increased.