Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Two-Level Fusion: Hemodynamic Profiles and Early Clinical Outcomes Compared with Tubular MIS and Open Approaches

Background/Objectives: Biportal endoscopic (BE) surgery is increasingly used for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), but its hemodynamic profile and early recovery in two-level fusion remain undefined relative to tubular minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open approaches. We compared the hemodynamic burden and early functional recovery among BE-, MIS-, and open two-level TLIF. Methods: In this retrospective single-center study of three sequential, non-contemporaneous cohorts, 96 patients undergoing two-level (L2–S1) TLIF (BE, n = 22; MIS, n = 39; open, n = 35) were analyzed. The single primary endpoint was transfusion-corrected total blood loss (corrected TBL), derived from hematocrit changes. Secondary endpoints were intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), drainage, allogeneic transfusion, hidden blood loss (HBL), complications, and the Numeric Rating Scale(NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Functional Rating Index (FRI) at 3 months. Effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported alongside p-values. Results: Corrected TBL was highest in open TLIF (2.07 ± 0.86 L) versus BE-TLIF (1.36 ± 0.54 L; mean difference −0.71 L, 95% CI −1.09 to −0.34) and MIS-TLIF (1.53 ± 0.50 L; −0.55 L, −0.88 to −0.21), whereas BE- and MIS-TLIF were comparable (−0.17 L, −0.45 to 0.12). Transfusion was required in 13.6%, 20.5%, and 60.0%, respectively (p < 0.001), with no difference between the minimally invasive groups. Intraoperative EBL was lower in BE-TLIF than in MIS-TLIF (−226.8 mL, −395.3 to −58.2). HBL was lowest in open TLIF (p = 0.030), reflecting its far larger drainage volume. At 3 months, BE-TLIF showed greater FRI improvement than MIS-TLIF (−3.97, −7.04 to −0.90); for ODI, BE-TLIF exceeded open TLIF but not MIS-TLIF. Wound problems (11.4%) and delirium (22.9%) occurred only or most often after open TLIF. Conclusions: In two-level fusion, BE-TLIF was associated with a lower overall hemodynamic burden and transfusion requirement than open TLIF, while corrected TBL was comparable between BE- and MIS-TLIF. Given the non-contemporaneous cohorts, baseline imbalances, limited sample size, and potential residual confounding, these findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in prospective or contemporaneously controlled studies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2026-08-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15176583
Primary Topic
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Two-Level Fusion: Hemodynamic Profiles and Early Clinical Outcomes Compared with Tubular MIS and Open Approaches

Dong‐Oh Lee, Jung‐Man Lee, Jeongwoon Han, Seok-In Jang et al.
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
article

Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Two-Level Fusion: Hemodynamic Profiles and Early Clinical Outcomes Compared with Tubular MIS and Open Approaches

Dong‐Oh Lee, Jung‐Man Lee, Jeongwoon Han, Seok-In Jang, Byungjun Kang, Geumho Lee, Tae Hoon Kang, Minjoon Cho
article en

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Biportal endoscopic (BE) surgery is increasingly used for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), but its hemodynamic profile and early recovery in two-level fusion remain undefined relative to tubular minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open approaches. We compared the hemodynamic burden and early functional recovery among BE-, MIS-, and open two-level TLIF. Methods: In this retrospective single-center study of three sequential, non-contemporaneous cohorts, 96 patients undergoing two-level (L2–S1) TLIF (BE, n = 22; MIS, n = 39; open, n = 35) were analyzed. The single primary endpoint was transfusion-corrected total blood loss (corrected TBL), derived from hematocrit changes. Secondary endpoints were intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), drainage, allogeneic transfusion, hidden blood loss (HBL), complications, and the Numeric Rating Scale(NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Functional Rating Index (FRI) at 3 months. Effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported alongside p-values. Results: Corrected TBL was highest in open TLIF (2.07 ± 0.86 L) versus BE-TLIF (1.36 ± 0.54 L; mean difference −0.71 L, 95% CI −1.09 to −0.34) and MIS-TLIF (1.53 ± 0.50 L; −0.55 L, −0.88 to −0.21), whereas BE- and MIS-TLIF were comparable (−0.17 L, −0.45 to 0.12). Transfusion was required in 13.6%, 20.5%, and 60.0%, respectively (p < 0.001), with no difference between the minimally invasive groups. Intraoperative EBL was lower in BE-TLIF than in MIS-TLIF (−226.8 mL, −395.3 to −58.2). HBL was lowest in open TLIF (p = 0.030), reflecting its far larger drainage volume. At 3 months, BE-TLIF showed greater FRI improvement than MIS-TLIF (−3.97, −7.04 to −0.90); for ODI, BE-TLIF exceeded open TLIF but not MIS-TLIF. Wound problems (11.4%) and delirium (22.9%) occurred only or most often after open TLIF. Conclusions: In two-level fusion, BE-TLIF was associated with a lower overall hemodynamic burden and transfusion requirement than open TLIF, while corrected TBL was comparable between BE- and MIS-TLIF. Given the non-contemporaneous cohorts, baseline imbalances, limited sample size, and potential residual confounding, these findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in prospective or contemporaneously controlled studies.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 15(17)
Seoul National University (KR), Sacred Heart Hospital (IE), SNUH SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center (KR), Sungae Hospital (KR), The Catholic University of Korea Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital (KR), Sacred Heart Hospital (US), Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital (KR), Incheon Medical Center (KR), Bucheon University (KR)
Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.